PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

and at Normandale Community College, it would be important to use the same strategy, or a very
similar one. As I noted, the group management was not ideal. I would attempt to maintain
stricter control over group composition, following the size, gender, and performance mix
guidelines from our prior research (Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992). I believe it would be useful to
have a larger number of groups solving the same problem. Ten groups (five from the course
using the strategy, five from the non-using course) would be ideal, but perhaps not practical due
to the costs of video equipment and operators. Using more groups solving the same problem
helps control the “variable” of the problem itself. Although this is a concept from quantitative
research, I believe it is useful to think about this “variable”. Although I didn’t find any
qualitative “variability” associated with the problem type (e.g., dynamics or energy
conservation), I think it would be better to “control” for it than to ignore it.
Second, if group cohesion indeed fosters creative controversy, then there should be more
creative controversy in a more cohesive group. A way to test this idea would be to videotape
two sets of groups. The first set of groups (preferably 10 in number) would be from early in the
first term of a two-quarter or two-semester sequence course. These groups would be taped
solving a problem in the second week of the groups’ existence. Then, near the end of the second
term, groups could be formulated and kept the same for about three weeks. During the third
week, the groups could solve a problem. It is almost always the case that by the end of the
second term of a course, there are no more “new” combination of members in a cooperative
group. Everyone has worked with everyone else by that time. Cohesion should be higher than at
the beginning. In such a situation, I would expect to see more controversy and more spontaneous
Alternate Claims in response to incorrect Claims.