PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^) This episode flowcharting procedure was followed for all 14 groups, giving me a
collection of approximately 120 flowcharts (out of 291 coded episodes). Some
flowcharts were later combined or subdivided as further analysis indicated either a
continuation or change in the thought. I excluded a priori any episodes in which the
teaching assistant was a speaker in the group, or in which the teaching assistant
interrupted the entire class with information on the problem. I also excluded episodes in
which the students digressed to talk about everything from their grade on the last quiz to
the weekend hockey games. In the end I had 112 flowcharts for the 14 groups. Then,
armed with both episode transcripts and the flowcharts, I tried to look for repeating
patterns within each groups episodes.
Prototype Flowcharts
To determine if a group had a self-consistent pattern of argument construction, I
decided to determine if it was possible to characterize a group in terms of a “prototypical
pattern.” That is, on the average, what does this group do? When attempting to
determine a “prototypical pattern” for a group, the focus was on their use of Claims, and
their support for Claims with Grounds, Warrants and Backings. In most groups where
there was a consistent use of such statements as Clarification or Support, those statements
were considered to be secondarily important, but still diagramed. Few groups in this
study used Skeptical or Summarizing statements, and so these statements tend to be
prominent in the groups (2A, 4A, 5C) that use them more consistently.
Another important factor in determining the pattern and drawing the prototype
was a subjective reading of the group’s discussion. Early on in the research, before I ever
drew a flowchart, I characterized each group with one short phrase and wrote a brief