PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^)
The research proceeded as follows: First, the 14 groups were videotaped while
solving problems and the tapes were transcribed. The transcriptions then were compared
with the original videotape to insure accuracy as well as to annotate non-verbal behavior
and to make references to the written problem solution.
Second, I devised a method that considered not only the types of statements
students made, but also the overall manner in which the group's constructed their
problem-solving arguments. An important feature of this method is that the statement
categories are based on what was observed in the groups’ discussions. That is, the coding
categories were not predetermined. Predetermined analysis categories are often better
suited for quantitative research (Gustafsson, 1977; Delamont and Hamilton, 1984). Even
so, some starting point was needed for analyzing the groups’ discussions. I chose the
argument structure of Stephen Toulmin for three reasons. First, I heard of the Toulmin
argument structure in the context of scientific reasoning. Second, I believed I could
identify Claims, Grounds, Warrants, and Backings in the students’ conversations. Third,
Brown and Palincsar make specific mention of Toulmin as a useful argument structure in
looking at cooperative groups (Brown and Palincsar, 1989).
Then I made “rich descriptions” of the argument co-construction of four groups
solving the same problem (At the Gasthaus). The basic unit of analysis was defined to be
the episode. An episode is made up of students' statements, but it contains a complete
thought. B. Othanel Smith and Milton O. Meux used episodes to categorize student-
teacher interactions in an analysis of classroom behavior (Smith and Meux, 1970; Smith,
Meux, Commbs, Nuthall, and Precians, 1967). An episode is "defined as one or more
exchanges which comprise a completed verbal transaction between two or more speakers.