Within a traditional course structure, modeling can be done in the lecture part of the class and coaching in the discussion and/or laboratory sections with the help of cooperative groups. In a studio or laboratory based course, modeling and coaching of problem solving can be interweaved as necessary in a very effective manner. Fading occurs in all venues, but is particularly apparent in individual assignments such as laboratory reports and on tests.
Lectures and Demonstrating the Problem-solving Process
The lecture is an effective method for demonstrating problem solving by showing, explaining, and motivating the details of each step of the solution process. One can introduce new physics topics by attempting to solve that needs the development of a new concept for its successful resolution. Demonstrating the problem-solving process during lectures can actively engage students. It is always important to allow the students several minutes to read the problem and begin their own solution before the demonstration of the process begins. This process serves as an advanced organizer so
that students begin to access that part of their knowledge network that is relevant. To incorporate some peer coaching, students can be encouraged to compare their start of a solution with those of their neighbors and try to resolve any differences.
Good educational practice has always suggested pauses in a lecture to ask students a simple question and allow them several minutes to answer in writing, or now electronically. That question may be an elaboration of a step in the problem-solving process, a simple application of a point just demonstrated, or the logical next step in the solution process. Again peer coaching can be
introduced by have students compare their results with their neighbors even in a large lecture class. To get good student participation, remember the Zeroth Law of Instruction (If you don't grade it, students don't do it) and collect at least some answers for grading. Electronic techniques using “clickers” makes this easy to do.
Demonstrating every decision in a problem-solving framework takes time. You will not be able to go through many problems in a class period. However, when you demonstrate problem solving that begins with the fundamental principles (e.g. Newton’s second law, conservation of energy), every problem solved to illustrate one concept also reinforces problem solving for other concepts.
Remember that the purpose of demonstrating is to illustrate the problem-solving process. Students will still need coaching to actually be able to do it.
84
Part 1:Teaching Physics Through Problem SolvingLectures and Coaching
It is possible to have some peer coaching interweaved into lectures. When pausing a lecture to ask questions, and after each student has written an
individual answer, ask them to compare their answers with their neighbors. This time honored technique of peer coaching is especially effective just before an answer is to be submitted for grading.6 The few minutes necessary for this technique is remarkably effective in keeping students involved in the process when the lecturer demonstrates the construction of a problem solution. See Chapter 9 page 102 for an outline of steps for demonstrating and coaching the use of a problem-solving framework for solving problems.
Sections and Coaching
The most effective coaching occurs in a small classroom situation that is physically configured to facilitate students working together with both peer and experienced coaching (see Chapter 9, pages 103 - 106). Cooperative grouping7 is a very successful technique to structure the
coaching process that has been used from elementary schools to business settings. It has been applied in many subject areas in the university. Describing cooperative grouping and its advantages for coaching problem solving in
introductory physics is discussed in Part 3 (Chapters 11, 12, and 13).
Endnotes
1 See, for example: Collins, A., Brown, J.S. & Newman, S.E. (1989), Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics, in Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser edited by L.B.
Resnick, Hillsdale NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 453–494; and Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989), Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
2 See, for example, the research summary in Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R.
(Eds), (2000), How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school, Washington, DC:
National Academy Press. Cognitive Apprenticeship is often associated with the social learning theory of Lev Vygotsy. See, for example, Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).
Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3 Many researchers refer to two types of scaffolding, soft or contingent scaffolding (such as cooperative grouping with feedback) and hard scaffolding (e.g., problem solving flowcharts. See, Saye, J.W. and Brush, T. (2002), Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments, Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96
Chapter 6: Why Cooperative Problem Solving
85
4 Scaffolding has been defined and discussed theoretically in a variety of different ways. See, for example, Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding and cooperative learning, Human Learning and Instruction. New York: City College of City University of New York; Zydner, J. M. (2008). Cognitive tools for scaffolding students defining an ill-structured problem, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(4), 353-385; Saye, J.W. and Brush, T. (2002), Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments, Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96;
Jonassen, D. (1997), Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94; Holton, D. and Clark, D. (2006), Scaffolding and metacognition, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37, 127-143.
5 Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M.G.M.,&. Broekkamp, H. (2001), Teaching science problem-solving, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 442–468. The author did a meta-analysis of 22 previously published articles onteaching
problem solving in science classes. They also found that having students work in groupsdid not improve problem solving unless the group work wascombined with the teaching of problem-solvingheuristics, modeling the useof the heuristics by the instructor, and/or requiring students touse the heuristics explicitly when solving problems.
6 McKeachie, J.W. (1996), Teaching tips: strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers, Lexington, MA, D.C. Heath. For an application in physics see Mazur, E. (1996), Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, Prentice-Hall.
7 Johnson, D.W, Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K.A. (2006), Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom, 3rd Ed. Edina MN, Interaction Book Company.
86
Part 1:Teaching Physics Through Problem Solving87
Part
88
In this part . . .
T
here is an old cliché that fits here, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” We are assuming that while your introductory physics course may not be completely broken, you are dissatisfied with your students’ problem-solving performance and are looking for a way to “fix it.” There are many physics education reforms from which to choose. In the chapters of Part 2 we provide information to help you decide whether you want to adopt Cooperative Problem Solving.This part of the book attempts to answer two questions to help you determine if cooperative problem solving might be useful in your course.
The first question is: What is cooperative problem-solving (CPS)? In answering this question, Chapter 7 describes the differences between students doing group work and students working in a cooperative group.
Chapters 8 and 9 give practical information about the second question: What course changes are needed for optimal implementation of CPS? Chapter 8 discusses appropriate problems and how to structure and manage
cooperative groups for optimal implementation of CPS. Chapter 9 discusses how to structure a course for CPS, including scheduling and other resources (personnel and space), as well as appropriate grading practices for the course and for grading students’ problem solutions. Both chapters convey
“what to shoot for,” and not where you can make a reasonable beginning.
The last section Chapter 9 outlines a way to get started in lecture with informal groups.
Chapter 10 describes the research results for improvement in problem solving skills and conceptual understanding of physics with Cooperative Problem Solving (CPS), both for partial and full implementation.