- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Development of the Modes of Collaboration framework

Alanna Pawlak1,*, Paul W. Irving1,2, and Marcos D. Caballero1,2,3

  • 1Michigan State University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Biomedical and Physical Sciences, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
  • 2Michigan State University, CREATE for STEM Institute, 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
  • 3Department of Physics and Center for Computing in Science Education, University of Oslo, N-0316 Oslo, Norway

  • *Corresponding author. pawlakal@msu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010101 – Published 11 January, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010101

Abstract

Group work is becoming increasingly common in introductory physics classrooms. Understanding how students engage in these group learning environments is important for designing and facilitating productive learning opportunities for students. We conducted a study in which we collected video of groups of students working on conceptual electricity and magnetism problems in an introductory physics course. In this setting, students needed to negotiate a common understanding and coordinate group decisions in order to complete the activity successfully. We observed students interacting in several distinct ways while solving these problems. Analysis of these observations focused on identifying the different ways students interacted and articulating what defines and distinguishes them, resulting in the development of the modes of collaboration framework. The modes of collaboration framework defines student interactions along three dimensions: social, discursive, and disciplinary content. This multidimensional approach offers a unique lens through which to consider group work and provides a flexibility that could allow the framework to be adapted for a variety of contexts. We present the framework and several examples of its application here.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (34)

  1. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  2. M. T. H. Chi, Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities, Topics Cogn. Sci. 1, 1 (2009).
  3. P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 60, 627 (1992).
  4. A. T. Lumpe and J. R. Staver, Peer collaboration and concept development: learning about photosynthesis, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 32, 71 (1995).
  5. M. Lorenzo, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006).
  6. C. Turpen and N. D. Finkelstein, The construction of different classroom norms during Peer Instruction: Students perceive differences, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020123 (2010).
  7. S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and L. E. Kost, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010107(2007).
  8. B. Barron, Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups, J. Learn. Sci. 9, 403 (2000).
  9. B. Barron, When smart groups fail, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 307 (2003).
  10. A. W. Oliveira and T. D. Sadler, Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 634 (2008).
  11. R. Amigues, Peer interaction in solving physics problems: sociocognitive confrontation and metacognitive aspects, J. Exp. Child Psychol. 45, 141 (1988).
  12. C. W. Anderson, J. D. Holland, and A. S. Palincsar, Canonical and sociocultural approaches to research and reform in science education: The story of Juan and his group, Elem. School J. 97, 4 (1997).
  13. P. W. Irving, M. S. Martinuk, and E. C. Sayre, Transitions in students’ epistemic framing along two axes, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010111 (2013).
  14. R. E. Scherr and D. Hammer, Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics, Cognit. Instr. 27, 147 (2009).
  15. K. Grindstaff and G. Richmond, Learners’ perceptions of the role of peers in a research experience: implications for the apprenticeship process, scientific inquiry, and collaborative work, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 251 (2008).
  16. P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups, Am. J. Phys. 60, 7 (1992).
  17. N. M. Webb, S. H. Farivar, and A. M. Mastergeorge, Center for the Study of Evaluation, Technical Report 555 (2001).
  18. C. Van Boxtel, J. van der Linden, and G. Kanselaar, Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge, Learn. Instr. 10, 311 (2000).
  19. G. Richmond and J. Striley, Making meaning in classrooms: social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 33, 839 (1996).
  20. W. Roth and A. Roychoudhury, The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as a conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science, Sci. Educ. 76, 531 (1992).
  21. R. G. M. Hausmann, M. T. H. Chi, and M. Roy, Learning from collaborative problem solving: An analysis of three hypothesized mechanisms, Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society (2004), Vol. 26.
  22. K. Hogan, B. K. Nastasi, and M. Pressley, Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions, Cognit. Instr. 17, 379 (1999).
  23. C. A. Chinn, A. M. O’Donnell, and T. S. Jinks, The structure of discourse in collaborative learning, J. Exp. Educ. 69, 77 (2000).
  24. L. D. Conlin, A. Gupta, R. E. Scherr, and D. Hammer, Dynamics of students’ behaviors and reasoning during collaborative physics tutorial sessions, AIP Conf. Proc. 951, 69 (2007).
  25. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre (IAP, Greenwich, CT, 2005), p. 89–120.
  26. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30 (1992).
  27. J. Libarkin, Concept inventories in higher education science, manuscript prepared for NRC Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education Workshop 2, (2008).
  28. A. Savinainen and P. Scott, The Force Concept Inventory: A tool for monitoring student learning, Phys. Educ. 37, 1 (2002).
  29. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9 020121 (2013).
  30. D. Huffman and P. Heller, What does the Force Concept Inventory actually measure?, Phys. Teach. 33, 138 (1995).
  31. R. S. Lindell, E. Peak, and T. M. Foster, Are they all created equal? A comparison of different concept inventory development methodologies, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 14 (2007).
  32. J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1991).
  33. E. Goffman, Forms of Talk (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1981).
  34. S. E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2003).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010101– Published 11 January, 2018
  • Received 4 November 2016
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation