- 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 3.0 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

Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants

Thomas J. Bing

Edward F. Redish

  • Department of Physics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA

  • Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020108 – Published 14 December, 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020108

Abstract

Developing expertise in physics entails learning to use mathematics effectively and efficiently as applied to the context of physical situations. Doing so involves coordinating a variety of concepts and skills including mathematical processing, computation, blending ancillary information with the math, and reading out physical implications from the math and vice versa. From videotaped observations of intermediate level students solving problems in groups, we note that students often “get stuck” using a limited group of skills or reasoning and fail to notice that a different set of tools (which they possess and know how to use effectively) could quickly and easily solve their problem. We refer to a student’s perception or judgment of the kind of knowledge that is appropriate to bring to bear in a particular situation as epistemological framing. Although epistemological framing is often unstated (and even unconscious), in group problem-solving situations students sometimes get into disagreements about how to progress. During these disagreements, they bring forth reasons or warrants in support of their point of view. For the context of mathematics use in physics problem solving, we present a system for classifying physics students’ warrants and analyze a case study. This warrant analysis provides a general widely applicable technique for identifying students’ epistemological framings.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (52)

  1. This paper is a detailed extension of a short conference proceeding paper (a) T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, in Proceedings of the 2008 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by C. Henderson, M. Sabella, and L. Hsu, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 1064 (AIP, New York, 2008), p. 71; it is based on (b) T. J. Bing, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 2008, http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/dissertations/Bing/
  2. B. Sherin, How students understand physics equations, Cogn. Instruct. 19, 479 (2001).
  3. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cogn. Instruct. 10, 105 (1993).
  4. A. A. diSessa and B. Sherin, What changes in conceptual change?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1155 (1998).
  5. D. Hammer, Student resources for introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, S52 (2000).
  6. E. F. Redish, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics, “Enrico Fermi” Course CLVI, edited by E. F. Redish and M. Vicentini (IOS, Amsterdam, 2004), p. 1.
  7. 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 (Information Age, Greenwich, CT, 2005), p. 89.
  8. E. F. Redish and K. A. Smith, Looking beyond content: Skill development for engineers, J. Eng. Educ. 97, 295 (2008).
  9. A. D. Redish, S. Jensen, and A. Johnson, A unified framework for addiction: Vulnerabilities in the decision process, Behav. Brain Sci. 31, 415 (2008).
  10. D. O. Hebb, The Organization of Behavior (Wiley, New York, 1949).
  11. M. Wittmann and R. E. Scherr, in Proceedings of the 2002 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by S. Franklin, J. Marx, and K. Cummings (AIP, New York, 2002).
  12. D. Hammer and A. Elby, in Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing, edited by B. Hofer and P. Pintrich (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2002), p. 169.
  13. D. Hammer, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics, “Enrico Fermi” Course CLVI, edited by E. F. Redish and M. Vicentini (IOS, Amsterdam, 2004), p. 321.
  14. D. Hammer, Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics, Cogn. Instruct. 12, 151 (1994).
  15. A. Elby and D. Hammer, On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology, Sci. Educ. 85, 554 (2001).
  16. D. Hammer, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics, “Enrico Fermi” Course CLVI, edited by E. F. Redish and M. Vicentini (IOS, Amsterdam, 2004), p. 301.
  17. M. Wittmann, The object coordination class applied to wavepulses: Analyzing student reasoning in wave physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 97 (2002).
  18. W. Sandoval, Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry, Sci. Educ. 89, 634 (2005).
  19. R. Bromme, D. Kienhues, and E. Stahl, in Knowing, Knowledge, and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies Across Diverse Cultures, edited by M. Shine (Springer, New York, 2008), p. 423.
  20. S. B. Most, B. J. Scholl, E. R. Clifford, and D. J. Simons, What you see is what you set: Sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness, Psychol. Rev. 112, 217 (2005).
  21. M. Minsky, in The Psychology of Computer Vision, edited by P. Winston (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975), p. 211.
  22. D. Rumelhart and A. Ortony, in Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, edited by R. Anderson and R. Spiro (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1977), p. 99.
  23. R. C. Schank and R. P. Abelson, Scripts, Plans Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1977).
  24. G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology (Ballantine, New York, 1972).
  25. E. Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (Harper and Row, New York, 1974).
  26. D. Tannen, in Framing in Discourse, edited by D. Tannen (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993), p. 14.
  27. G. MacLachlan and I. Reid, Framing and Interpretation (Melbourne University Press, Carlton, Victoria, 1994).
  28. E. Goffman, in The Goffman Reader, edited by C. Lemert and A. Branaman (Blackwell, Malden, MA, 1997), p. 167.
  29. E. Goffman, in The Goffman Reader, edited by C. Lemert and A. Branaman (Blackwell, Malden, MA, 1997), p. 149.
  30. D. Tannen and C. Wallat, in Framing in Discourse, edited by D. Tannen (Oxford University Press, New York, 1993), p. 57.
  31. M. A. van Rees, Discourse analysis and argumentation theory: The case of television talk, J. Pragmat. 39, 1454 (2007).
  32. K. Atkinson and T. Bench-Kapon, Artif. Intell. 171, 855 (2007).
  33. L. Carroll, What the tortoise said to Achilles, Mind 4, 278 (1895).
  34. S. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1958).
  35. S. E. Newman and C. C. Marshall, Pushing Toulmin Too Far: Learning from an Argument Representation Scheme (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA, 1992), retrieved June 10, 2008 from http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~marshall/toulmin.pdf
  36. L. Adelman, P. E. Lehner, B. A. Cheikes, and M. F. Taylor, An empirical evaluation of structured argumentation using the Toulmin argument formalism, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., Part A. Syst. Humans 37, 340 (2007).
  37. U. Hahn and M. Oaksford, The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies, Psychol. Rev. 114, 704 (2007).
  38. J. L. Lemke, Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38, 296 (2001).
  39. S. A. Southerland, E. Abrams, C. Cummins, and J. Anzelmo, Understanding students’ explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p-prims?, Sci. Educ. 85, 328 (2001).
  40. A. Watson, P. Spirou, and D. Tall, The relationship between physical embodiment and mathematical symbolism: The concept of vector (The University of Warwick, Coventry, 2003), retrieved December 2, 2009 from http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2003c-watson-spirou.pdf
  41. D. Tall, Introducing three worlds of mathematics, (The University of Warwick, Coventry, 2004), retrieved December 2, 2009 from http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot2004a-3worlds-flm.pdf
  42. D. Tannen, That’s Not What I Meant (Ballantine, New York, 1992).
  43. R. Lippmann, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 2003, http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/dissertations/Lippmann/
  44. Note that our analysis presumes that students possess a group of shared framings. A mixing of different populations such as physicists and biologists or introductory students with distinctly different preparations might encounter more severe epistemological difficulties than those described here. The students we observed all appeared capable of accessing the four framings discussed in this paper.
  45. G. Lakoff and R. Nunez, Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being (Basic Books, New York, 2001).
  46. S. Dehaene, The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics (Oxford University Press, New York, 1999).
  47. R. S. Russ, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 2006, http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/dissertations/Russ/
  48. R. S. Russ, R. E. Scherr, D. Hammer, and J. Mikeska, Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science, Sci. Educ. 92, 499 (2008).
  49. See Ref. [1b], Chap. 7.
  50. The integrals with x and y omit factors that correspond to the cosine of the angle between the force and the displacement.
  51. T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, Symbolic manipulators affect mathematical mindsets, Am. J. Phys. 76, 418 (2008).
  52. J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020108– Published 14 December, 2009
  • Received 25 July 2009
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation