Depth of Knowledge Essay

Students come to physics, typically as juniors and seniors in high school, with a wealth of experiences and prior knowledge of physics concepts. Unfortunately, this prior knowledge has many misconceptions or missing conceptions (von Aufschnaiter & Rogge, 2010; Vosniadou, 1994). Research on conceptual change has studied what is necessary for students to shift their conceptions towards ones that more align with the accepted scientific knowledge. According Posner Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog’s (1982) Conceptual Change Model (CCM, Figure 1), in order for a student to shift their conception, four conditions must be met: (a) the student must be dissatisfied with their current conception and student must find the new conception to be (b) intelligible, (c) plausible, and (d) extendable. If all four conditions are met, the student may accommodate the new conception (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982).

Figure 1. Conceptual Change Model showing necessary steps for a learner to accommodate and accept a new conception (Posner et al., 1982).

Conceptual Change research has built upon the CCM to expand the model to include: (a) strength of the existing conception, (b) motivation, (c) peripheral cues, (d) engagement as a spectrum (e) need for cognition, and (f) performance goal orientation (Dole & Sinatra, 1998; Taasoobshirazi, Heddy, Bailey, & Farley, 2016; Taasoobshirazi & Sinatra, 2011). While the research has worked to provide a more complete look of the process of conceptual change, I want to focus on how to allow students to grapple with their own conception and answer the first question of the CCM “Are you dissatisfied with your current conception?” More specifically, I want to investigate if argumentation be used to help bring to light the students’ current conception and allow students to challenge their own thinking while problem solving.

Argumentation is the act of explaining the thought process used to develop a claim by sharing the evidence and reasoning (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999). This process often incudes higher levels of explanation such as backing, qualifier or rebuttal, and critique as shown in Figure 2 (Driver et al., 2000; Newton et al., 1999; Osborne et al., 2016). While argumentation is typically thought of an interaction or conversation between two individuals with differing points of view, an argument can be monological (Newton et al., 1999)

Figure 2: The structure, individual parts, and typical order, of an argument (Driver et al., 2000; Newton et al., 1999; Osborne et al., 2016).

Research has used argumentation as a pedagogical approach in physics through classroom activities such as debates/discussions (Eskin & Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2013; Ogan-Bekiroglu & Eskin, 2012) or labs (Acar, 2014; Demircioglu & Ucar, 2015; Eskin & Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2013; Ford, 2012; Ogan-Bekiroglu & Eskin, 2012). When argumentation was incorporated into lessons, researchers found students displayed increases in their argumentation skills (Demircioglu & Ucar, 2015), conceptual understanding (Eskin & Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2013; Nussbaum & Sinatra, 2003), scientific reasoning (Nussbaum & Sinatra, 2003), and data analysis skills (Ford, 2012). Despite problem solving being a key approach for physics teachers (Nussbaum & Sinatra, 2003), little research has used problem solving together with argumentation (Mulhall & Gunstone, 2012). Future research could investigate if argumentation in problem solving can improve students’ conceptual understanding and scientific reasoning.

I want to investigate the use of argumentation during the problem-solving process as a means to have students challenge their own conceptions’ alignment with the physics content. I wonder if by asking students to pause during the problem-solving process to explain their evidence and reasoning, students will be able to better see gaps in their understanding. Additionally, student may be able to see problem solving as conceptual and not just math.

My first attempt at putting these ideas together was in my paper A Formula for Success in Physics: Does Problem Solving + Argumentation = Conceptual Understanding? for EDCI 811: Current Trends in Science Education Research. In the paper, I proposed a study where I would compare physics conceptual understanding for students who used a problem-solving template with argumentation questions imbedded (Appendix A) to students who use a typical problem-solving template without argumentation questions (Appendix B). After my presentation, I received a plethora of feedback from critical friends that asked me to ponder (a) the focus of my study (students, teachers, the tool), (b) what I was comparing and keeping constant (time, questions) and (c) if my approach was argumentation or metacognition.

I am beginning to think through the answers to these questions. First, I want the focus of the research on student growth. In my paper and presentation, too much of my introduction was about teachers and the focus was diverted away from the student.

In terms of the second question, I am still grappling with what to hold constant between my control and experimental groups. I will use the same physics problems and the same basic physics problem-solving template in both groups. My current plan is to only add three questions to the experimental group. This would create a situation where the experimental group is spending more time on the problems than the control group. I am uncertain of how much more time this would add and if that is a significant amount of time. My critical friends suggested I could add questions to the control group that were extra mathematical questions or non-argumentative prompts to ensure a similar amount of time was spent on the problems for both the control and experimental groups. These suggestions have really pushed my thinking of the third question as to whether I am looking at argumentation or metacognitive prompts.

This is the question I am struggling with most and once I answer this question; I will also answer the previous one. My current thinking is that I want to embed questions in a problem-solving template that encourage students to engage in metacognition, the monitoring of one’s understanding and though processes (Flavell, 1979). These metacognitive prompts could use argumentation-based questions where the metacognitive prompts would be the tool and the argumentation would be the format. Further, I want my research to look beyond a score on an assessment and investigate if the prompts change the way students think through a problem. Taasoobshirazi and Farley (2013) developed the Physics Metacognition Inventory which looks at how students self-assess their metacognitive processes during physics problem solving. This tool, in addition using a think aloud protocol (van Someren, Barnard, & Sandberg, 1994) could allow me to look beyond changes in a conceptual assessment such as the Force Concept Inventory (Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhamer, 1992) and focus more on the student thinking. To answer this, I want to shift my study from a quantitative to a mix methods approach with the addition of a think aloud protocol. If this is the case, it changes my research questions from

· How does including argumentation within a physics problem solving template effect students’ growth in physics conceptual understanding?

and more towards

· How does the use of metacognitive prompts within a physics problem solving template effect students’ growth in physics conceptual understanding?

· How does the use of metacognitive prompts within a physics problem solving template effect students’ metacognitive activity?

· How does the use of metacognitive prompts within a physics problem solving template effect students’ thinking while solving a physics problem?

Reflecting on this process, I can see how this question grew throughout my assignments and was influenced by the literature. My first research paper looked at tools to building conceptual understanding for physics students. From there, I started researching conceptual change to better understand how students gain conceptual understating and merge their prior knowledge with scientific knowledge. The research on conceptual change led me to argumentation as a means to bring out student thoughts and understanding. And finally questions during my presentation about my use of argumentation has led to a need for me to better understand the research on the use of metacognitive prompts in physics.

Moving forward, I plan to use my remaining classes to build my research questions. I am enrolled in EDCI 813 with Dr. Peters-Burton this summer to investigate the use of metacognition in physics education research. In the fall, I will be taking EDEP 820: Teaching, Learning, and Cognition and EDRS 824: Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. I want to use these classes solidify my research questions and better develop the methods used to answer the research questions. These last classes will allow me to more confidently enter into proposal in the spring.

References

Acar, O. (2014). Scientific reasoning, conceptual knowledge, & achievement differences between prospective science teachers having a consistent misconception and those having a scientific conception in an argumentation-based guided inquiry course. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 148-154. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.002

Demircioglu, T., & Ucar, S. (2015). Investigating the effect of argument-driven inquiry in laboratory instruction. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 267-283. doi: 10.12738/estp.2015.1.2324

Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109-128. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1998.9653294

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3<287::aid-sce1>3.0.co;2-a

Eskin, H., & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2013). Argumentation as a strategy for conceptual learning of dynamics. Research in Science Education, 43, 1939-1956. doi: 10.1007/s11165-012-9339-5

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.34.10.906

Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207-245. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2012.689383

Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158. Retrieved from http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/tpt

Mulhall, P. & Gunstone, R. (2012). Views about learning physics held by physics teachers with different approaches to teaching physics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 429-449. doi: 10.1007/s10972-012-9291-2

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. doi: 10.1080/095006999290570

Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395. doi: 10.1016/S0361-476x(02)00038-3

Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1415-1443. doi: 10.1007/s10763-012-9346-z

Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821-846. doi: 10.1002/tea.21316

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

Taasoobshirazi, G., & Farley, J. (2013). Construct validation of the physics metacognition inventory. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 447-459. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.750433

Taasoobshirazi, G., Heddy, B., Bailey, M., & Farley, J. (2016). A multivariable model of conceptual change. Instructional Science, 44, 2, 125-145. doi: 10.1007/s11251-016-9372-2

Taasoobshirazi, G., & Sinatra, G. M. (2011). A structural equation model of conceptual change in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 901-918. doi: 10.1002/tea.20434

van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

von Aufschnaiter, C., & Rogge, C. (2010). Misconceptions or missing conceptions?. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6, 3-18.

Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.

Appendix A: Physics Problem Solving Template with Argumentation

Appendix B: Physics Problem Solving Template without Argumentation