Elevator speech: Students’ discussions of forces and acceleration by means of a scale in an elevator
Keywords:mechanics, students’ language use, group discussions, semantic waves
Students’ challenges in learning mechanics are well documented from test situations, and group discussions are considered a fruitful way to meet these challenges. In this paper, we present a study from an authentic teaching setting where upper secondary students in groups solve the task of calculating the acceleration of an elevator by means of a scale. The group work was audio recorded in three groups with different ability levels. Analysis was performed inductively using the analytical tool of semantic gravity and semantic waves. The results reveal multiple challenges solving the task, even among high-achieving secondary physics students. The study shows that for group discussions to be fruitful, students must be able to negotiate for meaning by alternating between different levels of semantic gravity. In this study, only the group consisting of relatively high-achieving students was able to do this. For the groups that did not succeed, this is found to be due to insufficient knowledge base, poor integration of the required concepts in their own language and inappropriate epistemological framing of the situation. It is concluded that more effort should be put into learning basic concepts than curricula and teaching traditions normally provide. This should include tasks carefully adapted to students’ ability, where students can practice alternation between levels of semantic gravity.
Alonzo, A. C., & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20303 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20303
Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K., & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils' and teachers' views of physics and physics teaching. Science Education, 88(5), 683–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10141
Bao, L., & Koenig, K. (2019). Physics education research for 21st century learning. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0007-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0007-8
Benckert, S., Petterson, S., Aasa, S., Johansson, O., & Norman, R. (2005). Gruppdiskussioner rundt kontextrika problem i fysik - Hur ska priblemen utformas? Nordina, 1(2), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.481 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.481
Bigozzi, L., Tarchi, C., Falsini, P., & Fiorentini, C. (2014). ‘Slow Science’: Building scientific concepts in physics in high school. International Journal of Science Education, 36(13), 2221–2242. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.919425 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.919425
Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2009). Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020108
Brookes, D. T., & Etkina, E. (2009). ''Force,'' ontology, and language. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5(1), 010110. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010110
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0364021381800298 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2
Coelho, R. L. (2012). Conceptual Problems in the Foundations of Mechanics. Science & Education, 21(9), 1337–1356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9336-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9336-x
Duit, R., Schecker, H., Høttecke, D., & Niedderer, H. (2014). Teaching Physics. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science (Vol. 2, pp. 434–456). Routledge.
Georgiou, H., Maton, K., & Sharma, M. (2014). Recovering Knowledge for Science Education Research: Exploring the “Icarus Effect” in Student Work. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 14(3), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2014.935526 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2014.935526
Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17118 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17118
Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 627–636. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17117 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17117
Itza-Ortiz, S. F., Rebello, N. S., Zollman, D. A., & Rodriguez-Achach, M. (2003). The Vocabulary of Introductory Physics and Its Implications for Learning Physics. The Physics Teacher, 41(6), 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1607802 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1607802
Jerstad, P., Sletbak, B., Grimenes, A. A., Renstrøm, R., Holm, O. B., & Nymo, M. (2013). RomStoffTid 1 - Fysikk 1. Cappelen Damm.
Lee, Y.-J., & Wan, D. (2020). How Complex or Abstract Are Science Learning Outcomes? A Novel Coding Scheme Based on Semantic Density and Gravity. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09955-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09955-5
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex
Low, D., & Wilson, K. (2017). The role of competing knowledge structures in undermining learning: Newton's second and third laws. American Journal of Physics, 85(1), 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4972041 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4972041
Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education, 24(1), 8–22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary classrooms. Open University Press.
Redish, E. (2004). A Theoretical Framework for Physics Education Research: Modeling student thinking. arXiv: Physics Education.
Sabella, M. S., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Knowledge organization and activation in physics problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 75(11), 1017–1029. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2746359 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2746359
Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student Behavior and Epistemological Framing: Examples from Collaborative Active-Learning Activities in Physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000902797379 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000902797379
Stavrum, L. R., Bungum, B., & Persson, J. R. (2020). "Never at rest": developing a conceptual framework for descriptions of 'force' in physics textbooks. Nordina, 16(2), 16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.7857
Taibu, R., Rudge, D., & Schuster, D. (2015). Textbook presentations of weight: Conceptual difficulties and language ambiguities. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(1), 010117. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010117 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010117
Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research‐based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 59(10), 891–897. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16667 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16667
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Astrid Johansen, Berit Bungum
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.