From Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference August, 2002 in Boise, ID Students Learning Problem Solving in Introductory Physics – Forming an Initial Hypothesis of Instructors’ Beliefs Charles Henderson+, Kenneth Heller*, Patricia Heller*, Vince H. Kuo*, Edit Yerushalmiξ +Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI *Physics Education Research Group, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN ξWeizmann Institute, Rehovot, Israel Based on an analysis of structured interviews with 6 research university physics faculty members, this paper presents our initial hypothesis of instructors’ beliefs about how their students learn to solve problems in an introductory physics course. The hypothesis shows that these instructors have very general beliefs about the process of student learning that do not include many details about actual learning mechanisms. Introduction Many students leave traditional introductory physics courses unable to solve standard test problems. Those that can often do so without an understanding of the physics concepts on which these problems are based. [1] Curriculum developers have focused their efforts on two general ways of improving this situation. Some emphasize directly building students’ conceptual knowledge [2-3] while others emphasize developing students’ problem-solving skills. [4-6] Although aspects of many of these curricula are reflected in some instructors’ practices, seldom are the curricula fully adopted. This lack of full adoption likely reflects a mismatch between the curricula and the beliefs and values of the instructors who must implement the curricula. In order to begin to understand the beliefs and values of these instructors, we conducted interviews with 6 physics faculty members from a large research university. The purpose of this study was to develop analysis techniques and generate testable hypotheses of physics instructors’ beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving in introductory calculus-based physics. The initial hypotheses resulting from this study will guide further investigations using larger samples. This is the first of two papers describing this study. This paper will concentrate on our initial hypotheses related to the learning activities these instructors believe students can engage in to learn how to solve physics problems. The second paper [7] will focus on our initial hypotheses related to teaching activities these instructors believe they can engage in to help students learn how to solve physics problems. Data Collection Data were collected using a semi-structured interview based on concrete instructional artifacts commonly used in physics instruction. [8] All of the artifacts dealt with an introductory physics problem that was given to the instructors to solve prior to the interview. The artifacts used were: three instructor solutions, five student solutions, and three types of problems. They were constructed to span a variety of student and instructor practices. Each individual interview lasted about 1½ hours and consisted of four parts. The first three parts of the interview, each dealing with one of the three types of artifacts, started with general questions about how and why the instructor used that type of artifact (e.g., “In what situations do you use instructor solutions?”). The instructor was then asked to compare each artifact to those he actually used (e.g., “Take a look at these three instructor solutions and describe how they are similar or different to the types of solutions you use.”). Each part concluded by asking the instructor to reflect on the problem-solving process, as represented in each artifact (e.g., “What aspects/components that you consider important in problem solving are represented in these instructor solutions?”).From Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference August, 2002 in Boise, ID noyesBreak interview text into statements (~400 statements/instructor)Develop initial hypothesis concept map (based on 1-year familiarity with data)Attempt to place statements on boxes and links of concept mapRevise Concept MapCombine individual concept maps into single mapDo statements fit well?Make individual concept map for each instructorFigure 1: Analysis Procedure Figure 2: Highest-Level Concept Map Describing Initial Hypotheses about of Instructors' Thinking About the Learning of Problem Solving. canbeto(Path C)canbecanbeto(Path B)learnhow toon thewhile/aftercanbeto (Path A)ofaffectshowtheywhile theyof usingofSolvePhysics ProblemsSomeCollegeStudents appropriateknowledgeappropriateproblems get theexample solutionsindividualizedresponsesStudents'CurrentStateFeedbackEngage in Learning ActivitiesWorkingLooking/ListeningLectures During these three parts the interviewer noted each of the features of the problem-solving process that was mentioned on a separate index card, using the faculty member’s words. In the final part of the interview they were asked to sort these cards into categories of their choosing. They were then asked several questions about the categories, including their expectations about student learning of these problem-solving processes by the end of their course. Throughout the interview probing questions were used to encourage the instructors to explain their ideas in as much detail as possible. The 6 instructors, all male, were randomly selected from approximately 20 physics faculty at a large research university who had recently taught an introductory calculus-based course. The standard mode of instruction for introductory calculus-based physics at this university includes each instructor’s implementation of Cooperative Group Problem Solving. [4] Analysis Technique The analysis procedure (see Figure 1) used interview transcripts to develop a multi-layered concept map that described our hypotheses about the way that this group of 6 instructors thought about the teaching and learning of problem solving. [8] Triangulation and expert agreement were used to determine the results. The highest level of this concept map has 18 relevant features and their relationships that are common to all 6 of the instructors. Each of these relevant features, represented by a box on the concept map, is described in detail by a lower-level map that also gives the range of variation among the instructors. Due to space limitations, the lower-level maps will not be presented