Umeå University's logo

Group discussions were introduced in an introductory physics course at the National University of Laos. About 200 students discussed two qualitative questions in groups of 3-4 students. This was followed by whole class discussions. We examined this new method and identified problems and possibilities with it. Seven groups were recorded and students and teachers were interviewed. Findings indicate that many students had problems with mechanics concepts. In the group discussions most students co-constructed an answer. However, the students in general did not seem to come to an understanding of the physics concepts, and in class follow-up discussion proved to be an essential tool for a better understanding. To improve the discussions, the students need more time and should also be informed about the essentials of working in groups.

In this study, we investigated why Laotian students had a low score, when they were tested by the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). About 400 first year university students answered the FCI or a Lao version of the FCI (LFCI) with the contexts of some questions changed. The students answered a questionnaire and 34 of the students were interviewed. The students found the FCI/LFCI questions difficult and the phenomena in some of the questions unfamiliar, for example questions about ice hockey. The results show that the low score cannot be explained by specific alternative conceptions and only to a very small part by unfamiliar context. The explanation seems to be that the students relied on everyday life experiences when they answered the questions.

In this study we have analysed students’ collaborative activities when they per- formed an experimental task with a pendulum. Five groups, with three to seven first year science students in each group, were videotaped. We continuously recorded each group during their practical work session with an average duration of 55 min- utes. Some students from each group were interviewed directly after the experi- mental session. When the video recordings were analysed, students’ activities and communication patterns were classified into eleven categories. The analysis evi- dences that the students collaborated actively in the groups helping each other han- dle the equipment and discussing how to perform the measurements. However in the largest working group, two students did not touch the measurement equipment and they did not take part in solving the experimental tasks. Other students in this and other groups collaborated well, but they revealed poor experimental skills and not all groups were able to complete the task. The students’ group discussions were mainly focused on understanding the experimental procedures and collecting data for the report rather than on the physics content. This revealed their shared priority of experimental activity: to pass the compulsory experimental part of the course. Just a few students tried to raise the issues about the goals stated in the laboratory work sheet concerning understanding of relations between different pendulum pa- rameters and verification of the value ofg (acceleration due to gravity). Evidence collected from the analysis of the video recordings and the follow-up interviews with the students showed that difficulty in understanding the laboratory instruction, faulty equipment, and insufficient help from the laboratory instructor constituted the main factors that led to a non -successful completion of the experimental task by some groups.

In this study, we investigated if freshman student's participation in small group discussions in the tutorial sessions would influence their score of the Lao version of the Force Concept Inventory test (LFCI). We used the LFCI version to test 188 students'' understanding of mechanics concepts before and after they studied mechanics at university. In three classes the students used group discussions when they solved the end-of-chapter questions in the textbook during tutorials and they also used group discussions to answer the LFCI. We video recorded three groups when they solved end-of-chapter questions. In two classes the students both solved the problems and answered the LFCI individually. A questionnaire about advantages and disadvantages of cooperative group and individual problem solving were handed out to the students. The questionnaire was supplemented by interviews with four students and three groups. We found that almost all students would like to work with group discussions; only 3% of them were negative. Students that worked with group discussions obtained an average score of 26% correct answers to the LFCI which was slightly higher than the average score of 23% for students that worked individually. The improvement from the pre- to the post-test in average score was 7 percentage points for classes with group discussions and 6 percentage points for classes with individual problem solving. It is not possible to claim that one of these ways of study will result in a larger improvement in the LFCI-score. Apparently, the group discussions did not help the students to improve their theoretical understanding of mechanics concepts as it is tested by the LFCI. However, it was observed in the video analysis that group discussions helped students to better understand mechanics concepts in the context of solving the end-of-chapter questions in the textbook. This observation was also supported by the students' answers to the questionnaire and the interview.

This article reports on an investigation of students learning of physics during group discussions around context-rich problems in introductory physics courses at university level. We present the results from video recordings of student groups solving three different problems. We found that group discussions around physics problems can lead to stimulating and learning discussions of physics but we also observed situations when the discussions did not work well. Misunderstandings of physics concepts reported in the literature emerge in the discussions now and then but the students also detect new ‘problems’. In the discussions most misunderstandings and problems are treated and solved either by the students themselves or by the students together with the teacher. Factors that stimulate a good discussion are engaging problems and a teacher at hand to answer questions and to discuss with the students. Factors that prevent a fruitful discussion are too little knowledge of the actual physics among the students and bad functioning of the groups.

In this study, we investigated how much the students’ score in the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) could change when the questions were changed to another context but with the same physics content. We used both the original FCI and another version in which we had changed the context in the questions. A sample of 410 freshman students from School of Foundation Studies at three universities in Laos was given one of two versions of the Force Concept Inventory, along with an additional brief questionnaire, that asked about what the students thought about the test. Eight students were selected for an interview. The results of this study suggest that context of the questions has an affect on the FCI score. The average score is, though, very low with both versions of the test. However, by changing the context and adding some pictures, the students could read and understand the questions more easily.

I denna bok berättar vi om våra erfarenheter från undervisning i form av grupp­diskussioner runt kontextrika (verklighetsanknutna) problem, vi ger tips på hur sådana problem kan konstrueras och vi delar med oss av exempel på kontextrika problem. Vi som skrivit denna bok har använt grupp­­diskussioner runt kontext­rika problem under några år i vår egen undervisning och vi tycker oss se att denna undervisning ofta fungerar bra. Vi har också deltagit i ett gemensamt forsknings­projekt med syftet att förstå hur användningen av gruppdiskussioner med kontext­rika problem påverkar studenternas/elevernas förståelse av fysika­liska begrepp. Vi undersökte även hur problemen bör utformas för att intressera gymnasie­eleverna. Resultaten från detta projekt utgör en bakgrund för boken.