Different stories of group work: Exploring problem solving in engineering education

Abstract

This article aims to further the understanding of group work in higher education, primarily in science. This is done through an empirical investigation of problem solving in small groups. Position theory is used as an analytic tool for describing the complex and dynamic processes of group work, focusing simultaneously on the physics content and the student community and how they constitute each other. We analysed four video-recorded sessions with students from two Master's programs, Engineering Physics and Bioengineering, respectively. The students addressed two introductory mechanics problems. The analysis resulted in a characterisation in terms of seven 'storylines' of two different kinds. These are argued to reflect different aspects of engineering student communities, where one kind of storylines captures ways of approaching the problems and the other kind exemplifies boundary work involved in the constitution of communities. IntroductionGroup discussions have been introduced in science education as a means of meeting challenges related to both equity (Lorenzo, Crouch & Mazur, 2006) and conceptual learning (Gautreau & Novembsky, 1997). An underlying assumption in such educational reforms is that exploratory talk (Barnes & Todd, 1995) will contribute to an increased understanding, which, in relation to equity, is particularly important for female students.However, when open-ended, context rich and/or conceptual problems are introduced in a university education, this is done in a context where students already have substantial experience of problem-solving and certain expectations on what Different stories of group work: Exploring problem solving in engineering educationMaria Berge has a PhD in engineering education research and she works as a researcher and guest lecturer at the Department of Applied Information Technology at Chalmers University of Technology. Her research focus concerns learning physics in groups at university. Anna T. Danielsson is a postdoctoral fellow in Education at the University of Cambridge, funded by the Swedish Research Council. Her research interests are primarily centred around gender issues in science education, which she has previously explored in the context of university physics education and is currently exploring in the context of primary teacher education.Åke Ingerman is professor at the Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Professional Studies at the University of Gothenburg. He is interested in research that takes its starting point in pedagogical situations where students meet scientific and technological knowledge in different forms, and aims towards developing the quality of that meeting. MARIA BERGE 8(1), 2012Maria Berge, Anna T. Danielsson and Åke Ingerman a science problem can look like, and what are appropriate ways of solving them. In this article we explore how the ways in which groups of engineering students approach qualitative mechanics problems are related to the norms and expectations within these engineering student communities.

Storylines in the physics teaching content of an upper secondary school classroom

“…The last three community constituting storylines of mastering physics, appreciating physics and having a feeling for physics all concern how the students are supposed to relate to physics and thus become 'insiders' (Berge, Danielsson, and Ingerman 2012) in the discipline. The storyline of mastering physics shares many similarities with the physics discourse described previously by researchers such as Traweek (1988), Due (2014) and Nyström (2007) in which being good at physics is associated with 'smartness', 'logic' and 'masculinity'.…”

“…It is not clear who 'owned' the problem-solving or the prospect of giving a correct answer because Ann-Sofie framed the task as a problem she would solve with the students' help but later in the quote she handed over the problem-solving exclusively to Ester (who had raised her hand). In our second analytical stage, we reviewed our coded transcripts in which the conversation was coded as different positionings and categorised every speech act as a constituent of a particular storyline, using the storylines described in Berge, Danielsson, and Ingerman (2012) and Berge and Danielsson (2013) as a starting point. Naturally, these storylines were modified and adjusted to represent the narrative forms that existed within the context of these three presentations.…”

Engaging with a group’s space of meaning: The tutor’s role in small-group didactics

“…The empirical data is taken from a study of seven groups of first-year students at a Swedish university, from one of two programmesengineering physics or bioengineering-both of which have an equivalent physics course, partly with the same lecturer. The data has been analysed from various perspectives: gender (Berge & Danielsson 2013), problem-solving (Berge et al 2012), group dynamics (Berge & Weilenmann 2014), and group work (Berge 2011;Berge et al 2009).…”

Learning about friction: group dynamics in engineering students’ work with free body diagrams

“…The students' (sometimes collective) approaches to the task when solving physics problems influenced the learning possibilities when learning together (Berge and Danielsson 2013;Berge, Danielsson, and Ingerman 2012). Two described approaches among engineering students were 'Deal with the physics problems in terms of reaching a solution'and 'Deal with the physics problems in terms of understanding the physics'.…”