Research in Science Education, 1999, 29(4), 527-546
Structured Cognitive Discussions in Senior High School Physics: Student
and Teacher Perceptions
Richard Gunstone, Brian McKittrick and Pare Mulhall
Monash University
Abstract
Concern with the quality of student engagement and learning in senior high school physics has
been evident for many years. In this study we have focussed on student engagement. Three tasks
that utilised a structured discussion approach to learning concepts in mechanics were developed
in collaborative work with two Year 11 physics teachers. These tasks demanded an initial
individual response from each student, then a single response from groups of three, and then a
whole class interpretive discussion led by the teacher and based on the group responses. We
report the detail of reactions of students and teachers to these tasks in the two classes taught by
the teachers involved in the development of the tasks, and more general reactions from a further
seven Year 11 physics classes.
Senior high school physics continues to be seen in stereotypical terms such as "hard,"
enrolments continue to decline in most parts of the world, and research continues to show students
complete courses with poor conceptual understanding. One consequence of these continuing
problems is that, paradoxically, change in teaching, learning and assessment approaches is often
resisted in classrooms (and by academic physicists). This is despite our understanding of a range
of cognitive and metacognitive issues that clearly result in improved quality of student learning of
physics. The problems of change in classrooms that contribute to this situation have been well
described and analysed, particularly in terms of teachers (e.g., Fuilan, 1991). These problems,
which are to do with acceptance and ownership of change, apply also to students (e.g., Gunstone,
1996; White, 1992). In the context of physics, much of this writing can be seen in terms of the
problems of having students (and occasionally teachers) intellectually engage with physics. In the
minds of many students there is a major advantage in the stereotypical view of physics referred to
above: it legitimises forms of rote learning and low level assessment of that learning and is thus
much less demanding of students than are approaches that require genuine intellectual engagement
with the fundamental ideas of senior high school physics (see, for example, Tobin, McKobbie &
Anderson, 1997).
The study reported in this paper is a small-scale investigation of student and teacher reaction
to an alternative teaching approach with substantial benefit to conceptual understanding. It was
undertaken as part of a larger and ongoing project concerned with fostering student understanding
of physics and exploring the consequences for student performance in that increased
understanding. One essential aspect of the alternative teaching approach is that it seeks to demand
intellectual engagement, including the recognition and consideration of existing ideas, from all
students in the class. At the heart of this study and the work from which it derives is a
constructivist view of learning, in which the significance of the ideas brought to physics classes
by students is central. These ideas include those relevant to the concepts of physics to be learned,
and the ideas about learning and teaching that shape students' acceptance or otherwise of the
experiences their teachers provide in physics classes. The study derives from earlier work
undertaken with first year undergraduate physics students. In that work structured discussion
exercises involving cooperative learning were prepared and used in tutorials in Physics I at Monash
University (Mills, McKittrick, Mulhall, & Feteris, 1999) with significant impact on student
528
GUNSTONE, MCKITTRICK AND MULHALL
understanding. One significant variable influencing the way in which the discussion exercise was
conducted and the extent of student learning was the views of teaching and learning held by the
postgraduate physics student who was conducting a given class.
The basic components of this structured discussion approach were used in this study. Thus
the study represents an unusual case of research on university learning and teaching influencing
such research on school learning and teaching.
Some Kesearch Context
There is much written about discussion and cooperative learning, both in terms of cognitive
learning and affective issues. While our major concerns in the project of which this study is part
are cognitive, the affective dimensions of students choosing to engage intellectually are clearly also
significant and are the focus of this article. Here we briefly consider literature of relevance to
affective issues in cognitive learning, and then discussion and cooperative learning.
The emergence of perspectives on learning and conceptual change that see importance in noncognitive issues is shown by the growth in use of the descriptor "'cold" to denote as "overly
rational" (Pintrich, Marx & Boyle, 1993, p. 197) approaches that do not consider non-cognitive
issues. In their review of conceptual change theory and research on motivation and classroom
learning Pintrich et al. (1993) conclude that there are two paramount problems in considerations
of conceptual change: inadequate development of the ways in which individual beliefs about self
as learner influence classroom learning; how the role of an individual in a learning community
sustains or hinders conceptual change (p. 191). Some studies of science learning provide support
for these conclusions. In a study of conceptual change in Year 10 biology classes Dreyfus et al.
note the impact on any conceptual change of the ways students either believe or do not believe
"school knowledge" (Dreyfus, Jungwirth, & Eliovitch, 1990, p. 565) and either accept or do not
accept the value of unusual learning tasks (p. 565). The impact of student ideas and beliefs about
what learning is, what teaching should be, and what are the appropriate roles for learners and
teachers was investigated in her own Year 11 physics classroom by Bakopanos (1988). She found
students rejecting her different teaching approaches because of their views that in learning physics
one does not ask questions, one listens to the teacher and takes notes---"the teacher tells you what
to say and do, that's the way it is done."
While the evidence is not yet substantive or systematic, there are data to support the view that
students can reject the legitimacy of alternative approaches to teaching/learning, and therefore
remove any possible learning advantage in such approaches. It is this issue that we focus on in this
study. Our beginning point for considering the impact of student ideas and beliefs about
learning/teaching is the metacognitive position of the Project for Enhancing Effective Learning
(e.g., Baird & Northfield, 1992, 1992; Baird & Perma, 1996; Guustone, 1994). In brief, this
position asserts that students come to classrooms with ideas and beliefs about learning, teaching,
and the roles it is appropriate for learners and teachers to take in the classroom. These ideas and
beliefs have substantial impact on both what and how students learn. For example, consider
students whose ideas and beliefs about teaching include the notion that it is the teacher's
responsibility to tell them about new material that is to be learned so that they (the students)
understand. For such students, teaching approaches that emphasise small group discussion are
often seen to have no learning value, and hence are not taken seriously by the students.
We turn now to the literature relevant to cognitive issues and discussion/cooperative learning.
Differing but complementary theoretical justifications for considering discussion in the context of
cognitive learning can be found in the writings of Piaget (1959) and Vygotsky (Wertsch, 1991),
with both arguing in different ways the social/interactive nature of cognitive development and the
importance of what has come to be called in the 1990s "negotiated meaning.'" These positions are
STRUCTURED COGNITIVE DISCUSSIONS
529
not elaborated here. A brief summary, given in the context of science learning, can be found in
Jones and Carter (1998). Jones and Carter also point to one important aspect of discussion with a
cognitive focus in areas such as physics that are comprised of abstract and complex invented
concepts. This is that research clearly shows that in such discussions learners use their own stories,
metaphors and analogies to explain their ideas to their peers. These stories, metaphors and
analogies are often different from those of the teacher, and often use different language. These
differences make student generated stories, metaphors and analogies significantly different from,
and thus appropriately complementary to, the stories, metaphors and analogies of the teacher.
Cohen (1994), in a major review of largely North American research on small group learning,
advances a number of conditions for small groups to be productive in terms of conceptual learning.
Of particular significance for this study is that open exchanges and elaborated discussions between
students are necessary for conceptual learning to result from group tasks. Such interactions become
even more necessary as tasks become more divergent in possible outcomes (a common feature of
tasks used for small group discussion). In addition, the forms of explanation, student behaviour and
teacher roles that are common for didactic and/or convergent teaching inhibit learning in small
groups. Cohen (1994) also concluded in this review that all the above issues are of much greater
significance to the quality of student learning from small groups than are notions of rewards
(intrinsic or extrinsic). Qin, Johnson and Johnson (1995) report a meta-analysis of studies of the
impacts of cooperative and competitive approaches to problem solving. They conclude that
cooperative approaches, across ages and level of outcomes, are superior to competitive approaches.
Some science-specific studies have particular relevance for the research reported in this paper.
Heller and Hollabaugh (1992) investigated aspects of group size and structure in the use of
cooperative learning approaches in the teaching of problem solving in undergraduate physics. One
clear finding was that a group size of three optimised the balance of range of views, quality of
learning and ability of individuals to contribute to the group. This is consistent with the work of
Alexopulou and Driver (1996) who investigated the ways in which Greek students interacted in
tasks aimed at the construction of physics knowledge in groups of two and four. Progress towards
physics meaning was significantly greater in the groups of four than in the pairs, with this
difference being attributed to the constrained nature of the student-student discourse in the pairs.
Tao (1996; Tao & Gunstone, 1999), in a detailed study of physics learning with pairs of students
working with an interactive CAL program, showed clearly that interaction between the two
students was insufficient for conceptual learning---conceptual learning came when students
intellectually engaged with each other and the tasks of the program. Bianchird (1997), in a study
of Year 6 students in a life science class, found that in group discussions those who talked more
learned more and that, in the absence of sufficient definition and structure in the group discussion
tasks, high achieving students dominated and were thus the only conceptual beneficiaries of the
approach. Her conclusion is then obvious--small group discussions need to provide structure and
guidance to students if these are to achieve cognitive outcomes for other than those high achieving
students who can provide their own structure to an ill-defined task.
In summary, we take the following outcomes of existing research as beginning points for this
study. Small group discussion can be of significant worth for conceptual learning, particularly if
it is structured in ways that make the intention and cognitive value clear to students. A significant
dimension of this worth in a subject like physics lies in the use by students of their own stories,
metaphors, analogies as they advance their ideas to their peers. Exchanges with peers in small
groups are more likely to be open and elaborated than in a whole class discussion. Discussion
structured around pairs of students is more likely to be constrained than is the case with more than
two students, while groups that are too large will by their size inhibit some individuals from
contributing their ideas. In terms of individuals feeling free to contribute, there are indications in
studies already cited here that three may be the optimal size for balancing the constraints of too
small and too large. While the value of small group discussion to the learning of physics concepts
530
GUNSTONE, M C K I T I l t / C K AND MULHALL
is recognised by researchers, for this strategy to be o f value in fostering quality physics learning
it is necessary that teachers and, more significantly, students recognise and accept its worth. The
essence of such recognition lies in being able to see the positive conceptual consequences of giving
the effort involved in genuine intellectual engagement with the concepts of physics.
It is the last o f the above points that is the essential focus of this study. The study is one of
student and, to a lesser extent, teacher reactions to a structured approach to cognitively focussed
discussions in senior high school physics. In the following we first describe the logic of the
structure used in physics discussions in the study and then the development of specific examples.
We then describe the participants in the research and the methodology used in the study, and
finally give data relevant to our essential focus. As the research used the title Schools Conceptual
Understanding o f Physics (SCUP) Project, we refer to the discussion structure and examples as
SCUP and SCUP exercises.
The Structure o f SCUP Exercises
First, a cognitively demanding task which focuses on physics concept(s) is chosen. One
significant feature o f the task is that the nature of the response required is not in the form of text,
but is in the form o f diagram or other such notation that quickly and easily conveys the meaning
of the response to others. This is because the essence o f the approach is to have students, initially
in small groups and later in the whole class, consider and reflect on the range of responses to the
task. Hence the meaning of each response needs to be clear to others. For example, a task that
asked for a written description of how it is, in terms o f forces, that we are able to walk across the
floor would not be useful as the written response from many students will not be unambiguously
clear to other students. On the other hand it would be appropriate to ask for a diagram showing the
forces acting on the feet of a person walking across the floor. (The nature and development of these
tasks is described below. Both the three tasks used in this research and four subsequently
developed can be found at the website http://www.education.monash.edu.au/projects/physics/.) The
task is duplicated onto A4 paper, and a copy given to each student in the class. A SCUP exercise
then has three distinct components.
The use begins with each student spending some minutes a~temptingto answer the questions
associated with the task by themselves. This first step is used in an attempt to ensure that all
students engage with the task before any group discussion, and that each student considers
his/her existing ideas as part of that engagement.
2. Then students form groups of three (described to the class as "triplets"). Each group receives
one copy of the task on A3 paper, with the requirement to form a single answer for the group
and place it on the A3 sheet.
3. When all groups have come to an answer the A3 sheets are placed on the walls of the room,
and the whole class is gathered around the sheets. These responses are now not individual,
but have some ownership by the triplet that created the response. The class teacher then
conducts a whole class interpretive discussion ('Barnes, 1976) about the answers and
encourages questions from and challenges to the responses of the triplets. At this point our
intention is to have created student responses that can be debated by the class with reduced
fear of individuals seeing critiques of their ideas in personal terms. The intent of the
discussion is, if possible, to evolve a consensus in the class. The teacher leads this discussion,
not by conducting a convergent discussion that seeks to move to a statement of the correct
response(s) but by encouraging student elaboration of the reasoning behind triplet responses
and debate of the merit of response and reasoning. Through rids process responses are
STRUCTURED COGNITIVE DISCUSSIONS
531
evolved that are appropriate in terms of the physics concepts which are the focus of the
exercise and which are very likely to have ownership by many of the students..
Participants in the Study
In February we conducted a workshop at a physics teachers' conference in Melbourne about
the nature and use o f the discussion exercises used in first year physics teaching at Monash
University in the previous year. The session included having individuals and triplets undertake one
of the first year physics discussion exercises, and our then conducting a whole group discussion
in the manner described above. We then indicated to the workshop that we were seeking to work
with high school physics teachers during the year to develop and investigate the use o f exercises
with similar structure for the mechanics section o f Year 11 physics. Twelve teachers expressed a
willingness to be involved, all with considerable physics teaching experience. We selected two o f
these to work closely with us in the development o f the SCUP exercises; one was a female teaching
in an all girls suburban non-government school, the other a male in a coeducational suburban
government school. Both schools could be fairly described as not unusual examples of these two
school systems. Our selection of these two was based on each having a quite reasonable sized Year
11 class (both were about 20 students), their willingness to be closely involved, their experience
as physics teachers, the all girls class that one of them taught and, most importantly, their
willingness to have data collected from them and their classes. We refer to them below as the
"development" teachers.
The remaining 10 teachers were invited to attend a meeting before the commencement o f
teaching mechanics to explore and discuss the SCUP exercises that had been developed, to use
these and collect student responses and to attend a post-use discussion on the value of and reaction
to the SCUP exercises. Seven of the teachers did this. One of the remaining teachers was in a
country school and was unable to attend any meetings during the research, although he was
provided with all the materials given to the others. A handout about the intention, nature and
approaches to use o f the SCUP exercises, derived from the experiences of use o f the structure in
first year physics, was prepared and given to all teachers who expressed interest. This handout
covered issues associated with preparation, materials, organising triplets, the significance o f trust
to the whole class discussion, an outline ofa SCUP session, and comments about each of the three
exercises. The points regarding the structuring o f the triplets were that the triplets should involve
students of mixed abilities (rather than all high or all low achievers), any female student should be
in a triplet with at least one other female (both points derived from the work of Heller &
Hollabaugh, 1992), and that, if numbers meant that not all could be in triplets, groups of four were
preferable to pairs.
By the time o f commencement of the mechanics section o f Year 11 physics in June three
SCUP exercises had been developed, one on horizontal motion ("Driving to Hilary's"), one on
vertical motion ("Throwing a hockey ball"), and one on forces ("Hitting a golf ball"). For each
exercise the A3 version (the group response version) contained only the material from the A4 sheet
that was needed for the group response (thus none of the text giving context and instructions
appeared on the A3 sheet), and space for the names of all group members. The comments about
the exercise "Driving to Hillary's" that were in the handout to all teachers were,
This is designed to help students' understanding of displacement/time, velocity/time and
acceleration/time graphs. It also requires them to make some inferences about the way
displacement, velocity and acceleration changes when a car stops and reverses.
This exercise ideally should occur after students have done some exercises like those requiring
thorn to sketch such graphs from stories about the motion of different objects involving numerical
GUNSTONE, MCKITTRICK AND MULHALL
532
data (e.g., "Angela drives home from netball at a constant velocity of 60 km/h. She stops at the
traffic lights etc') and/or those requiring them to "role-play" situations represented by given
graphs.
Methodology
Our approaches to recruiting teachers to be involved have already been described. Our use
of the two development teachers to work on the creation of the SCUP exercises was a considered
decision. Given the fundamental purposes o f the study we needed the exercises to be realistic in
terms of the current Year 11 physics course, and we needed the development teachers to have
exercises that they valued and wanted to use. Without these two criteria being met the reactions
of teachers and students to the use of the exercises would be of little value.
The focus of the study was on the reactions of the teachers and their students to the SCUP
exercises. This is reflected in the forms o f data obtained.
Data Collection Approaches
For the development teachers and their classes we collected the following.
*
9
9
9
9
9
9
Observation and field notes of all classes in which S C U P exercises were used (with
videotaping of some).
Pre S C U P use interviews with each teacher, conducted prior to the teachers startingwork
with us on the development of the exercises.The purposes were to detailtheirmotivations
for involvement in the study, and their views of physics and physics learning and teaching
(the interview schedule is in Appendix I).
Post-use interviews with each teacher that focussed on their perceptions of their use of SCLrP
exercises, student reactions, the value of the exercises, and their views of physics learning
(the interview schedule is in Appendix 1).
Pre-use individual interviews and post-use group interviews with small groups of students
from each class (both these schedules are in Appendix 2).
The written responses from triplets.
Some questionnaire data from students that focussed on their reactions to the exercises.
Pre and post SCUP written probes of student understandihg of relevant concepts.
For the other teachers/classes we asked teachers to collect some samples of U-iplet responses,
to complete a short teacher questionnaire relating to time spent on SCUP exercises and reactions
to these, and to attend a general post-use discussion about the ways they used the exercises and
how they and their students reacted to the exercises.
We do not report here data from the pre- and post-use conceptual tests, as our focus is on
student and teacher perceptions.
Teachers' Uses of the SCUP Exercises
X~Vehave described in the previous section the materials that were given to the teachers with
the SCUP exercises. Beyond this the conduct of the SCUP sessions was left entirely in the hands
of the teachers--after all the two development teachers had worked with us to create the exercises.
As is clear from the teacher interview schedules, we were then anxious to know how each teacher
saw the how and why o f their use o f the SCUP exercises.
STRUCTURED COGNITIVE DISCUSSIONS
533
Analyses and Reporting of the Data
The modes of analysis appropriate to the study are not complex. Our essential concern was
with elaborating the general perceptions of teachers and students of the learning of physics, and
specific perceptions of the nature and value of an unusual approach to the teaching/learning of
physics (SCUP). Given that our methodology for the exploration of these perceptions involved
directly probing these in interview, the analysis of the interview transcripts involved no more than
the seeking of themes evident across these transcripts. These were then considered with the
observational data from SCUP classes to determine whether any inconsistencies existed. That is,
we considered the claims made in interview by teachers and students of each class regarding their
approaches to and benefit from the SCUP exercises, and then compared these with the data
available about the actual classes. No inconsistencies between interview claims and classroom
practice were found.
We now turn to the data from the study. First we give descriptions of the views of the
development teachers and some of their students prior to involvement with the project, then make
a short comment on the ways we saw the SCUP exercises being used by the development teachers,
and then describe the views of teachers and students after the SCUP experience. The two
development teachers are referred to as "Teacher 1" and "Teacher 2."
Teacher and Student Views Before the SCUP Experience
The Development Teachers
Both of the development teachers indicated that their decisions to become involved in the
SCUP project came from concern with the levels of conceptual understanding in their physics
classes, with some focussing of this concern having come from particular inservice experiences.
Teaching strategies used by Teacher I with Year I I physics were chalk and talk, questions from
the text, whole class and smaU group discussions (with concerns that whole class discussions were
often dominated by a very small number of students, and that small group discussions were of little
value early in a topic), and a strong focus on fostering the ability to write explanations. Teacher
2 used demonstrations, practical work (including some student designed exercises), FredictObserve-Explain, whole class discussions, and small group work using different tasks for different
groups and whole class reporting back (e.g., researching different optical instruments). This teacher
was particularly concerned with the ways language was used in the classroom, and aimed to have
students be able to explain concepts in non-technical language. Both teachers indicated that they
had not often used small group discussions with the specific conceptual focus of the SCUP
exercises, and described their perceptions of the purposes oft he SCUF project in terms of students
bouncing ideas off other students. Both used a wider range of strategies in their teaching of science
at lower year levels.
Teacher I responded to the question on advice to a Year 11 student about learning physics
in terms of asking teachers and students for help (although also cautioning that other students could
lead one "astray"), practising problems, reading books, and seeking understanding. Teacher 2
talked of building student confidence and participating in class. Both saw physics as different from
other sciences in that it more fundamentally requires understanding. In summary, these two
teachers, at the begirming of the project, were clearly thoughtful with genuine and quite informed
concern for the level of understanding achieved by their students. Both were very reflective in their
explanations of why they used the approaches they did in their physics teaching. However neither
was at all experienced in running small group conceptually focussed discussions of the nature of
those in the SCUP exercises.
534
GUNSTONE, MCKITI'RICK AND MULHALL
Students
Individual interviews were conducted with six students from each class, with those
interviewed being nominated by the teacher to give a range of achievers in Year 11 physics.
Students of Teacher 1 had chosen to study physics at Year 11 because of prerequisites (3, and
another 1 who saw sciences as more likely to give a higher tertiary entrance ranking), liking
physics or maths/seience (2), and keeping future options open (1). All six indicated that they were
enjoying physics, although three qualified this with comments about the subject sometimes being
hard or boring. One noted that although it could be hard "once you've learned a concept you don't
have to worry much about it," another that one could see the "logic" in physics, another that
practical work was particularly enjoyable, and another that she "loved maths" and thus physics.
When asked about how they went about learning physics all made some mention of reading notes
and/or textbook and five referred to doing questions/examples. These five students made no
mention of anything else, while the remaining student referred to the value to her learning of the
teacher asking many general questions about everyday life. One of the students did not understand
our question, and needed elaboration before she could answer.
When faced with an idea from physics they did not understand they would ask the teacher (5),
a family member with physics experience (3) and/or friends (3). One student noted that "sometimes
you understand the ideas of people your own age better" than older people. When asked what their
ideal physics teacher would do to help them learn three students felt their teacher already did all
that could be done as a good teacher; of the others two mentioned clearer explanations of difficult
ideas, and one group discussion. While five thought talking could help the learning of physics, two
interpreted this as the teacher asking questions or explaining clearly. Two talked of discussion in
quite unspecific ways, and one mentioned only explaining formulae and the terms contained in
these. Advice to a Year 10 student about learning physics would be to do problems (3), have good
notes--either from the teacher or, if these are not given, generate notes yourself--and read these
and the text (3), ask questions (of teacherm2, of friendspl, unspecified--I), and "discuss with
friends" (1). Only one student gave responses to this question that implied a strongly held position
(the discussion response). Five saw learning chemistry to be different in that it involved more rote
learning; the other saw chemistry as no different.
The six students from the class of Teacher 2 were at times a little different from those of
Teacher 1. While four gave prerequisites as a reason for choosing physics, three of these and both
the other two were clear in expressing a liking for science or physics as significant in their choice.
One of these five was not now enjoying physics (and made clear a preference for chemistry and
biology), but all the others were clear in their current enjoyment and all gave specific reasons for
the enjoyment (with 2 making specific reference to teacher or teaching). The students described
their approaches to learning physics in terms of asking the teacher (3) or fellow students (1) about
things not understood, doing practical work (1), doing set problems (2, one of whom expressly
stated that she did not feel comfortable asking questions of the teacher in any subject), reading text
or other books (2, one of whom was clear that he learned much better from picture/diagrammatic
material than from text), and reading notes made by the student (1). One student was clearly
surprised by this question from the interviewer. Five students were unequivocally happy about
what they were doing to learn physics, and the sixth expressed qualified happiness (without being
able to explain the qualified nature of his response). Four would ask the teacher about a physics
idea they did not understand, one would hope someone else would ask the teacher the same
question. (the student noted above who said she asked no questions of any teacher), three would
ask a student friend, one another adult, and two would use books. One student expressly rioted that
talking about physics "does help." Their statements about their ideal teacher, as with Teacher 1,
reflected their very positive views of their physics teacher. Their ideal teacher would keep them
motivated/make physics enjoyable/create student involvement (3), give individual help (2), "'not
STRUCTURED COGNITIVE DISCUSSIONS
535
force you to learn" (I). All six indicated that talking could help the learning o f physics, with all
interpreting this in terms of class or small group forms of talking. Specific issues mentioned were
seeing a problem from someone else's point of view (3) and thinking about an idea someone else
has raised (2). The student reluctant to ask questions indicated that she found class discussion
helped so long as she was not asked a question. One student noted that he discussed physics with
a friend of his father, and that this helped. Advice to Year 10 students included keeping up to date
with work (4) and "doing problems while things were fresh in your mind" (1), reading the textbook
(1), "enjoy it" (1), and, from one student, "do questions about the subject and you start learning
from there....You learn from getting (sic) a mistake or not understanding it, then getting a response
from the teacher or someone who knows something about it." Chemistry was seen as different to
learn by four students because physics relates to real life more strongly (3, one o f whom was not
studying any other science at Year I 1) and is more logical (I).
In summary, all the students saw their teacher in most positive terms. Students from the class
of Teacher 1 were typically uninformed about learning in general or their own particular leaming
characteristics. However there were some thoughtful and metacognitive responses from most o f
the students from Teacher 2. It is not clear why these differences existed, given that previous class
experiences before Year 11 will have been of major import in shaping these insights.
The Teaching of the SCUP Exercises
We observed all the classes in which SCUP exercises were used by Teachers I and 2, took
field notes, and videoed one class from each. These records make it clear that both teachers used
the exercises in the manner intended, and with substantial expertise. Time was given for initial
individual consideration of the questions posed by the exercises, a group response came from each
triplet (with the teacher taking the role of clarifier and not provider of answers), and there was a
whole class discussion of the triplets' A3 responses. The whole class discussion was particularly
impressive in both classes for each SCUP exercise. Both teachers did remarkably well in holding
to an interpretive discussion of the responses, by having members o f triplets advance reasoning for
responses, by having the whole class consider these reasons, and by having the class move towards
a position that was consistent with physics. We also observed most students intellectually engaged
with the whole class discussion for most of the time, including, according to Teacher 2, some who
rarely contributed to any class discussion. The general level o f student interest, thought and
argument was impressive. In one case in a class with Teacher 2 we saw students continue their
discussion into recess time, then, after the teacher stopped the class because of another
commitment, a group followed the teacher along the school corridor continuing the discussion.
Two issues o f particular significance for this study emerge from our records o f use of the
SCUP exercises. The first is that even though the approach planned to be used with SCUP
exercises was novel for both teachers, their use o f the exercises was as intended and was in ways
that integrated the exercises with other learning activities. That is, the SCUP exercises were seen
as legitimate class activities and not as "one-off" oddities. The second significant issue is that when
post-SCUP interview transcripts were checked with class observations, notes and videos, there
were no instances found of teacher or student claims that were inconsistent with the ways the
exercises were used.
536
GUNSTONE, M C K I T T R I C K AND MULHALL
Teacher and Student Views o f SCUP After the Experience
We begin this outline of teacher and student reaction by considering the post-use interviews
with the development teachers, then we consider the student interviews, and finally we consider
the reactions o f the second group of teachers whom we did not study closely.
The Development Teachers
A number of themes were specifically focussed on and/or emerged from the interviews.
Perceptions of how SCUP exercises were used
Both teachers saw their use to be as we had observed (see above), and both had clear notions
of the purposes of each of the three stages with these notions matching those we had intended.
Teacher I saw a further purpose emerge during use of the SCUP exercises--the "'exposure" of
alternative conceptions (see 3 below).
Perceptions of student enjoyment of~engagement with SCUP
Both saw student enjoyment and engagement to be much more substantial than usual, and that
this was a major positive consequence o f SCUP. Teacher I noted that one student had not been
happy with the triplet component because she (the student) found the other two group members
not taking seriously her, usually correct, views. Teacher 1 saw this reaction as coming from the
student being a very rare contributor to whole class discussions that had occurred prior to SCUP.
Perceptions of how SCUP sessions differedfrom their usual teaching
Both saw stark differences, particularly in the extent to which they were able to gain insights
into the thinking o f their students. As noted above, the significance of alternative conceptions to
learning became a significant issue for Teacher 1. Our interpretation is that this teacher had
previously known about these in theory only, but not in the context of classroom practice.
[In a usual physics class] you don't always give them a chance to say what they think because
if they start to say something wrong you tend to chop them offbefore they confuse everybody
else, whereas I let them run the course in this and that way I was able to see some of the things
they were thinking that weren't fight ....
The thing I felt was so different about this was.., that you actually got to hear what the kids were
thinking whereas in a normal class discussion you leap on the first person that [says] something
fight.., and you tend to ignore anything they come up with that's not quite fight. I found it really
valuable to hear these things that they were thinking that I'd heard about in Dip Ed etc but which
I'd forgotten that they would think because I don't think like that any more. (Teacher 1)
-There was almost a sort of intimacy in the whole group [mode] at the end .... All the different
heads popping up all over the place, and obviously not threatened by it, and also enjoying it....
And throwing in [a question] during those [whole class discussions] and they were quite happy
to answer it .... The big thing was to get as much as possible from them on a consensus sort of
thing. So when I restrained myself... [saying things like] "Can we all agree on this?" "Who says
this?" and "Who says that?" rather than me asking the leading question .... The leading question
comes from the sheet. You have to ensure [the SCUP tasks] are properly designed in the first
place .... That's where the guidance comes from, it takes a bit to adjust to that. (Teacher 2)
STRUCTURED COGNITIVE DISCUSSIONS
537
Perceptions of value to student cognitive learning
Both were very positive about the consequences of SCUP for student understanding, both in
terms of the SCUP sessions themselves and in terms o f the understanding students showed in later
related learning. The teachers talked of the value to learning of some confusion (in terms of
learning better when it is realised that something is "not quite right there"), the value of having to
say something about a concept to one's understanding o f that concept (and one's understanding
of how well the concept had been grasped), and the superiority o f the SCUP exercises over other
methodologies used for fostering understanding.
Perceptions of difficulties in using a SCUP exercise
For both teachers the most obvious difficulty was the withholding of the correct answer.
(Without hesitation) Not telling them the fight answer! (Teacher i)
In the last [exercise I became] very much more aware that you're forcing your agenda on kids
so you've got to try to avoid that, that's the hardest thing. It was the least successful one by far....
What I was trying to do was--I knew what they knew, but of course they didn't know it, and I
was going to develop that [what I believed they knew] further, and when you're running under
that system [SCUP] it really needs to be coming back the other way under some sort of guidance
rather than me trying to keep pushing the same sort of direction all the time, especially when you
come up against a brick wall. To do that again I'd do it quite differently.
Interviewer: How would you change that?
I'd go into it saying in my mind "Remember [teacher's name], we're getting it from them, we're
running the way they run .... You've got to be NOT fixed in your mind that that's the exact
answer I want, my agenda, and I'm not moving, till I get it ... you shouldn't run that directly.
(Teacher 2; emphasis added)
A number of other difficulties were described: the demands to think on one's feet that come
from the ways the A3 sheets of triplet responses are used (with Teacher 1 specifically noting the
need to have some general notions of likely responses and the value to this of having worked with
the research group in the development of the exercises); gaining participation from some students
in the whole group discussion (although this, we observed,'was not as major a difficulty as the
teachers expected for both were surprised by the rapid way that students accepted the demands of
the first SCUP exercise they experienced); time, that is the length of time taken by the approach
(although, as for the gaining of participation, this appeared to be less of a problem than
expected---one teacher made only the briefest o f mention of time and the other specifically noted
in expressing this difficulty that the time was well spent in terms of learning, "... you build up on
it... you never lose on it"). We were surprised that there were only very brief mentions o f the
difficulties of reaching a consensus in the whole class discussion. As shown below, this appears
to have been a much bigger issue for students than for teachers.
The value now seen in discussion lessons
Both now saw discussion as a significant methodology in terms of the development of
understanding, both the triplet form and the whole class mode. Both indicated that they were now
using discussions with this focus more than previously; Teacher I had used SCUP exercises in a
modified (more directed) form with Year 12 physics. Teacher 2 saw three as the appropriate
number for the small group component. Both were clear in their intentions to use the approach and
these exercises again. Teacher 2 also indicated a desire to use a SCUP exercise very early in the
Year 11 course in the subsequent year, and to have this an exercise in which success is highly
538
GUNSTONE, MCKITTRICK AND MULHALL
likely (i.e., an exercise in which the learning of the process involved is one important purpose).
One significant demonstration of the seriousness of these statements is that both the teachers are
enthusiastically involved in the major extension of the research noted in the introduction section
of this paper.
Perceptions of changes in their teaching approaches in physics
Both stated that their approaches had been influenced by their involvement in SCUP. Teacher
1 talked again about being "reminded" of students' alternative conceptions and her subsequent use
of more small group discussion to consider these. Teacher 2 now was using triplets to initially
consider questions that were previously given to the whole class for discussion. This teacher was
also seeking situations in other content areas where the SCUP approach could be used, and
nominated a number of such areas. Both saw SCUP exercises as appropriate in any conceptual area
of physics.
Some other reactions
The most obvious general reaction, both in observations and informal discussions during the
use of the exercises and in the post-use interview, was that the teachers enjoyed the approach even
though it made substantial demands on them. This enjoyment came from the consequences they
saw for student engagement.
Seeing them get that passionate about a discussion in physics was good (Teacher 1)
...[the students] didn't want to leave until they got the right answer (Teacher 2)
Both believed that if SCUP exercises were used more frequently with a class then the students
would likely move a little more quickly through the exercises and the teachers would be better
prepared for the range of responses revealed on the A3 sheets. Both gave somewhat different
responses from the pre-use interview to the question about the advice they would give to students
who asked about learning physics. Teacher 1 now emphasised the asking of questions and
discussing with the teacher and/or other students what was going on; Teacher 2 now emphasised
talking about physics, and practice, with the aim of being able to explain to a lay person.
The Students
We collected data from a short questionnaire given to all students present at a class after all
SCUP exercises had been completed. These data are in Table I.
This table shows widespread general acceptance of the SCUP approach by the students, and
a hearteningly low number who stated that they were not contributors to the triplets discussion.
More elaborated thinking came from interviews with some students from each class, again
chosen to give a range of physics achievements. The interviews were group, in threes (not triplets
groupings), with two groups of three interviewed from each class. Group interviews were used
because the focus of the interview was on the ways students perceived the SCUP sessions and
reacted to these. Where interviews have a focus on issues that are seen by interviewees to be
opinions rather than "right" or "wrong," group interviews can result in more elaborated responses
as interviewees respond to each other.
As for the teacher interviews, we outline responses under themes.
STRUCTURED COGNITIVE DISCUSSIONS
539
Table 1
Student Responses to Short Questionnaire after SCUP Exercises (Percentages)
Did you find the three special discussion sessions helpful to your learning?
Yes
No
Tick any one or more of the following which describe how you found
discussing the exercises in the small groups of three (triplets)
I felt able to express my ideas freely
One or more of the others in my triplet dominated the discussion
I felt too shy to say what I thought
I did not contribute much as I wasn't interested in the exercises
I did not say much as I fek one or more of the others know more
physics
I did not say much because I did not think I could explain what I
meant
None of the above applies to me
CLASS 1
(%)
CLASS 2
80
20
100
-
80
7
74
-
7
13
5
16
27
21
-
5
(%)
Perceptions of how the sessions were run
Three o f the four groups gave descriptions that corresponded with how the teachers and we
saw the structure; one group from Class 2 did not mention the initial individual work.
Perceptions of differences from usual physics classes
All groups noted the triplets--as small group discussion with a focus on content rather than
the procedural discussion seen to accompany laboratory w o r k m a s a difference, with c o m m o n
reference to all having a chance to talk and think, and the value o f hearing the views o f other
students.
... ifI don't understand something, I find it easier to understand it with a friend [explaining] ....
If [I] don't understand I feel dumb with a teacher (Class 1)
Normally we get asked what it is but most people don't think about it, they just say "we don't
know" and you get told, [while in SCUP sessions] you've got time to think about what you think
(Class 1)
... usually.., sitting at our desks and listening to the teacher, copy notes, stufflike that, and there's
still discussion, but you don't get that sort of more personal discussion [as in triplets] (Class 2)
One group from Class I talked at length o f having to "actually think in class" (followed by
laughter), o f the need to understand one's own thinking better in order to answer questions o f
others about this thinking, and o f the value to their understanding o f hearing and thinking about
the ideas o f others.
Perceptions of the logic of the structure of the SCUP sessions
From either the general Question 3 or the specific Question 4 (a) (see Appendix 2) every
group showed an appropriate understanding o f the slructure o f the exercises. There was widespread
540
GUNSTONE,
MCKITTRICK AND M U L H A L L
acceptance of the ways the triplets lead most/all students to contribute to that part of the discussion,
that the whole class discussion became easier to contribute to because it was a triplet rather than
individual response that was being justified by individual students, and that all students were aware
of the substance of the whole class discussion (and thus were more likely to be engaged with the
whole class discussion than would usually be the case).
If we were just one big group [for the whole exercise] then I'm sure some people just wouldn't
say anything. With the [triplets] you had to say something.
... when you were in [the whole class mode] it's not intimidating because it's not just you
because [there were three of us] .... It's a combined opinion [on the A3 sheet].
Within [the triplet] you've come up with some ideas but they might not be right ... [the whole
class discussion] gives you a broader range of ideas.
Perceptions of value to their learning
Three of the groups o f interviewed students were clear in stating that they saw positive
learning consequences for their learning. Of these, one group could give no substantive reasons
for this (although they did conclude that their understanding would have been "different" without
SCUP), a second group saw that thinking at length about an idea meant that one was more likely
to remember the idea, and the third group saw that thinking for one's self, "not being fed
everything," led to better learning.
... everyone usually got their say about what they thought was fight and then we could question
each other and we had to justify ourselves ... which sort of meant you had to understand it a bit
better to be able to answer questions people asked you.
When studems teach each other, you get more out of it because you're ... on the same level.
The fourth group was dominated by one student who saw no learning advantage. This view
came from a notion that the emergence of different ideas in the whole class discussion was
confusing, and that he disengaged from this discussion early on. Another member o f this group
thought there was learning advantage because of the requirement to think, but also saw this as
"harder.'"
Perceptions of enjoyment
With the exception of the individual just described, the sessions were universally seen as most
enjoyable. Many oft.he quotes already given show this. The following exchange in one group is
reasonably typical o f the range of issues contributing to the very positive feelings about SCUP--it
was an enjoyably different experience, and it had learning value.
Student I: [The S C U P sessions]were a good break.., from the norm of physics ..,itwas like
a prac but you didn't have to write itup.
Student 2: (with laughter) ['Nothaving to write itup] that was the beauty of it.
Student 3: And you could be right or wrong--it didn't matter if itwasn't exact.
Student 4: A n d you learntwhat was rightand wrong.
Some other relevant quotes were:
It was sort of... more relaxed than a normal class where you just sit there and the teacher just
writes notes on the board ... and you can't talk.
S T R U C T U R E D COGNITIVE D I S C U S S I O N S
541
It really starts you thinking about other things ... so you want to know more as well.
... ifI don't understand something, I find it easier to understand it with a fi-iend [explaining] ....
If [I] don't understand I feel dumb with a teacher.
I think it makes you realise that.., you might be able to come up with an answer on your own.
Like you don't just need to be told.
Perceptions of value in other areas of physics
All groups saw SCUP as being o f value to learning in other areas, with one group indicating
that this would not be the case in the area o f nuclear physics because that was "all factual."
Ways SCUP couM be improved
Two groups were clear on the problems that occurred (from their perspective) in finishing a
class period without reaching a conclusion in the whole class discussion, that is with finishing a
lesson without knowing what the correct response(s) was. As noted above, this was a more
significant issue for students than for teachers, and it points to an additional aspect o f the use o f
SCUP that we did not address in this study. This aspect is noted in the conclusion below. One
student group saw a need for better introductions to SCUP exercises while the fourth group had
no suggestions to make for improvement.
The Larger Teacher Group
We conducted a lengthy evening meeting with all the teachers who had chosen to be involved
(the two development teachers and the other seven) to discuss reactions, including those o f their
students. Many o f the issues that emerged have already been described in some detail above. Here
we report very briefly on the major points.
There were striking differences in the times the teachers reported taking on SCUP exercises.
These times are in Table 2 which was shown at the start o f the meeting.
Table 2
Times Taken by Each Teacher to Complete each
SCUP Exercise (teachers involved in the
development of the SCUP exercises are numbers
I and 2)
Exercise 1
Driving to
Hilary's
Time (min)
Exercise 2
Throwing a
hockey ball
Exercise 3
Hitting a
golf ball
1
80
80
80
2
3
4
5
6
7
50
70
45
30
40
40
Teacher
55*
45*
50
50
45*
45*
30
30
40
na
50
na
8
60
50
50
9
40
45
40 + 30**
* ran out of time; ** completed over two periods
542
GUNSTONE, MCKITTRICK AND MULHALL
Even though the table clearly referred to those at the meeting, there was much disbelief, even
derision, expressed at the low times recorded by some teachers. This table shows quite surprising
variation in times taken, and the reactions of most of the teachers can reasonably be interpreted as
an indication of the appropriateness of longer times.
In general teachers reported that students were enthusiastic and engaged and that the sessions
ran as intended. Exceptions were in one class with 27 students (where the whole class discussion
was "a bit unwieldy" and dominated by two groups), a number of whom were English as Second
Language (two groups of ESL students had difficulty with the wording of the exercises). The
teacher of a very small class (6 students) reported the approach as being of great value to learning.
The "non-development" teachers also reported students continuing discussions beyond class time
and other examples of the positive impact of SCUP. One of the development teachers described
a deliberate approach to asking weaker students to explain their triplet position in the whole class
discussion, with this often being done successfully.
Conclusion
The essential purpose of this study was to investigate student and teacher reactions to a
structured approach to cognitively focussed discussions in senior high school physics, with
particular concern with the extent to which students and teachers accepted the value of the
approach. The findings are clear--both students and teachers did reeognise and accept the value
of the approach; both did so in terms of the ways the approach engaged students (both
intellectually and attitudinally) and enhanced conceptual understanding. This is clearly not
unexpected for the development teachers--they were closely involved in the development of the
SCUP exercises. However it is a different matter for the students (who were in no way volunteers)
and, to a lesser extent, the teachers in the larger group. Given the significance of non-cognitive
factors on cognitive learning, such as those discussed in the beginning of the paper, this is a finding
of importance for both research focussed on physics conceptual change and for the teaching of
physics. It is then important to consider what specifically about the SCUP exercises and their use
might have led to this acceptance.
Guskey (1986) has argued that acceptance by teachers of an innovation will often come after
teachers have explored and judged the innovation in their own classroom. There are indications
in the literature that the same argument can be validly applied to students (e.g., Baird & Northfield,
1992; Dreyfus et al., 1990). That is, it is not until students have experienced the change and judged
it in terms of the value the change has for their learning that the change could be accepted. The
difficulty that then arises with a change focussed on greater intellectual engagement (such as the
SCUP exercises) is that in order to experience and judge the change students have to choose to
invest the greater intellectual effort that is needed to experience the change. In the case of this
study we see the structure of the SCUP exercises as significant in the fact that students chose to
engage in the ways they did. The approach used tasks that had a number of possible responses
likely to be plausible to some students (thus encouraging students to elaborate their own thinking)
with a structured process (tasks with responses that were not text-based and were thus readily
understood by others; a first response that was individual, then a small group response, then a
whole class discussion). This structured process enabled students to respond and discuss without
the concern for what is to be done that can characterise student reactions to unstructured divergent
tasks. This structured process is also, we believe, the major reason for students accepting the value
of the approach.
The most significant difficulty that students reported in their experiences with the SCUP
exercises was that of not having closure when a discussion ran past the end of a class lesson. It is
interesting that this was not an issue of significance for teachers, because, we infer, the teachers
STRUCTURED COGNITIVE DISCUSSIONS
543
were confident of consensus/resolution in the following period. However it is an issue that needs
addressing, and in our later use of SCUP exercises we are advocating the approach used by
Mitchell (Baird & Northfield, 1992) in such circumstances: if conceptual closure cannot be reached
at the end of a class, then the teacher should as a minimum give students a clear picture of where
the class has come to and the teacher's acceptance of this (e.g., "You have achieved what I
intended for this class at this stage if..."). In this way the teacher can at least indicate to the
students that their concerns are recognised and understood, even if not responded to at this time.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by an ARC Small Grant.
Correspondence: Professor R. Gunstone, Centre for Science, Mathematics and Technology
Education, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
Interact email: dick.gunstone@education.monash.edu.au
References
Alexopulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-group discussion in physics: Peer interaction modes
in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099-1114.
Baird, J., & Northfield, J. (Eds).(1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne, Victoria:
Faculty of Education, Monash University.
Baird, J., & Penna, C. (1996). Challenge in learning and teaching science. Research in Science
Education, 26, 257-269.
Bakopanos, V. (1988). Encouraging reflective thinking in an upper-secondary classroom.
Unpublished masters project, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student
learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1039-1065.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review
of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, tL (1990). Applying the "cognitive conflict" strategy for
conceptual change--some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science Education, 74, 555569.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
Gunstone, R. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of
metacognition. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science.
London: Falmer.
Gunstone, R. (1996). International developments in improving the science and mathematics
eurriculmrr--Understanding and supporting changes in the classroom. In C. Stoll, L. de Feiter,
H. Vonk, & J. van den Akker (Eds.). Improving science and mathematics teaching in Southern
Africa: Effectiveness of interventions (pp. 60-68). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: VU
University Press.
Guskey, T. tL (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational
Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992) Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part
2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60, 637-644.
544
GUNSTONE, MCKITTR/CK AND MULHALL
Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (1998). Small groups and shared construction. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H.
Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching sciencefor understanding: A human constructivist
view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mills, D., McK.ittrick, B., Mulhall, P., & Feteris, S. (1999). CUP---cooperative learning that
works. Physics Education, 34(1), 1-5.
Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, K. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and
problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-143.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of
motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change.
Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
Tao, P-K_ L. (1996). Conceptual change, collaboration and the computer: Learning introductory
mechanics. Unpublished PhD thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Tao, P-K. L., & Gunstone, R. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning
at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 39-57.
Tobin, K., McKobbie, C., & Anderson, D. (1997). Dialectical constraints to the discursive
practices of a high school physics community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34,
491-507.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, R. T. (1992). Raising the quality of learning: Principles from long-term action research. In
F. K. Oser, A. Dick, & J-L. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching (pp. 50-65). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Appendix 1
Interview Schedules for Development Teachers
A. Pre SCUP Use
Why did you decide to get involved in the project?
(a) What sort of teaching strategies do you use in y o ~ physics classes?
Co) Why do you use these strategies?
(c) What are the strengths of these strategies?
(d) What are the weaknesses of these strategies?
(e) [unless covered under Qn 1 above]
(i) Have you ever used small group discussion in your physics classes? In
other classes?
(ii) What do you think the purpose of small group discussions in this project?
(iii) What value do you think small group discussions will have?
Are these strategies you use specific to physics classes or can you use them in other teaching
contexts?
If you have a Year I I physics student who asks you for advise on how to learn physics, what
would you tell him/her?
Imagine that a colleague who teaches history asks you "What is physics and how is it
different to other parts of science?" What would you tell them? Why?
B. Post SCUP Use
I.
(a) How would you describe the stages of one of your SCUP sessions?
STRUCTURED COGNITIVE DISCUSSIONS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
545
CO)What purposes did you have for each stage?
(c) Where you pleased with how your students reacted to the SCUP lessons?
(d) Were you surprised with how the students reacted to the SCUP lessons?
(a) What was the most difficult thing about teaching a SCLrP lesson?
CO)What were other difficulties?
(a) What was the most enjoyable thing about teaching a SCUP lesson?
Co) What were other things you enjoyed?
(a) After SCUP what do you think is the value of small group discussion in a physics class?
Co) Were the SCUP discussions different (in purpose, in approach) from those you used
before in physics?
[if affect not mentioned] Do you think students liked the SCUP lessons?
[if cognitive learning not mentioned] Do you think students learned from the SCUP
lessons?
Has your involvement in SCUP changed anything about how you teach physics?
Could the SCUP approach be used in other areas of physics?
[if yes] What would be good content areas to use this approach?
(a) Would you use the SCUP approach again?
CO)How would you change it?
(a) How would you tell someone not involved in SCUP about using the SCUP
approach?
Co) What attribute would they need to have for you to advise them to get involved?
How would you advise a Year 11 student asking you how to learn physics?
Appendix 2
Interview Schedules for Students
A. Pre SCUP Use
Introduction: We are currently doing some research into how students learn physics at Year 11
level. So we'd like to get an idea of how you and other Year 11 students find physics
and how you go about learning it.
W h y did you choose to do physics thisyear?
Are you enjoying it?
H o w do you go about learningphysics?
Are you happy with what you do to learn physics?
[ifno] W h y not? What else do you think you should bc doing?
What do you do ifyou find a physics idea you can'tunderstand?
What would your ideal physics teacher do to help you learn?
[ifno response] Can talkingabout physics help you to learn?
Ifa Year I0 student asked you how to go about learning physics, what would you tellthem?
Ifthe same Year I0 studentasked you about how to go about learningbiology (or chemistry),what
would you say?
[ifdifferentto 6, explore why]
[ifsarne as 6, ask ifthat isbecause physics is the same as other parts of science]
546
GUNSTONE, MCKITTRICK AND MULHALL
B. Post SCUP Use
Inlroduction: I want to ask you about how you found the discussion sessions in motion earlier this
term.
How would you describe the way the discussion sessions were run?
How did this differ from other classes in physics you have had this year?
Why doyou think the sessions were run in this way?
(a) Why do you think the sessions had you working in triplets then in whole class
discussion?
(b) What links were there between these sessions and other physics classes?
(c) Were these sessions different from other physics sessions? If so, how?
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Do you think these sessions helped your physics learning or didn't make much difference to
your physics learning? Tell me why you think that (with specific examples being pushed for)
[For those who felt learning had been helped
(a) Are there any approaches used in these sessions that you have used or will use in
your studying this year?
(b) Would you like to have sessions of this type in other parts of your physics course.
If so, why; if not, why not?
(c) Is there any way that the sessions could be changed to make them more helpful?]
[For those who felt their learning had not been helped
(d) In what way or ways were the sessions unhelpful?
(e) How would you change the sessions to make them better?]
Was there any use in being able to discuss physics with other students during these sessions?
For you, were the sessions too short, too long or about right? Why?
[if not already obvious] Did you enjoy thesesessions? Why? Why not?
Is there anything else you would like to say about the sessions that we haven't already talked
about?