A handout that went along with this session is available here.
We started by establishing that student behaviors during recitation sessions can be grouped into four broad categories and that these behaviors can be associated with the way students frame the activity on which they are working. This lead to much discussion regarding the following unresolved questions:
1. Is their a natural group size for group activities? Does this size depend on the way students frame the activity?
2. Is it true that the Discussion Frame is more successful for learning physics for all students?
3. If different students are more successful in different frames is part of the instructor’s job to group students according to their frames and working styles?
4. How much thought should be given to the layout of the room in terms of allowing students in one group to discuss with another group or for students to move from one group to another so that they work with students using the same framing?
5. How can the instructor’s grading policies encourage students to frame activities the way the instructor intends them to be framed? (Elby addresses this some) If different students are successful in different frames how should this affect grading policy?
6. What is the purpose of lab sessions? Is there a desired frame for lab sessions?
7. Does framing most activities as Discussions benefit conceptual understanding while at the same time harming students’ ability to solve problems analytically?
Question 7 is partially addressed by the following references:
Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity, Part II: Design of instructional strategies
Am. J. Phys. 60 1003 (1992).
Comparing problem solving performance of physics students in inquiry-based and traditional introductory physics courses
Am. J. Phys. 62 627 (1994).
