What is this thing called sensemaking? A theoretical framework for how physics students resolve inconsistencies in understanding By Tor Ole B. Odden A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Curriculum and Instruction) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 2017 Date of final oral examination: 12/12/2017 The dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee: Rosemary Russ, Assistant Professor, Curriculum and Instruction Leema Berland, Associate Professor, Curriculum and Instruction John Rudolph, Professor, Curriculum and Instruction Peter Timbie, Professor, Physics James Reardon, Academic Staff, Physics © Copyright by Tor Ole B. Odden 2017 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There’s an old Viking saying that roughly translates to Friendship is built when people can share their ideas with one another. Nothing is worse than fickleness; friends don’t just tell friends what they want to hear (Håvamål, verse 124)1 There were many people who helped me on this journey, with whom I shared ideas, exchanged critical feedback, and built friendships. The Sensemakers research group, who gave me a chance to share my budding ideas and nurtured some of the seeds that eventually grew into these dissertation chapters. Leema and John, who were always ready to meet with me to lend me their expertise, and who pushed me to become a better researcher and writer. Peter, Susan, Ben, Andrew, and all the folks in the REACH project who gave me fertile ground and ample opportunity to develop and apply these ideas, as well as a source of funding when I needed it most. Jim, who provided many, many good conversations about physics education. Your door was always open for those times when I needed some fresh inspiration to stir up my brain. Rosemary, who brought me into the physics education research community and helped me to develop as a teacher, a writer, and a researcher. You were never afraid to tear apart flimsy ideas, but were always ready to help me build them back up afterwards. I could honestly not have asked for a better advisor than you. My parents, who instilled in me the belief that I could accomplish something like this, and who taught me that form follows function (the central tenet of educational research, as far as I’m concerned). The electric fences around your farm may have been the single most critical factor in inspiring me to study physics. And Jacki, who stuck by me for all of these years: supportive, critical but not criticizing, working tirelessly to make a life for us in Madison. To say that this wouldn’t have been possible without you would be an understatement. I am thankful for you all. 1 Or, in the original Icelandic: Sifjum er þá blandat hverr er segja ræðr einum allan hug alt er betra en sé brigðum at vera era sá vinr öðrum, er vilt eitt segir ii ABSTRACT Students often emerge from introductory physics courses with a feeling that the concepts they have learned do not make sense. In recent years, science education researchers have begun to attend to this type of problem by studying the ways in which students make sense of science concepts. However, although many researchers agree intuitively on what sensemaking looks like, the literature on sensemaking is both theoretically fragmented and provides few guidelines for how to encourage and support the process. In this dissertation, I address this challenge by proposing a theoretical framework to describe students’ sensemaking processes. I base this framework both on the science education research literature on sensemaking and on a series of video-recorded cognitive, clinical interviews conducted with introductory physics students enrolled in a course on electricity and magnetism. Using the science education research literature on sensemaking as well as a cognitivist, dynamic network model of mind as a theoretical lens, I first propose a coherent definition of sensemaking. Then, using this definition I analyze the sensemaking processes of these introductory physics students during episodes when they work to articulate and resolve gaps or inconsistencies in their understanding. Based on the students’ framing, gestures, and dialogue I argue that the process of sensemaking unfolds in a distinct way, which we can describe as an epistemic game in which students first build a framework of knowledge, then identify a gap or inconsistency in that framework, iteratively build an explanation to resolve the gap or inconsistency, and (sometimes) successfully resolve it. I further argue that their entry into the sensemaking frame is facilitated by a specific question, which is in turn motivated by a gap or inconsistency in knowledge that I call the vexation point. I also investigate the results of sensemaking, arguing that students may use the technique of conceptual blending to both “defragment" their knowledge and resolve their vexation points. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ ii Chapter 1: What is this Thing Called Sensemaking? ..........................................1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 MOTIVATION FOR A COHERENT THEORY OF SENSEMAKING ................................... 4 DESCRIBING SENSEMAKING ............................................................................................... 6 Dewey, “How we Think" (1910) ............................................................................................ 6 Hutchison and Hammer (2010) ............................................................................................... 8 A Proposed Definition of Sensemaking ................................................................................ 11 APPROACHES TO DESCRIBING SENSEMAKING IN SCIENCE EDUCATION ............ 13 Sensemaking as a Stance Towards Science Learning ........................................................... 13 Sensemaking as a Cognitive Process .................................................................................... 17 Sensemaking as a Discourse Practice ................................................................................... 21 Overlap Between the Strands ................................................................................................ 24 DISCUSSION: DIFFERENTIATING SENSEMAKING FROM OTHER “GOOD” THINGS TO DO WHEN LEARNING SCIENCE .................................................................................. 26 Sensemaking and Thinking ................................................................................................... 26 Sensemaking and Learning ................................................................................................... 27 Sensemaking and Explaining ................................................................................................ 27 Sensemaking and Argumentation ......................................................................................... 28 Sensemaking and Modeling .................................................................................................. 29 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 30 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 2: The Sensemaking Game ....................................................................41 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 41 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................ 42 What is Sensemaking? .......................................................................................................... 42 Affordances and drawbacks of these descriptions ................................................................ 45 Epistemic Games and Sensemaking ..................................................................................... 46 METHODS: CAPTURING AND ANALYZING SENSEMAKING ...................................... 51 Participants and Data Collection ........................................................................................... 51 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 54 A CASE OF SENSEMAKING ................................................................................................. 58 Setting up for sensemaking ................................................................................................... 58 Transition into sensemaking ................................................................................................. 60 Playing the Sensemaking Game ............................................................................................ 63 Resolving the inconsistency .................................................................................................. 66 THE SENSEMAKING EPISTEMIC GAME DESCRIBED ................................................... 68 Trajectory of the Sensemaking Epistemic Game .................................................................. 68 iv Parameters of the Sensemaking Epistemic