The Study



This chapter argues why critical realism was used a philosophical framework that guided this study in seeking answers to the research questions: 1. How do A-level physics students in an inner London comprehensive school approach physics problem solving? and 2. What generative mechanisms are triggered by the explicit teaching of strategies for physics problem solving and how do these generative mechanisms compare with the existing approach? The intervention is justified from a critical realist framework as one targeted at providing a context for the triggering of those generative mechanisms that facilitate successful problem solving in physics. In addition, the implications and the ethical issues of action research are addressed.


Physics Problem solving Critical realism 


  1. Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. Hassocks: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, P. (2010). Teacher research and university institutional review boards. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31, 276–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Docktor, J. L. (2009). Development and validation of a physics problem-solving assessment rubric. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy,
  7. Docktor, J., & Heller, K. (2009). Assessment of student problem solving processes. Proceedings of the 2009 Physics Education Research Conference.Google Scholar
  8. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Flick, U. (1998). An Introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. D. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. California: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Heller, K., & Heller, P. (2000). The competent problem solver for introductory physics: Calculus. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  13. Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 637─644.Google Scholar
  14. Jausovec, N. (1994). Metacognition in creative problem solving. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding and creativity. New Jersey: Able Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  15. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Meijer, J., Veenman, M., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Mertler, C. A. (2012). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Perry, N. E., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Learning from learning kits: Study traces of students self-regulated engagements with computerized content. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reif, F. (2008). Applying cognitive science to education: Thinking and learning in scientific and other complex domains. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Richardson, J. T. E. (2004). Methodological issues in questionnaire-based research on student learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process (3rd ed.). California: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Sayer, R. A. (2006). Realism as a basis for knowing the world. Philosophies, people and practices (pp. 98–106). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Shi, L. (2006). Students as research participants or as learners? Journal of Academic Ethics, 4, 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simon, H., & Newell, A. (1972). Human problem solving. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2012). Research methods in the social sciences. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem-solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Learning to self-monitor and self-regulate. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 197–218). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Yeap, B. H. (1998). Metacognition in mathematical problem solving. Adelaide: Australian Association for Research. in Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SuffolkSuffolkUK
  2. 2.Institute of EducationUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations