Sensemaking and scientific modeling: Intertwined processes analyzed in the context of physics problem solving

Researchers in physics education have advocated both for including modeling in science classrooms as well as promoting student engagement with sensemaking. These two processes facilitate the generation of new knowledge by connecting to one’s existing ideas. Despite being two distinct processes, modeling is often described as sensemaking of the physical world. In the current work, we provide an explicit, framework-based analysis of the intertwining between modeling and sensemaking by analyzing think-aloud interviews of two students solving a physics problem. While one student completes the task, the other abandons their approach. The case studies reveal that particular aspects of modeling and sensemaking processes co-occur. For instance, the priming on the ‘given’ information from the problem statement constituted the students’ engagement with their mental models, and their attempts to resolve inconsistencies in understanding involved the use of external representations. We find that barriers experienced in modeling can inhibit students’ sustained sensemaking. These results suggest ways for future research to support students’ sensemaking in physics by promoting modeling practices.

Figure 1

Modified version of Galileo’s diagram relating the distances covered by a uniformly accelerating object starting from rest, to an object moving with constant speed. The length of vertical lines represent the time taken by the two objects to traverse a constant distance. The horizontal lines correspond to the increasing speeds. Refer to [19, 20, 79] for the original diagram.

Figure 2

Statement of the Gravitron problem.

Figure 3

A force diagram representing the gravity, friction, and normal force acting on a rider in the drum of a Gravitron amusement park ride (see task statement in Fig. 2). The dot in the diagram represents the rider’s center of mass.

Figure 4

Alignment of Matthew’s (a) and Ken’s (b) problem-solving moves with the stages of the sensemaking epistemic game and the features of modeling across the three episodes. In both the figures, the top rows describe the participants’ problem-solving moves in their attempt at the Gravitron task, the middle row highlights their construction of a mental model and their engagement with the DFDIF components of modeling, and the bottom row identifies the stages of the sensemaking epistemic game evidenced during their attempts.

Figure 5

Matthew’s written solution to the Gravitron problem.

Figure 6

Ken’s attempt to solve the Gravitron problem.