- 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
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Thematic analysis of student perceptions of resources and demands experienced in introductory physics

Avital Pelakh1,2, Melanie L. Good3, Eric Kuo4, Michael Tumminia2,5, Nabila Jamal-Orozco1,2, Amy Adelman1,2, Jordann Antoan1,2, Brian Galla2,5, and Timothy J. Nokes-Malach1,2

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010123 – Published 25 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/428l-3w5x

Abstract

The current work aims to better understand student course experiences for those who reported negative perceptions in introductory physics. We conducted semistructured interviews with 24 students who reported negative perceptions of their class on a screening survey. Participants were asked to share general reflections on challenges and successes they experienced, as well as their reflections on specific aspects of the course (e.g., experiences with instructors and peers). Interview transcripts were then coded to identify the types of experiences students reported, whether they were experienced as positive or negative, as well as the themes and features associated with those experiences. Experiences with the classroom, course structure, instructors, and exams were most frequently reported as negative. Experiences with peers, help-seeking, course curriculum, and specific learning activities were the most positive, although only experiences with peers had more positive than negative reports. We then used a resources vs demands framework [M. D. Seery, The biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat: Using the heart to measure the mind, Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass. 7, 637 (2013)] to interpret the common instructional, cognitive, and motivational themes and features reported across multiple contexts. We discuss the implications of the results for theory and practice.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (85)

  1. E. M. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, T. Nokes-Malach, C. Schunn, and C. Singh, Female students with A’s have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C’s in introductory courses: A cause for alarm?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020123 (2018).
  2. E. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, C. Schunn, T. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, A longitudinal analysis of students’ motivational characteristics in introductory physics courses: Gender differences, Can. J. Phys. 96, 391 (2018).
  3. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Damage caused by women’s lower self-efficacy on physics learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010118 (2020).
  4. Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes-Malach, and C. Singh, Gendered patterns in the construction of physics identity from motivational factors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020119 (2019).
  5. Z. Hazari, E. Brewe, R. M. Goertzen, and T. Hodapp, The importance of high school physics teachers for female students’ physics identity and persistence, Phys. Teach. 55, 96 (2017).
  6. K. R. Binning, N. Kaufmann, E. M. McGreevy, O. Fotuhi, S. Chen, E. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, L. Limeri, L. Betancur, and C. Singh, Changing social contexts to foster equity in college science courses: An ecological-belonging intervention, Psychol. Sci. 31, 1059 (2020).
  7. A. Malespina and C. Singh, Gender differences in test anxiety and self-efficacy: Why instructors should emphasize low-stakes formative assessments in physics courses, Eur. J. Phys. 43, 035701 (2022).
  8. Y. Li and C. Singh, Do female and male students’ physics motivational beliefs change in a two-semester introductory physics course sequence?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010142 (2022).
  9. R. Dou, E. Brewe, G. Potvin, J. P. Zwolak, and Z. Hazari, Understanding the development of interest and self-efficacy in active-learning undergraduate physics courses, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 40, 1587 (2018).
  10. S. J. Leslie, A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, and E. Freeland, Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines, Science 347, 262 (2015).
  11. A. Maries, N. I. Karim, and C. Singh, Is agreeing with a gender stereotype correlated with the performance of female students in introductory physics?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020119 (2018).
  12. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Not feeling recognized as a physics person by instructors and teaching assistants is correlated with female students’ lower grades, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010138 (2022).
  13. K. M. Whitcomb and C. Singh, Underrepresented minority students receive lower grades and have higher rates of attrition across STEM disciplines: A sign of inequity?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 43, 1054 (2021).
  14. J. Blascovich and J. Tomaka, The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1996), Vol. 28, pp. 1–51.
  15. T. J. Weston, E. Seymour, A. K. Koch, and B. M. Drake, Weed-out classes and their consequences, Talking about Leaving Revisited (Springer, Cham, 2019), p. 197.
  16. K. M. Whitcomb, D. Doucette, and C. Singh, Comparing major declaration, attrition, migration, and completion in physics with other STEM disciplines: A sign of inequitable physics culture?, J. Higher Educ. Theory Pract. 22, 63 (2022).
  17. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  18. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001).
  19. L. Deslauriers, E. Schelew, and C. Wieman, Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class, Science 332, 862 (2011).
  20. S. Cwik and C. Singh, How perception of learning environment predicts male and female students’ grades and motivational outcomes in algebra-based introductory physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020143 (2021).
  21. V. Sawtelle, E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer, Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and retention in introductory physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 1096 (2012).
  22. A. Y. Kim, V. Ton, and D. Vega, Changing person-environment fit among underrepresented undergraduate physics students: Successes from a small department, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010118 (2024).
  23. J. L. Rosenberg, N. Holincheck, K. Fernández, B. W. Dreyfus, F. Wardere, S. Stehle, and T. N. Butler, Role of mentorship, career conceptualization, and leadership in developing women’s physics identity and belonging, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010114 (2024).
  24. S. L. Chew and W. J. Cerbin, The cognitive challenges of effective teaching, J. Econ. Educ. 52, 17 (2021).
  25. A. Malespina and C. Singh, Gender differences in grades versus grade penalties: Are grade anomalies more detrimental for female physics majors?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020127 (2022).
  26. M. D. Seery, The biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat: Using the heart to measure the mind, Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass. 7, 637 (2013).
  27. J. Blascovich, Challenge and threat, in Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation, edited by A. J. Elliot (Psychology Press, New York, NY, 2008), pp. 431–445.
  28. J. P. Jamieson, E. J. Hangen, H. Y. Lee, and D. S. Yeager, Capitalizing on appraisal processes to improve affective responses to social stress, Emotion Rev. 10, 30 (2018).
  29. J. P. Jamieson, B. J. Peters, E. J. Greenwood, and A. J. Altose, Reappraising stress arousal improves performance and reduces evaluation anxiety in classroom exam situations, Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 7, 579 (2016).
  30. M. D. Seery, M. Weisbuch, M. A. Hetenyi, and J. Blascovich, Cardiovascular measures independently predict performance in a university course, Psychophysiology 47, 535 (2010).
  31. N. A. John-Henderson, M. L. Rheinschmidt, and R. Mendoza-Denton, Cytokine responses and math performance: The role of stereotype threat and anxiety reappraisals, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 56, 203 (2015).
  32. M. D. Seery, Challenge or threat? Cardiovascular indexes of resilience and vulnerability to potential stress in humans, Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 35, 1603 (2011).
  33. A. Chalabaev, B. Major, F. Cury, and P. Sarrazin, Physiological markers of challenge and threat mediate the effects of performance-based goals on performance, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45, 991 (2009).
  34. R. Fonseca, J. Blascovich, and T. Garcia-Marques, Challenge and threat motivation: Effects on superficial and elaborative information processing, Front. Psychol. 5 (2014).
  35. M. J. Turner, M. V. Jones, D. Sheffield, and S. L. Cross, Cardiovascular indices of challenge and threat states predict competitive performance, Int. J. Psychophysiol. 86, 48 (2012).
  36. A. Hase, J. O’Brien, L. J. Moore, and P. Freeman, The relationship between challenge and threat states and performance: A systematic review, Sport Exerc. Perform. Psychol. 8, 123 (2019).
  37. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, Resources, framing, and transfer, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2005), pp. 89–119.
  38. D. J. Webb and C. A. Paul, Attributing equity gaps to course structure in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020126 (2023).
  39. https://osf.io/723rd.
  40. G. M. Walton and G. L. Cohen, A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 82 (2007).
  41. D. S. May, Mathematics Self-Efficacy and Anxiety Questionnaire (University of Georgia, 2009).
  42. C. S. Dweck, C. Chiu, and Y. Hong, Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives, Psychol. Inquiry 6, 267 (1995).
  43. A. Wigfield, Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 6, 49 (1994).
  44. M. T. H. Chi, Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide, J. Learn. Sci. 6, 271 (1997).
  45. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  46. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, How physics instruction impacts students’ beliefs about learning physics: A meta-analysis of 24 studies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010115 (2015).
  47. J. Von Korff, B. Archibeque, K. A. Gomez, T. Heckendorf, S. B. McKagan, E. C. Sayre, E. W. Schenk, C. Shepherd, and L. Sorell, Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k-student study, Am. J. Phys. 84, 969 (2016).
  48. A. M. Martella, M. C. Lovett, and L. Ramsay, Implementing active learning: A critical examination of sources of variation in active learning college science courses, J. Excell. Coll. Teach. 32, 67 (2021), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED662966.
  49. C. G. West, Lessons for instructor–student interactions in physics from the world of improvisational theater, Phys. Teach. 61, 246 (2023).
  50. E. A. West, C. A. Paul, D. Webb, and W. H. Potter, Variation of instructor-student interactions in an introductory interactive physics course, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010109 (2013).
  51. J. W. Morphew and J. P. Mestre, Exploring the connection between problem solving and conceptual understanding in physics, Revi Enseñanza Fís. 30, 75 (2018).
  52. M. Zhang, J. Morphew, and T. Stelzer, Impact of more realistic and earlier practice exams on student metacognition, study behaviors, and exam performance, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010130 (2023).
  53. C. Henderson and K. A. Harper, Quiz corrections: Improving learning by encouraging students to reflect on their mistakes, Phys. Teach. 47, 581 (2009).
  54. S. A. Karabenick, Strategic Help Seeking, 1st ed. (Routledge, Mahwah, NJ, 2012).
  55. S. A. Karabenick and E. N. Gonida, Academic help seeking as a self-regulated learning strategy: Current issues, future directions, in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, 2nd ed., edited by D. H. Schunk and J. A. Greene (Routledge, New York, 2017), pp. 421–433.
  56. C. J. Fong, C. Gonzales, C. Hill-Troglin Cox, and H. B. Shinn, Academic help-seeking and achievement of postsecondary students: A meta-analytic investigation, J. Educ. Psychol. 115, 1 (2023).
  57. T. J. Nokes-Malach, C. D. Zepeda, J. E. Richey, and S. Gadgil, Collaborative learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2019), pp. 500–527.
  58. M. Micari and P. Pazos, Beyond grades: Improving college students’ social-cognitive outcomes in STEM through a collaborative learning environment, Learn. Environ. Res. 24, 123 (2021).
  59. H. Jeong, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, and K. Jo, Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014, Educ. Res. Rev. 28, 100284 (2019).
  60. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cogn. Sci. 12, 257 (1988).
  61. T. de Jong, Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought, Instr. Sci. 38, 105 (2010).
  62. J. Sweller, J. J. G. van Merrienboer, and F. G. W. C. Paas, Cognitive architecture and instructional design, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10, 251 (1998).
  63. J. Sweller, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, and F. Paas, Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 31, 261 (2019).
  64. J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory, in Psychology of Learning and Motivation—Advances in Research and Theory (Academic Press, New York, 2011), Vol. 55, pp. 37–76.
  65. J. Wittwer and A. Renkl, How effective are instructional explanations in example-based learning? A meta-analytic review, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 393 (2010).
  66. D. L. Schwartz and J. D. Bransford, A time for telling, Cognit. Instr. 16, 475 (1998).
  67. T. de Jong et al., Let’s talk evidence—The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction, Educ. Res. Rev. 39, 100536 (2023).
  68. K. Bisra, Q. Liu, J. C. Nesbit, F. Salimi, and P. H. Winne, Inducing self-explanation: A meta-analysis, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 30, 703 (2018).
  69. J. E. Richey and T. J. Nokes-Malach, Comparing four instructional techniques for promoting robust knowledge, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 181 (2015).
  70. S. Hidi and K. Ann Renninger, The four-phase model of interest development, Educ. Psychol. 41, 111 (2006).
  71. C. H. Crouch, P. Wisittanawat, M. Cai, and K. A. Renninger, Life science students’ attitudes, interest, and performance in introductory physics for life sciences: An exploratory study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010111 (2018).
  72. P. A. Cohen, J. A. Kulik, and C.-L. C. Kulik, Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings, Am. Educ. Res. J. 19, 237 (1982).
  73. S. Steenbergen-Hu and H. Cooper, A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning, J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 331 (2014).
  74. K. VanLehn, The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems, Educ. Psychol. 46, 197 (2011).
  75. R. D. Roscoe and M. T. H. Chi, Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions, Rev. Educ. Res., 77, 534 (2007).
  76. F. F. B. Pals, J. L. J. Tolboom, and C. J. M. Suhre, Formative assessment strategies by monitoring science students’ problem-solving skill development, J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ. 23, 644 (2023).
  77. D. C. Rubin and A. E. Wenzel, One hundred years of forgetting: A quantitative description of retention, Psychol. Rev. 103, 734 (1996).
  78. D. R. Godden and A. D. Baddeley, Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater, Br. J. Psychol. 66, 325 (1975).
  79. E. F. Loftus and J. C. Palmer, Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory, J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 13, 585 (1974).
  80. H. L. Roediger, M. L. Meade, and E. T. Bergman, Social contagion of memory, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 8, 365 (2001).
  81. K. S. LaBar and R. Cabeza, Cognitive neuroscience of emotional memory, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7, 54 (2006).
  82. J. J. Walczyk and L. L. Ramsey, Use of learner-centered instruction in college science and mathematics classrooms, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 566 (2003).
  83. N. Lasry, E. Charles, and C. Whittaker, When teacher-centered instructors are assigned to student-centered classrooms, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010116 (2014).
  84. D. S. Yeager et al., Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the transition to high school, J. Educ. Psychol. 108, 374 (2016).
  85. A. J. Elliot and C. S. Hulleman, Achievement goals, in Handbook of Competence and Motivation: Theory and Application, edited by A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, and D. S. Yeager (Guilford Press, New York, NY, 2017), pp. 43–60.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010123– Published 25 February, 2026
  • Received 12 February 2025
  • Accepted 5 February 2026
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