- 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

Importance of math prerequisites for performance in introductory physics

Eric W. Burkholder, Gabriel Murillo-Gonzalez, and Carl Wieman

  • Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010108 – Published 17 February, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010108

Abstract

Previous work has looked at the relationship between high school preparation and student performance in calculus-based introductory mechanics (physics 1) courses. Here, we extend that work to look at performance in introductory calculus-based electricity and magnetism (physics 2), and we look at the significance of what college math courses have been completed in addition to high school preparation. Using multiple linear regression including these measures of prior preparation, we examine the correlation between taking various math courses in college and final exam scores in introductory physics courses at a highly selective west coast university. In physics 1, we find that prior college math coursework is not a predictor of physics 1 final exam score. In physics 2, we find that having taken a course in vector calculus is a strong predictor of physics 2 exam performance (effect size=0.58 standard deviations, p<0.001), even when controlling for students’ physics 1 final exam scores (effect size=0.27 standard deviations, p<0.01). These effect sizes are similar in magnitude to other measures of students’ incoming physics and math preparation. Qualitative analysis of student exams from physics 2 reveal that this “vector calculus gap” is due to differences in reasoning about vectors and geometry and some differences in conceptual understanding of circuits, as vector calculus itself is not required to perform well on the final exam. That is, basic reasoning related to vector calculus appears to be important, but the formalisms of vector calculus do not.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (36)

  1. L. E. Kost, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010101 (2009).
  2. L. E. Kost-Smith, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: The incremental effects of a smog of bias, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020112 (2010).
  3. Z. Hazari, R. H. Tai, and P. M. Sadler, Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors, Sci. Educ. 91, 847 (2007).
  4. R. H. Tai and P. M. Sadler, Gender differences in introductory undergraduate physics performance: University physics versus college physics in the USA, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23, 1017 (2001).
  5. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020121 (2013).
  6. R. Henderson, J. Stewart, and A. Traxler, Partitioning the gender gap in physics conceptual inventories: Force Concept Inventory, Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, and conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010131 (2019).
  7. R. Henderson, G. Stewart, J. Stewart, L. Michaluk, and A. Traxler, Exploring the gender gap in the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020114 (2017).
  8. V. P. Coletta, J. A. Phillips, and J. Steinert, FCI normalized gain, scientific reasoning ability, thinking in physics, and gender effects, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 23 (2012).
  9. M. Lorenzo, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 (2006).
  10. S. Salehi, E. W. Burkholder, G. P. Lepage, S. J. Pollock, and C. E. Wieman, Demographic gaps or preparation gaps?: The large impact of incoming preparation on performance of students in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020114 (2019).
  11. Talking about Leaving Revisited: Persistence, Relocation and Loss in Undergraduate STEM Education, edited by E. Seymour and A-B. Hunter (Springer, New York, 2020).
  12. S. D. Willoughby and A. Metz, Exploring gender differences with different gain calculations in astronomy and biology, Am. J. Phys. 77, 651 (2009).
  13. J. Day, J. B. Stang, N. G. Holmes, D. Kumar, and D. A. Bonn, Gender gaps and gendered action in a first-year physics laboratory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020104 (2016).
  14. J. M. Nissen, R. M. Talbot, A. N. Thompson, and B. Van Dusen, Comparison of normalized gain and Cohen’s d for analyzing gains on concept inventories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010115 (2018).
  15. V. P. Coletta and J. J. Steinert, Why normalized gain should continue to be used in analyzing preinstruction and postinstruction scores on concept inventories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010108 (2020).
  16. C. Zabriskie, J. Yang, S. DeVore, and J. Stewart, Using machine learning to predict physics course outcomes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020120 (2019).
  17. B. Van Dusen and J. Nissen, Equity in college physics student learning: A critical quantitative intersectionality investigation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 57, 33 (2020).
  18. E. Burkholder, C. Walsh, and N. G. Holmes, Examination of quantitative methods for analyzing data from concept inventories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010141 (2020).
  19. B. P. Schermerhorn and J. R. Thompson, Physics students’ construction of differential length vectors in an unconventional spherical coordinate system, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010111 (2019).
  20. B. P. Schermerhorn and J. R. Thompson, Physics students’ construction and checking of differential volume elements in an unconventional spherical coordinate system, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010112 (2019).
  21. L. Bollen. P. van Kampen, C. Baily, M. Kelly, and M. De Cock, Student difficulties regarding symbolic and graphical representations of vector fields, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020109 (2017).
  22. L. Bollen, P. van Kampen, C. Baily, and M. De Cock, Qualitative investigation into students’ use of divergence and curl in electromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020134 (2016).
  23. L. Bollen, P. van Kampen, and M. De Cock, Students’ difficulties with vector calculus in electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020129 (2015).
  24. C. S. Wallace and S. V. Chasteen, Upper-division students’ difficulties with Ampere’s law, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020115 (2010).
  25. R. E. Pepper, S. V. Chasteen, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, Observations on student difficulties with mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010111 (2012).
  26. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
  27. H. D. Young and R. A. Freedman, University Physics with Modern Physics, 14th ed. (Pearson Boston, 2015).
  28. R. D. Knight, Physics for Scientist and Engineers: A Strategic Approach with Modern Physics (Pearson Boston, 2017).
  29. 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).
  30. J. M. Nissen, R. M. Talbot, A. N. Thompson, and B. Van Dusen, Comparison of normalized gain and Cohen’s d for analyzing gains on concept inventories, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010115 (2018).
  31. R. Thornton and D. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
  32. D. Maloney, T. O’Kuma, C. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001).
  33. J. Nissen, R. Donatello, and B. Van Dusen, Missing data and bias in physics education research: A case for using multiple imputation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020106 (2019).
  34. E. Theobald, Students are rarely independent: When, why, and how to use random effects in discipline-based education research, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 17, rm2 (2018).
  35. M. H. Kutner, C. J. Nachtsheim, and J. Neter, Applied Linear Regression Models, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, 2004).
  36. C. Stanich, M. A. Pelch, E. J. Theobold, and S. Freeman, A new approach to supplementary instruction narrows achievement and affect gaps for underrepresented minorities, first-generation students, and women, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 19, 846 (2018).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010108– Published 17 February, 2021
  • Received 10 November 2020
  • Accepted 1 February 2021
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