- 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 3.0 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

Impact of a short intervention on novices’ categorization criteria

Jennifer L. Docktor1, José P. Mestre1,2,3,*, and Brian H. Ross1,4

  • 1Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois, 405 North Mathews Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, University of Illinois, 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA
  • 3Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois, 1310 South 6th Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA
  • 4Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, 603 East Daniel Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820, USA

  • *mestre@illinois.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020102 – Published 25 July, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020102

Abstract

Research on physics problem categorization has established that proficient problem solvers are able to group together physics problems that would be solved by similar principles and use conceptual approaches when solving problems, whereas weak solvers rely more heavily upon surface features (objects, contexts, and quantities provided) to identify specific equations that match to the problem situation. This study explores the degree to which novices are able to shift their categorization strategies toward one that is more principle based as a result of a brief, computer-based intervention designed to highlight the role of principles as categorization criteria. Students finishing an introductory algebra-based mechanics course were presented with a sequence of problem pairs, asked to judge whether each pair would be solved similarly, and provided with feedback. Students in one condition received feedback that was very sparse and only indicated correctness, whereas students in a second condition viewed elaborate feedback that linked problem features to the appropriate concepts and principles to solve each problem. We found an increased use of physics principles in the reasoning provided by students who received the elaborate feedback whereas students who did not view this elaboration primarily cited quantities in the problem statement. Although these results suggest it is possible to increase students’ attention to principles when approaching problems, poor performance on the items indicates that considering the appropriateness of principles remains a difficult task for beginning physics students.

View figure in article

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (40)

  1. J. Larkin and F. Reif, Understanding and teaching problem solving in physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 191 (1979).
  2. A. Van Heuvelen, Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 59, 891 (1991).
  3. E. Yerushalmi, C. Henderson, K. Heller, P. Heller, and V. Kuo, Physics faculty beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving. I. Mapping the common core, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020109 (2007).
  4. J. H. Larkin, in Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983), p. 75.
  5. 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).
  6. L. N. Walsh, R. G. Howard, and B. Bowe, Phenomenographic study of students’ problem solving approaches in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020108 (2007).
  7. D. L. Medin, Concepts and conceptual structure, Am. Psychol. 44, 1469 (1989).
  8. D. L. Medin and L. J. Rips, in The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking in Reasoning, edited by K. J. Holyoak and R. G. Morrison (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005), p. 37.
  9. B.-S. Eylon and F. Reif, Effects of knowledge organization on task performance, Cogn. Instr. 1, 5 (1984).
  10. F. Reif, Teaching problem solving—A scientific approach, Phys. Teach. 19, 310 (1981).
  11. F. Reif and J. Heller, Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics, Educ. Psychol. 17, 102 (1982).
  12. R. Zajchowski and J. Martin, Differences in the problem solving of stronger and weaker novices in physics: Knowledge, strategies, or knowledge structure, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 459 (1993).
  13. M. T. H. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cogn. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).
  14. A. H. Schoenfeld and D. J. Herrmann, Problem perception and knowledge structure in expert novice mathematical problem solvers, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 8, 484 (1982).
  15. T. de Jong and M. G. M. Ferguson-Hessler, Cognitive structures of good and poor novice problem solvers in physics, J. Educ. Psychol. 78, 279 (1986).
  16. E. Savelsbergh, T. de Jong, and M. G. M. Ferguson-Hessler, Choosing the right solution approach: The crucial role of situational knowledge in electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010103 (2011).
  17. J. L. Snyder, An investigation of the knowledge structures of experts, intermediates, and novices in physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 979 (2000).
  18. G. H. Veldhuis, Differences in the categorization of physics problems by novices and experts, Ph.D. thesis, Iowa State University, 1986.
  19. G. H. Veldhuis, The use of cluster analysis in categorization of physics problems, Sci. Educ. 74, 105 (1990).
  20. S.-Y. Lin and C. Singh, Categorization of quantum mechanics problems by professors and students, Eur. J. Phys. 31, 57 (2010).
  21. C. Singh, Categorization of problems to assess and improve proficiency as teachers and learners, Am. J. Phys. 77, 73 (2009).
  22. S. B. Blessing and B. H. Ross, Content effects in problem categorization and problem solving, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22, 792 (1996).
  23. P. T. Hardiman, R. Dufresne, and J. P. Mestre, The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices, Mem. Cogn. 17, 627 (1989).
  24. T. L. Spalding and B. H. Ross, Concept learning and feature interpretation, Mem. Cogn. 28, 439 (2000).
  25. T. de Jong and M. G. M. Ferguson-Hessler, Knowledge of problem situations in physics: A comparison of good and poor novice problem solvers, Learn. Instr. 1, 289 (1991).
  26. F. Mateycik, N. S. Rebello, and D. Jonassen, Students’ rating of problem similarity as a measure of problem solving expertise, in Proceedings of the 2010 Annual International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Philadelphia, PA, http://www.narst.org/annualconference/postconference10/additionalpapers.cfm.
  27. L. R. Novick, Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 14, 510 (1988).
  28. D. D. Cummins, Role of analogical reasoning in the induction of problem categories, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 18, 1103 (1992).
  29. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cogn. Sci. 12, 257 (1988).
  30. A. Newell and H. A. Simon, Human Problem Solving (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972).
  31. M. L. Gick, Problem-solving strategies, Educ. Psychol. 21, 99 (1986).
  32. R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, P. T. Hardiman, and J. P. Mestre, Constraining novices to perform expertlike problem analyses: Effects on schema acquisition, J. Learn. Sci. 2, 307 (1992).
  33. J. P. Mestre, R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, and P. T. Hardiman, Promoting skilled problem-solving behavior among beginning physics students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 303 (1993).
  34. W. J. Leonard, R. J. Dufresne, and J. P. Mestre, Using qualitative problem-solving strategies to highlight the role of conceptual knowledge in solving problems, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1495 (1996).
  35. D. M. Bunce, D. L. Gabel, and J. V. Samuel, Enhancing chemistry problem-solving achievement using problem categorization, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 505 (1991).
  36. F. Reif, Instructional design, cognition, and technology: Applications to the teaching of scientific concepts, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 24, 309 (1987).
  37. V. L. Willson, Methodological limitations for the use of expert systems techniques in science education research, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 27, 69 (1990).
  38. D. C. Giancoli, Physics: Principles with Applications (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998), 5th ed.
  39. K. Cummings, P. Laws, E. Redish, and P. Cooney, Understanding Physics (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2004).
  40. J. S. Walker, Physics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020102– Published 25 July, 2012
  • Received 5 August 2011
Article part of CHORUS
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 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