- 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

Understanding and enhancing students’ use of evaluation strategies during physics problem solving through reflective prompts

Elien Sijmkens

Tinne De Laet

Mieke De Cock*

  • Faculty of Engineering Science, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium and LESEC, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

  • Faculty of Engineering Science, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium and LESEC & LIVO, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium and LESEC & LIVO, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

  • *Contact author: mieke.decock@kuleuven.be
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020101 – Published 9 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/y6cq-bklb

Abstract

The Disciplinary Learning Companion (DLC) is an online reflection tool designed to enhance students’ engagement in metacognitive activities during physics problem solving. It achieves this through providing reflective discipline- and topic-specific prompts on the solving process. This study focuses on evaluation strategies and aims to understand whether, how, and when students use evaluation strategies during physics problem solving, whether the DLC’s reflective prompts trigger the use of evaluation strategies and the extent to which this use is transferred to future problem solving. A total of twelve first-year bioscience engineering students each participated in four think-aloud interviews over a four weeks period. In these interviews, the students first solved a physics problem and then reflected on it supported by the DLC. This study focuses on students’ use of evaluation activities as part of their metacognitive process. To assess students’ current metacognitive levels, we examined the evaluation strategies they used spontaneously. In addition, we evaluated the impact of the DLC by studying the evaluation strategies students used after being prompted and those transferred to subsequent problem-solving attempts. The analysis revealed that students spontaneously applied evaluation strategies to numerical problems but rarely to symbolic problems. The DLC’s reflective prompts successfully triggered the use of evaluation strategies, though infrequently. Similarly, there were few instances of transferring evaluation strategies from one think-aloud interview to another.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (40)

  1. P. Rozencwajg, Metacognitive factors in scientific problem-solving strategies, Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 18, 281 (2003).
  2. P. Biryukov, Metacognitive aspects of solving combinatorics problems, Int. J. Math. Teach. Learn. (2004), https://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/biryukov.pdf.
  3. B. Berardi-Coletta, L. Buyer, R. Dominowski, and E. Rellinger, Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach, J. Exp. Psychol. 21, 205 (1995).
  4. R. W. Hollingworth and C. McLoughlin, Developing science students’ metacognitive problem solving skills online, Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 17, 50 (2001).
  5. A. Schoenfeld, Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics, in Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY, 1992), pp. 334–370.
  6. A. Zohar and S. Barzilai, A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions, Stud. Sci. Educ. 49, 121 (2013).
  7. J. H. Flavell, Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry, Am. Psychol. 34, 906 (1979).
  8. T. Gok, The general assessment of problem solving processes in physics education, Eur. J. Phys. Chem. Educ. 2, 110 (2010).
  9. A. Desoete, H. Roeyers, and A. Buysse, Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in grade 3, J. Learn. Disabil. 34, 435 (2001).
  10. M. Bannert, C. Sonnenberg, C. Mengelkamp, and E. Pieger, Short- and long-term effects of students’ self-directed metacognitive prompts on navigation behavior and learning performance, Comput. Hum. Behav. 52, 293 (2015).
  11. E. Kapa, Transfer from structured to open-ended problem solving in a computerized metacognitive environment, Learn. Instr. 17, 688 (2007).
  12. E. A. Davis, Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 91 (2003).
  13. G. Schraw, Promoting general metacognitive awareness, Instr. Sci. 26, 113 (1998).
  14. R. M. Clark, A. Kaw, and R. Guldiken, Metacognition instruction and repeated reflection in a fluid mechanics course: Reflective themes and student outcomes, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Educ. 51, 243 (2023).
  15. J. L. Sabel, J. T. Dauer, and C. T. Forbes, Introductory biology students’ use of enhanced answer keys and reflection questions to engage in metacognition and enhance understanding, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 16, ar40 (2017).
  16. J. Y. Kim and K. Y. Lim, Promoting learning in online, ill-structured problem solving: The effects of scaffolding type and metacognition level, Comput. Educ. 138, 116 (2019).
  17. K. Cagiltay, Scaffolding strategies in electronic performance support systems: Types and challenges, Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 43, 93 (2006).
  18. J. Meijer, M. V. J. Veenman, and B. H. A. M. van Hout-Wolters, Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of a taxonomy, Educ. Res. Eval. 12, 209 (2006).
  19. D. Lucangeli, P. E. Tressoldi, and M. Cendron, Cognitive and metacognitive abilities involved in the solution of mathematical word problems: Validation of a comprehensive model, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 23, 257 (1998).
  20. B. R. Wilcox and S. J. Pollock, Upper-division student difficulties with separation of variables, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020131 (2015).
  21. M. Lenz, P. Emigh, and E. Gire, Surprise! Students don’t do special-case analysis when unaware of it, presented at PER Conf. 2018, Washington, DC, 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Lenz.
  22. M. Loverude, Quantitative reasoning skills in math methods, presented at PER Conf. 2015, College Park, MD, 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.046.
  23. A. R. Akinyemi, M. E. Loverude, and J. R. Thompson, Solution evaluation strategies used by first-year physics students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020114 (2025).
  24. E. Burkholder, L. Blackmon, and C. Wieman, Characterizing the mathematical problem-solving strategies of transitioning novice physics students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020134 (2020).
  25. A. R. Warren, Impact of teaching students to use evaluation strategies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020103 (2010).
  26. T.-R. Sikorski, G. D. White, and J. Landay, Uptake of solution checks by undergraduate physics students, presented at PER Conf. 2017, Cincinnati, OH, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.087.
  27. E. Sijmkens, M. De Cock, and T. De Laet, The disciplinary learning companion: The impact of disciplinary and topic-specific reflection on students’ metacognitive abilities and academic achievement, in Educating for a New Future: Making Sense of Technology-Enhanced Learning Adoption (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022), pp. 354–367.
  28. E. Sijmkens, M. De Cock, and T. De Laet, Scaffolding students’ use of metacognitive activities using discipline- and topic-specific reflective prompts, Metacogn. Learn. 18, 811 (2023).
  29. E. Sijmkens, M. De Cock, and T. De Laet, The impact of topic-specific vs generic self-reflection on students’ metacognitive abilities, conceptual understanding, and problem-solving strategies, in Technology Enhanced Learning for Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education. EC-TEL 2024, edited by R. Ferreira Mello, N. Rummel, I. Jivet, G. Pishtari, and J. A. Ruipérez Valiente, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 15159 (Springer, Cham, 2024), 10.1007/978-3-031-72315-5_28.
  30. P. R. Pintrich, and E. V. De Groot, Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance, J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 33 (1990).
  31. P. Pintrich, D. Smith, T. García, and W. McKeachie, A manual for the use of the motivated strategies questionnaire (MSLQ), Technical Report, University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI, 1991, arXiv:1011.1669v3.
  32. M. V. J. Veenman and D. van Cleef, Measuring metacognitive skills for mathematics: Students’ self-reports versus on-line assessment methods, ZDM Math. Educ. 51, 691 (2019).
  33. M. V. J. Veenman, P. Wilhelm, and J. J. Beishuizen, The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective, Learn. Instr. 14, 89 (2004).
  34. M. V. J. Veenman, R. Kok, and A. W. Blöte, The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills in early adolescence, Instr. Sci. 33, 193 (2005).
  35. E. F. Redish, Using math in physics: 1. Dimensional analysis, Phys. Teach. 59, 397 (2021).
  36. E. Kuo, M. M. Hull, A. Elby, and A. Gupta, Assessing mathematical sensemaking in physics through calculation-concept crossover, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020109 (2020).
  37. D. C. Giancoli, Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics, 4th ed. (Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009).
  38. C.-S. Hung and H.-K. Wu, Tenth graders’ problem-solving performance, self-efficacy, and perceptions of physics problems with different representational formats, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020114 (2018).
  39. V. Crisp and R. Grayson, Modelling question difficulty in an A level physics examination, Res. Pap. Educ. 28, 346 (2013).
  40. M. Van der Schaaf, L. Baartman, F. Prins, A. Oosterbaan, and H. Schaap, Feedback dialogues that stimulate students’ reflective thinking, Scand. J. Educ. Res. 57, 227 (2013).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020101– Published 9 July, 2026
  • Received 24 May 2024
  • Revised 17 April 2026
  • Accepted 4 May 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