Previous work has identified that recognition from others is an important predictor of students’ participation, persistence, and career intentions in physics. However, research has also found a gender bias in peer recognition in which student nominations of strong peers in their physics course disproportionately favor men over women. In this study, we draw on methods from social network analysis and find a consistent gender bias in which men disproportionately undernominate women as strong in their physics course in two offerings of both a lecture course (for science and engineering, but not physics, majors) and a distinct lab course (for science, engineering, and physics majors). We also find in one offering of the lecture course that women disproportionately undernominate men, contrary to what previous research would predict. We expand on prior work by also probing two data sources related to who and what gets recognized in peer recognition: students’ interactions with their peers (who gets recognized) and students’ written explanations of their nominations of strong peers (what gets recognized). Results suggest that the nature of the observed gender bias in peer recognition varies between the instructional contexts of lecture and lab. In the lecture course, the gender bias is related to who gets recognized: both men and women disproportionately overnominate their interaction ties to students of their same gender as strong in the course. In the lab course, the gender bias is also related to what gets recognized: men nominate men more than women because of skills related to interactions, such as being helpful. These findings illuminate the different ways in which students form perceptions of their peers and add nuance to our understanding of the nature of gender bias in peer recognition.

Literature on student ideas about circuits largely focuses on misunderstandings and difficulties, with seminal papers framing student thinking as stable, difficult to change, and connected to incorrect ontological categorizations of current as a thing rather than a process. In this paper, we analyzed 417 student responses to a conceptual question about electric circuits using a lens consistent with resources theory. We found that though indicators of substance-based reasoning about current are common in student responses, this reasoning is not predictive of other difficulties reported in the literature, such as “current is consumed” or “the battery is a constant source of current.” We also found that students use substance-based reasoning in resourceful ways, suggesting that substance-based reasoning may in fact be a productive starting place for instruction on circuits.

The assessment of test anxiety has received increasing attention in educational research due to the potential negative effects of anxiety on student performance. Traditionally, test anxiety scales have been developed for mathematics, but few studies have focused on physics. In this study, we validated two test anxiety scales for undergraduate physics courses: the Test Anxiety Inventory for Physics (TAIP) and the Abbreviated Test Anxiety Inventory for Physics scale (ATAIP), which were adapted from existing instruments. A convenience sample of 361 engineering students enrolled in a first-semester introductory physics course participated in the study. Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were used to establish the construct validity of both scales. Convergent validity for the TAIP scale was established by examining its correlation with a scale adapted from the math anxiety scale. Criterion-related validity for both TAIP and ATAIP was established by analyzing the relationship between students’ Rasch scores on the two scales and their performance on two conceptual tests. Finally, measurement invariance of TAIP and ATAIP scales was established using both multigroup and differential item functioning analyses to reliably investigate gender differences in the corresponding Rasch measures. The study confirms a robust four-factor structure of the TAIP. The four subscales, Worry, Emotionality, Interference, and Lack of Confidence, demonstrate good reliability (McDonald’s $\omega =0.78,0.86,0.87,87$, respectively). Rash analysis also confirms that, for each subscale, the rating scale functioning was consistent with the item difficulty and person measures. The TAIP also demonstrates adequate convergent and criterion-related validity, as well as measurement invariance with respect to gender. The ATAIP also demonstrates good reliability (McDonald’s $\omega =0.84$), a well-functioning rating scale, and sufficient criterion-related validity. Additionally, it exhibits measurement invariance with respect to gender. Overall, the study supports that both the TAIP and ATAIP scales are reliable instruments for measuring students’ test anxiety in an undergraduate physics course. Implications for physics instruction at the university introductory level are briefly discussed.

Physicists engage with the public to varying degrees at different stages of their careers. However, their public engagement covers many activities, events, and audiences, making their motivations and professional development needs not well understood. As part of ongoing efforts to build and support a community in the informal physics space, we conducted interviews with physicists with a range of different experiences in public engagement. We use personas methodology and self-determination theory to articulate their public engagement motivation, challenges, and needs. We present our set of three personas: the physicist who engages in informal physics for self-reflection, the physicist who wants to spark interest and understanding in physics, and the physicist who wants to provide diverse role models to younger students and inspire them to pursue a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics career. Needs covered a range of resources including science communication training, community building among informal physics practitioners, and mechanisms to recognize, elevate, and value informal physics. By bringing user-centered design methodology to a new topical area of physics education research, we expand our understanding of motivations and needs of practitioners in physics public engagement. Therefore, departments, organizations, and institutions could draw upon the personas developed to consider the ways to better support physicists in their respective environments.

The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is one of the research-based assessments established by the physics education research community to measure students’ understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Former works have often recorded the notion of gendered mean FCI scores favoring male students notably in the North American (NA) based studies. Nevertheless, these performance gaps remain inconclusive and unexplored outside the NA context. This paper aims to fill this gap by meta-analyzing the mean FCI scores between gender based on the existing physics education research literature internationally. We analyzed the magnitude and direction on the mean FCI scores between gender based on primary international studies published over the last two decades. We also explored the moderating impact of international study characteristics on the meta-analytic findings by performing a subgroup analysis to study the different study regions stratified by two subgroups (NA vs non-NA authors). Thirty-eight studies reporting the mean FCI scores by gender were included in the present meta-analysis. We employed Hedges’ $g$ statistic to estimate to what degree the mean FCI scores may be different between male and female students on each study. Under a random effects model, we meta-analyzed the findings and conducted a subgroup analysis to answer the research questions. In summary, our meta-analysis indicated a significantly positive and moderate amount of gendered mean FCI scores in favor of male students both in NA- and non-NA based regions, and the performance gaps were wider in the NA-based studies. Suggestions are discussed while interpreting the mean FCI scores between gender for teaching, learning, and forthcoming studies.

This study proposes methods of reporting results of physics conceptual evaluations that more fully characterize the range of outcomes experienced by students with differing levels of prior preparation, allowing for more meaningful comparison of the outcomes of educational interventions within and across institutions. Factors leading to variation in post-test scores on the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) across different instructors, semesters, and course models in a sample collected in introductory calculus-based mechanics at a large, eastern land-grant university were examined. The sample was collected over nine years and contains a total of $N=4409$ matched pretest and post-test records. The data showed a systematic semester-by-semester variation in both pretest scores and ACT or SAT mathematics percentile scores. Neither the normalized gain nor Cohen’s $d$ removed the semester-to-semester variation observed in post-test scores. The local average curve plotting post-test scores against pretest scores, which we call a conceptual growth curve, allowed for the characterization of outcomes for students with different pretest scores. Regression models were used to produce an approximation to this curve. By using either the full curve or a mathematical approximation developed through linear regression, the post-test score that would be observed if a class enrolled students with a given level of prior preparation measured by pretest scores can be predicted. This predicted post-test score can then be used to calculate the predicted normalized gain if desired. These methods rely on using the natural variation of incoming student preparation at one institution to predict how a class would perform if it enrolled students with different prior preparation. The study presents an example of converting the outcomes at an institution with a weakly prepared student population to the outcomes which would have been observed if the course enrolled a more prepared student population; converting the outcomes for a different student population dramatically changed the interpretation of how the class studied was functioning.

Clear and rigorous quantum reasoning is needed to explain quantum physical phenomena. As pillars of true quantum physical explanations, we suggest specific quantum reasoning derived from quantum physical key ideas. An experiment is suggested to support such a quantum reasoning, in which a quantized radiation field interacts with an optical beam splitter, leading to experimental results conflicting with classical physical predictions. The results, however, can be explained consistently with a quantum reasoning based on the key ideas of probability, superposition, and interference (PSI). In this quantum optical key experiment the optical beam splitter prepares a superposition of single photon states and a Michelson interferometer is used to detect the superposition via controlled propagation phases. Although different single photon experimental setups (aimed at helping students to gain access to foundational issues in quantum physics) have been discussed in the past, the wave-particle dualism bound to classical physics maintains its predominance as an explanation pattern for the interpretation of these experiments. The study presented here investigates the effect of the quantum optical key experiment on the ability of students to use quantum reasoning based on the key ideas of PSI to overcome the naive wave-particle dualism. The current state of relevant studies that test student access to quantum physics can roughly be divided into two distinct areas: one tests how mathematical abilities help them to understand quantum physics and one tests how nonmathematical representations of a set of specific quantum theoretical traits (“Wesenszüge”) lead to a deeper understanding of quantum physics. There is a lack of questionnaires that focus on the idea of developing quantum reasoning based on superposition, probability, and interference of quantum states combined with a real experiment using true quantum light. In the first part of the article, we describe the physical modeling and present the development of the questionnaire. The set of items has been constructed from newly developed items and combined with well-tested ones. The validation of the set addresses qualitative and quantitative methods. In the second part, we give a pre- and poststudy examination of the impact of the quantum optical key experiment on students’ quantum reasoning. A significant increase in the number of students using quantum arguments is based on PSI reasoning for the explanation of an interference, such as the behavior of single photon states. Though the increase is significant, we found only minor changes in a particular issue to the students’ reasoning when approaching quantum physics as illustrated by a sample of answers given in the second part of the article. The concept of quantum states and the principle of superposition still appear particularly difficult.

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Instructional labs: Improving traditions and new directions.] Recent studies provide evidence that social constructivist pedagogical methods such as active learning, interactive engagement, and inquiry-based learning, while pedagogically more effective, can enable inequities in the classroom. By conducting a quantitative empirical examination of gender-inequitable group dynamics in two inquiry-based physics labs, we extend results of previous work. Using a survey on group work preferences and video recordings of lab sessions, we find similar patterns of gendered role taking noted in prior studies. These results are not reducible to differences in students’ preferences. We find that an intervention which employed partner agreement forms, with the goal of reducing inequities, had a positive impact on students’ engagement with equipment during a first-semester lab course. Our work will inform implementation of more effective interventions in the future and emphasizes challenges faced by instructors who are dedicated to both research-based pedagogical practices and efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in their classrooms.

Research carried out through the last 20 years gave us undeniable evidence that to learn anything we need to be active participants, not passive observers. One of the important aspects of learning physics is constructing explanations of physical phenomena. To support and guide students toward constructing their explanations, teachers need to be attentive and responsive to students’ explanations. To learn how physics teachers interpret and respond to students’ explanations we investigated pre- and in-service physics teachers’ responses to students’ written explanations of their answers to a complex physics problem. The survey administered to the participants included the problem statement and four authentic student explanations. The participants were asked to identify each student’s strengths and weaknesses and to provide a response to that student. We found that while the participants were successful in identifying productive and problematic aspects of student reasoning, they rarely built on student reasoning when responding to the students, mostly focusing on addressing problematic aspects. The paper discusses why this finding is important for physics teacher preparation programs and professional development programs.

A survey of 722 physics faculty conducted in 2008 found that many physics instructors had knowledge of research-based instructional strategies (RBISs), were interested in using more, but often discontinued use after trying. Considerable effort has been made during the decade following 2008 to develop and disseminate RBISs in physics as well as change the culture within the physics community to value RBIS use and other forms of student-centered instruction. This paper uses data from a 2019 survey of 1176 physics instructors to understand the current state of RBIS use in college-level introductory physics, thus allowing us to better understand some of the impacts of these efforts on physics instruction. Results show that self-reported knowledge and use of RBISs has increased considerably and discontinuation is now relatively low. However, although the percentage of time lecturing is less than 10 years ago, many instructors still engage in substantial lecturing (i.e., more than one-third of class time). Relatedly, we find that the majority of RBIS use centers on pedagogies designed to supplement a primarily lecture-based classroom rather than pedagogies designed to support a primarily active learning classroom. This suggests that the physics education research community and beyond has done well promoting knowledge about RBISs and inspiring instructors to try RBISs in their courses. But, there is still room to improve. Based on available evidence about effective instructional practices, we recommend that change agents focus on supporting instructors to increase the percent of class time in active learning and to implement higher impact strategies.

Female students, Latinx students, first-generation students, and transfer students often feel uncomfortable in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) environments. However, some departments have been making progress in changing that. Guided by double consciousness and person-environment fit theory, we investigated the lived experiences of historically marginalized undergraduate and masters-level physics students at a large state university to understand how this particular department provides an environment encouraging all students they fit in physics. Graduated students and faculty were interviewed from California State University, Long Beach. Through the interviews, we gained an understanding of significant student experiences and their perceptions of fit in this physics environment. Department community members perceived the department environment to be open, which contributed to broadening fit and supporting diverse students to thrive. The importance of faculty agency in creating a welcoming and supportive physics environment is highlighted. Finally, we found students in this department take with them an approach to physics that they see applicable to other areas of study and their lives. We called this a physics state of mind. We include suggestions for other STEM departments based on the findings and previous research.

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Instructional labs: Improving traditions and new directions.] Acknowledgement of the limited learning outcomes in our first-year physics lab course, strikingly similar to the observed and reported issues in literature, incited renewal of the course with a focus on developing students’ ability to engage in experimental physics research. The procedural and conceptual knowledge (PACKS) model—addressing different types of knowledge required for scientific investigation—was used as a “guide” in the transformation of the course. This educational design research study—distinguishing three stages—describes our approach in transforming the course and provides theoretical insights and practical solutions through the combined study of both the process of learning and the means that support that process. The merits and trade-offs of our approach and the effectiveness of the course transformation are evaluated through surveys, interviews, and assessment of students’ inquiry skills. The findings provide insights into the application of the PACKS model and its effectiveness in facilitating students’ development of physics inquiry abilities. The results reveal an alignment between perceived, attained and intended learning goals. The self-conceived experiment at the end of the course showcases students’ successful integration of the targeted knowledge types, previously addressed in isolated “preparatory” activities. We argue that the PACKS-model and the design principles are useful attributes when transforming a traditional lab activity, but also specify the limitations.

Recent advances in publicly available natural language processors (NLP) may enhance the efficiency of analyzing student short-answer responses in physics education research (PER). We train a state-of-the-art NLP, IBM’s Watson, and test its agreement with human coders using two different studies that gathered text responses in which students explain their reasoning on physics-related questions. The first study analyzes 479 student responses to a lab data analysis question and categorizes them by main idea. The second study analyzes 732 student answers to identify the presence or absence of each of the two conceptual themes. When training Watson with approximately one-third to half of the samples, we find that samples labeled with high confidence scores have similar accuracy to human agreement; yet for lower confidence scores, humans outperform the NLP’s labeling accuracy. In addition to studying Watson’s overall accuracy, we use this analysis to better understand factors that impact how Watson categorizes. Using the data from the categorization study, we find that Watson’s algorithm does not appear to be impacted by the disproportionate representation of categories in the training set, and we examine mislabeled statements to identify vocabulary and phrasing that may increase the rate of false positives. Based on this work, we find that, with careful consideration of the research study design and an awareness of the NLP’s limitations, Watson may present a useful tool for large-scale PER studies or classroom analysis tools.

We use the Survey of Thermodynamic Processes and First and Second Laws-Long, a research-based survey instrument with 78 items at the level of introductory physics, to investigate introductory and advanced students’ difficulties with internal energy, work, and heat transfer. We present analysis of data from 12 different introductory and advanced physics classes at four different higher education public institutions in the U.S. in which the survey was administered in person to more than 1000 students. We find that not only introductory but also advanced physics students have many common difficulties with these introductory thermodynamic concepts after traditional lecture-based instruction in relevant concepts. We utilize a wide variety of problem types and contexts and our sample includes large numbers of introductory algebra-based, calculus-based, and advanced students. Some of our findings are consistent with prior research in this area, but others expand upon them and reveal previously unreported aspects of students’ thinking. Findings related to common difficulties of students before and after traditional lecture-based instruction in college physics courses can help instructors of these courses plan instruction and curricula to improve student understanding. These findings can also be valuable for developing effective research-based curricula and pedagogies to address student difficulties and help students develop a functional understanding of these fundamental thermodynamic concepts.

The percentage of women receiving bachelor’s degrees in physics (25%) in the U.S. lags well behind that of men, and women leave the major at higher rates. Achieving equity in physics will mean that women stay in physics at the same rates as men, but this will require changes in the culture and support structures. A strong sense of belonging can lead to higher retention rates so interventions meant to increase dimensions of physics identity (interest, recognition, performance, and competence) may increase persistence overall and increase women’s retention differentially. We describe our model in which mentorship, an understanding of career options (career conceptualization), and leadership are inputs into the development of these dimensions of physics identity. This paper includes preliminary results from a qualitative study that aims to better understand how career conceptualization, leadership, and mentorship contribute to the development of physics identity and belonging. We report results from a survey of 15 undergraduate physics students which was followed up by interviews with 5 of those students. The students were from 2 institutions: a small private liberal arts college in the midwest region of the U.S. and a large public university in the southeast region of the U.S. classified as a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI). With respect to mentorship, consistent with the existing literature, we found that it could provide critical support for students’ engagement in the physics community. Leadership experiences have not previously been positioned as an important input into identity, yet we found that they helped women in physics feel more confident, contributing to their recognition of themselves as physics people. While the data on how career conceptualization contributed to the building of identity is limited, there are some connections to recognition and competence, and it will be an interesting avenue of future exploration.

Physics education researchers are interested in using the tools of machine learning and natural language processing to make quantitative claims from natural language and text data, such as open-ended responses to survey questions. The aspiration is that this form of machine coding may be more efficient and consistent than human coding, allowing much larger and broader datasets to be analyzed than is practical with human coders. Existing work that uses these tools, however, does not investigate norms that allow for trustworthy quantitative claims without full reliance on cross-checking with human coding, which defeats the purpose of using these automated tools. Here we propose a four-part method for making such claims with supervised natural language processing: evaluating a trained model, calculating statistical uncertainty, calculating systematic uncertainty from the trained algorithm, and calculating systematic uncertainty from novel data sources. We provide evidence for this method using data from two distinct short response survey questions with two distinct coding schemes. We also provide a real-world example of using these practices to machine code a dataset unseen by human coders. We offer recommendations to guide physics education researchers who may use machine-coding methods in the future.

The notion of scientific visual literacy has been advocated in recent science curriculum reform documents and related learning outcomes are expected from students. However, few studies have been conducted to determine how it is tested in high-stakes examinations. This study utilized the Visualization Blooming Tool to examine the level of visual cognition involved in visual-based physics questions in the Senior High School Entrance Examination (SHSEE) in China. Content analysis was adopted as the research method and 12 sets of the SHSEE physics from four Chinese metropolises (Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Suzhou) in 2020, 2021, and 2022 were targeted. The results indicate that although all four metropolises examined the higher-order visual cognitive skills, they placed more emphasis on the levels of apply and analyze but less on evaluate and create. Moreover, the examination items required students to interpret visual representations more often than to construct them, which may be detrimental to developing students’ scientific visual literacy. It is suggested that the examination of higher-order visual cognitive skills and encoded visual representation should be strengthened in future high-stakes physics examinations.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education research and physics education research, in particular, are currently struggling with a dearth of research into understanding the experiences and identity development of neurodivergent students. In addition, an even larger gap in research exists looking into nonacademic members who have left the field and still strongly identify with their disciplinary identity. As valued members of our physics community, these colleagues provide a unique perspective as to how identity and participation are nurtured and developed, particularly among rising disabled physicists. To resolve these current issues and aid in future research, we operationalize our new Critical Disability Physics Identity framework and present results from interviews with three neurodivergent post-baccalaureate nonacademic physicists (those who have left physics and retain a strong affinity toward their identity as a physicist). As the first paper in a four-part phenomenological study into the identity development of neurodivergent physicists, we also present an analysis of each interview through a Critical Disability Physics Identity lens and discuss the implications of their Critical Disability Physics Identity development. We find that neurodivergent students experience very little outright discrimination and violence but experience structural ableism in the form of assessment that is not constructed for how neurodivergent physicists perform physics-related tasks. Additionally, we find that neurodivergent physicists seem to ground identity in having a strong interest in physics, something that is only shaken by professors and others in power being neutral toward the discrimination experienced by neurodivergent people. We find that there are very large power imbalances between professors and neurodivergent students and that only when professors and others in power are actively anti-ableist is this power imbalance remedied and neurodivergent students begin to feel that they are physicists.