Pre-testing and post-testing is a commonly used method in Physics Education Research to assess student learning gains. It is well recognized in the community that timings and incentives in delivering conceptual tests can impact test results. However, it is difficult to control these variables across different studies. As a common practice, a pre-test is often administered either at or near the beginning of a course, while a post-test can be given either at or near the end of a course. Also, in conducting such tests there often is no norm as to whether incentives should be offered to students. Because these variations can significantly affect test results, it is important to study and document their impact. We analyzed five years of data that were collected at The Ohio State University from over 2100 students, who took both the pre-test and post-test of the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism under various timings and incentives. We observed that the actual time frame for giving a test has a marked effect on the test results and that incentive granting also has a significant influence on test outcomes. These results suggest that one should carefully monitor and document the conditions under which tests are administered.

It is generally believed that students should use multiple representations in solving certain physics problems, and earlier work in PER has begun to outline how experts and novices differ in their use of multiple representations. In this study, we build on this foundation by interviewing expert and novice physicists as they solve two types of multiple representation problems: those in which multiple representations are provided for them and those in which the students must construct their own representations. We analyze in detail the types of representations subjects use and the order and manner in which they are used. Expert and novice representation use is surprisingly similar in some ways, especially in that both experts and novices make significant use of multiple representations. Some significant differences also emerge. Experts are more flexible in terms of starting point and move between the available representations more quickly, and novices tend to move between more representations in total. In addition, we find that an examination of how often and when multiple representations are used is inadequate to fully characterize a problem-solving episode; one must also consider the purpose behind the use of the available representations. This analysis of how experts and novices use representations sharpens the differences between the two groups, demonstrates analysis techniques that may be useful in future work, and suggests possible paths for instruction.

While it is well known which curricular practices can improve student performance on measures of conceptual understanding, the sustaining of these practices and the role of faculty members in implementing these practices are less well understood. We present a study of the hand-off of Tutorials in Introductory Physics [McDermott and Schaffer (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002)] from initial adopters to other instructors at the University of Colorado, including traditional faculty not involved in physics educational research. The study examines the impact of implementation of tutorials on student conceptual learning across ten first-semester, and seven second-semester courses, for 15 faculty members over 13 semesters, and includes roughly 5000 students. It is possible to demonstrate consistently high, and statistically indistinguishable, student learning gains for different faculty members; however, such results are not the norm and appear to rely on a variety of factors. Student performance varies by faculty background—faculty involved in, or informed by physics education research, consistently post higher student learning gains than less-informed faculty. Student performance in these courses also varies by curricula used—all semesters in which the research-based Tutorials and learning assistants are used have higher student learning gains than those semesters that rely on nonresearch-based materials and do not employ learning assistants.

We present mathematical learning models—predictions of student’s knowledge vs amount of instruction—that are based on assumptions motivated by various theories of learning: tabula rasa, constructivist, and tutoring. These models predict the improvement (on the post-test) as a function of the pretest score due to intervening instruction and also depend on the type of instruction. We introduce a connectedness model whose connectedness parameter measures the degree to which the rate of learning is proportional to prior knowledge. Over a wide range of pretest scores on standard tests of introductory physics concepts, it fits high-quality data nearly within error. We suggest that data from MIT have low connectedness (indicating memory-based learning) because the test used the same context and representation as the instruction and that more connected data from the University of Minnesota resulted from instruction in a different representation from the test.

Conventional physics laboratory courses generally include an emphasis on increasing students’ ability to carry out data analysis according to scientific practice, in particular, those aspects that relate to measurement uncertainty. This study evaluates the efficacy of the conventional approach by analyzing the understanding of measurement of freshmen following the physics major sequence, i.e., top achievers, with regard to data collection, data processing, and data comparison, through pre- and postinstruction tests by using an established instrument. The findings show that the laboratory course improved the performance of the majority of students insofar as the more mechanical aspects of data collection and data processing were concerned. However, only about 20% of the cohort of physics majors exhibited a deeper understanding of measurement uncertainty required for data comparison.

This article provides an empirical analysis of a single classroom episode in which students reveal difficulties with the concept of proper time in special relativity but slowly make progress in improving their understanding. The theoretical framework used is “coordination class theory,” which is an evolving model of concepts and conceptual change. The paper will focus on showing to what extent and in what sense most of the conditions and events in the data corpus seem understandable from the point of view of coordination class theory. In addition, however, some extensions of the theory are implicated, although we argue that they are “natural” extensions, improvements that extend, but do not threaten, the core theory. In particular, we observe students articulately aligning different ways of determining proper time, and we conjecture, more generally, that such a process is strongly consistent with coordination class theory and likely to be productive in other cases of conceptual change. The empirical analysis is explicitly connected to the general issue of theories and theory development in studies of conceptual change.

Pre- and postcourse assessment has become a very important tool for education research in physics and other areas. The web offers an attractive alternative to in-class paper administration, but concerns about web-based administration include reliability due to changes in medium, student compliance rates, and test security, both question leakage and utilization of web resources. An investigation was carried out in introductory astronomy courses comparing pre- and postcourse administration of assessments using the web and on paper. Overall no difference was seen in performance due to the medium. Compliance rates fluctuated greatly, and factors that seemed to produce higher rates are identified. Notably, email reminders increased compliance by 20%. Most of the 559 students complied with requests to not copy, print, or save questions nor use web resources; about 1% did copy some question text and around 2% frequently used other windows or applications while completing the assessment.

In this paper, we explore the use of isomorphic problem pairs (IPPs) to assess introductory physics students’ ability to solve and successfully transfer problem-solving knowledge from one context to another in mechanics. We call the paired problems “isomorphic” because they require the same physics principle to solve them. We analyze written responses and individual discussions for a range of isomorphic problems. We examine potential factors that may help or hinder transfer of problem-solving skills from one problem in a pair to the other. For some paired isomorphic problems, one context often turned out to be easier for students in that it was more often correctly solved than the other. When quantitative and conceptual questions were paired and given back to back, students who answered both questions in the IPP often performed better on the conceptual questions than those who answered the corresponding conceptual questions only. Although students often took advantage of the quantitative counterpart to answer a conceptual question of an IPP correctly, when only given the conceptual question, students seldom tried to convert it into a quantitative question, solve it, and then reason about the solution conceptually. Even in individual interviews when students who were given only conceptual questions had difficulty and the interviewer explicitly encouraged them to convert the conceptual question into the corresponding quantitative problem by choosing appropriate variables, a majority of students were reluctant and preferred to guess the answer to the conceptual question based upon their gut feeling. Misconceptions associated with friction in some problems were so robust that pairing them with isomorphic problems not involving friction did not help students discern their underlying similarities. Alternatively, from the knowledge-in-pieces perspective, the activation of the knowledge resource related to friction was so strongly and automatically triggered by the context, which is outside the conscious control of the student, that students did not look for analogies with paired problems or other aids that may be present.

Investigations related to expertise in problem solving and ability to transfer learning from one context to another are important for developing strategies to help students perform more expertlike tasks. Here we analyze written responses to a pair of nonintuitive isomorphic problems given to introductory physics students and discussions with a subset of students about them. Students were asked to explain their reasoning for their written responses. We call the paired problems isomorphic because they require the same physics principle to solve them. However, the initial conditions are different, and the frictional force is responsible for increasing the linear speed of an object in one of the problems while it is responsible for decreasing the linear speed in the other problem. We categorize student responses and evaluate student performance within the context of their evolving expertise. We compare and contrast the patterns of student categorization for the two isomorphic problems. We discuss why certain incorrect responses were better than others and shed light on the evolution of students’ expertise. We compare the performance of students who worked on both isomorphic problems with those who worked only on one of the problems to understand whether students recognized their underlying similarity and whether isomorphic pairs gave students additional insight into solving each problem.

Some education researchers have claimed that we should not teach the Bohr model of the atom because it inhibits students’ ability to learn the true quantum nature of electrons in atoms. Although the evidence for this claim is weak, many have accepted it. This claim has implications for how to present atoms in classes ranging from elementary school to graduate school. We present results from a study designed to test this claim by developing a curriculum on models of the atom, including the Bohr and Schrödinger models. We examine student descriptions of atoms on final exams in transformed modern physics classes using various versions of this curriculum. We find that if the curriculum does not include sufficient connections between different models, many students still have a Bohr-like view of atoms rather than a more accurate Schrödinger model. However, with an improved curriculum designed to develop model-building skills and with better integration between different models, it is possible to get most students to describe atoms using the Schrödinger model. In comparing our results with previous research, we find that comparing and contrasting different models is a key feature of a curriculum that helps students move beyond the Bohr model and adopt Schrödinger’s view of the atom. We find that understanding the reasons for the development of models is much more difficult for students than understanding the features of the models. We also present interactive computer simulations designed to help students build models of the atom more effectively.

We investigate short-term learning from hints and feedback in a Web-based physics tutoring system. Both the skill of students and the difficulty and discrimination of items were determined by applying item response theory (IRT) to the first answers of students who are working on for-credit homework items in an introductory Newtonian physics course. We show that after tutoring a shifted logistic item response function with lower discrimination fits the students’ second responses to an item previously answered incorrectly. Student skill decreased by 1.0 standard deviation when students used no tutoring between their (incorrect) first and second attempts, which we attribute to “item-wrong bias.” On average, using hints or feedback increased students’ skill by 0.8 standard deviation. A skill increase of 1.9 standard deviation was observed when hints were requested after viewing, but prior to attempting to answer, a particular item. The skill changes measured in this way will enable the use of IRT to assess students based on their second attempt in a tutoring environment.

Systematic observations of student gestures can not only fill in gaps in students’ verbal expressions, but can also offer valuable information about student ideas, including their source, their novelty to the speaker, and their construction in real time. This paper provides a review of the research in gesture analysis that is most relevant to physics education researchers and illustrates gesture analysis for the purpose of better understanding student thinking about physics.

To identify and describe the basis upon which instructors make curricular and pedagogical decisions, we have developed an artifact-based interview and an analysis technique based on multilayered concept maps. The policy capturing technique used in the interview asks instructors to make judgments about concrete instructional artifacts similar to those they likely encounter in their teaching environment. The analysis procedure alternatively employs both an a priori systems view analysis and an emergent categorization to construct a multilayered concept map, which is a hierarchically arranged set of concept maps where child maps include more details than parent maps. Although our goal was to develop a model of physics faculty beliefs about the teaching and learning of problem solving in the context of an introductory calculus-based physics course, the techniques described here are applicable to a variety of situations in which instructors make decisions that influence teaching and learning.

In higher education, instructors’ choices of both curricular material and pedagogy are determined by their beliefs about learning and teaching, the values of their profession, and perceived external constraints. Dissemination of research-based educational reforms is based on assumptions about that mental structure. This study reports the initial phase of an investigation of the beliefs and values of physics professors as they relate to the teaching and learning of problem solving in introductory physics. Based on an analysis of a series of structured interviews with six college physics faculty, a model of a common structure of such beliefs for all physics faculty teaching introductory physics was constructed. This preliminary model, when tested and modified by future research, can be used by curriculum developers to design materials, pedagogy, and professional development that gain acceptance among instructors.

This paper describes ongoing research investigating student approaches to quantitative and qualitative problem solving in physics. This empirical study was conducted using a phenomenographic approach to analyze data from individual semistructured problem solving interviews with 22 introductory college physics students. The main result of the study is a hierarchical set of categories that describe the students’ problem solving approaches in the context of introductory physics.

We use clustering, an analysis method not presently common to the physics education research community, to group and characterize student responses to written questions about two-dimensional kinematics. Previously, clustering has been used to analyze multiple-choice data; we analyze free-response data that includes both sketches of vectors and written elements. The primary goal of this paper is to describe the methodology itself; we include a brief overview of relevant results.

National studies of science education have unanimously concluded that preparing our students for the demands of the 21st century workplace is one of the major goals. This paper describes a study of student activities in introductory college physics labs, which were designed to help students acquire abilities that are valuable in the workplace. In these labs [called Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE) labs], students design their own experiments. Our previous studies have shown that students in these labs acquire scientific abilities such as the ability to design an experiment to solve a problem, the ability to collect and analyze data, the ability to evaluate assumptions and uncertainties, and the ability to communicate. These studies mostly concentrated on analyzing students’ writing, evaluated by specially designed scientific ability rubrics. Recently, we started to study whether the ISLE labs make students not only write like scientists but also engage in discussions and act like scientists while doing the labs. For example, do students plan an experiment, validate assumptions, evaluate results, and revise the experiment if necessary? A brief report of some of our findings that came from monitoring students’ activity during ISLE and nondesign labs was presented in the Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings. We found differences in student behavior and discussions that indicated that ISLE labs do in fact encourage a scientistlike approach to experimental design and promote high-quality discussions. This paper presents a full description of the study.

Although guided-inquiry methods for teaching introductory physics have been individually shown to be more effective at improving conceptual understanding than traditional lecture-style instruction, researchers in physics education have not studied differences among reform-based curricula in much detail. Several researchers have developed University of Washington–style tutorial materials, but the different curricula have not been compared against each other. Our study examines three tutorials designed to improve student understanding of Newton’s third law: the University of Washington’s Tutorials in Introductory Physics (TIP), the University of Maryland’s Activity-Based Tutorials (ABT), and the Open Source Tutorials (OST) also developed at the University of Maryland. Each tutorial was designed with different goals and agendas, and each employs different methods to help students understand the physics. We analyzed pretest and post-test data, including course examinations and data from the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). Using both FMCE and course data, we find that students using the OST version of the tutorial perform better than students using either of the other two.