- 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

Relationship of prior preparation and conceptual diagnostic measures to success in the upper-level electricity and magnetism course

Fargol Seifollahi*

David E. Meltzer

Chandralekha Singh

  • School of Applied Sciences and Arts, College of Integrative Sciences and Arts, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona, USA

  • *Contact author: fas102@pitt.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010142 – Published 15 May, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/b4y3-6d2t

Abstract

The majority of previous studies of physics courses at the upper undergraduate level have been content-related or focused on the format of instruction, while detailed investigation of student performance patterns across various conceptual and quantitative measures in this context has been neglected, relatively speaking, in comparison to the substantial work that has been carried out in introductory courses. In this study, we used a sample of students in a traditional upper-level electricity and magnetism course at a large U.S. university to examine performance patterns and understand the extent to which, and the ways in which, conceptual and quantitative performance were related to each other. To this end, we used various measures of prior preparation (including standardized math scores and background in physics and mathematics in high school and college), in-course quantitative performance (homework, quizzes, and exams), and conceptual performance (scores on the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism). Overall, our analysis revealed that prior preparation was a significant predictor of success in this course and that there were strong correlations between students’ conceptual and quantitative performance. In particular, grades in the most recent upper-level physics course (upper-level mechanics) were the strongest predictor of upper-level electricity and magnetism course performance, even after controlling for mathematical preparation. Although average normalized conceptual gains were relatively large and independent of preinstruction conceptual scores, threshold effects suggested that students entering with the lowest conceptual understanding were unable to achieve high postinstruction conceptual scores or overall course grades. Our findings suggest that better prior preparation through early development of mathematical skills, as well as instructional strategies that support learners in bridging physics and mathematics effectively, may be crucial for success in upper-level electricity and magnetism.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (72)

  1. Á. Suárez, A. C. Marti, K. Zuza, and J. Guisasola, Learning difficulties among students when applying Ampére-Maxwell’s law and its implications for teaching, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010143 (2024).
  2. E. Campos, G. Zavala, K. Zuza, and J. Guisasola, Students’ understanding of the concept of the electric field through conversions of multiple representations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010135 (2020).
  3. E. Campos, G. Zavala, K. Zuza, and J. Guisasola, Electric field lines: The implications of students’ interpretation on their understanding of the concept of electric field and of the superposition principle, Am. J. Phys. 87, 660 (2019).
  4. J. Li and C. Singh, Investigating and improving introductory physics students’ understanding of the electric field and superposition principle, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 055702 (2017).
  5. K. Zuza, M. De Cock, P. van Kampen, L. Bollen, and J. Guisasola, University students’ understanding of the electromotive force concept in the context of electromagnetic induction, Eur. J. Phys. 37, 065709 (2016).
  6. K. Zuza, J.-M. Almudí, A. Leniz, and J. Guisasola, Addressing students’ difficulties with Faraday’s law: A guided problem solving approach, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010122 (2014).
  7. R. E. Pepper, S. V. Chasteen, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, Observations on student difficulties with mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010111 (2012).
  8. D.-H. Nguyen and N. S. Rebello, Students’ difficulties with integration in electricity, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010113 (2011).
  9. E. Campos, E. Hernandez, P. Barniol, and G. Zavala, Phenomenographic analysis and comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric and magnetic fields and the principle of superposition, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020117 (2021).
  10. S. V. Chasteen, R. E. Pepper, M. D. Caballero, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, Colorado upper-division electrostatics diagnostic: A conceptual assessment for the junior level, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020108 (2012).
  11. C. A. Manogue, K. Browne, T. Dray, and B. Edwards, Why is Ampère’s law so hard? A look at middle-division physics, Am. J. Phys. 74, 344 (2006).
  12. L. Bollen, P. van Kampen, and M. De Cock, Students’ difficulties with vector calculus in electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020129 (2015).
  13. B. R. Wilcox and S. J. Pollock, Upper-division student difficulties with separation of variables, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020131 (2015).
  14. B. R. Wilcox et al., Upper-division student understanding of Coulomb’s law: Difficulties with continuous charge distributions, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 418 (2013).
  15. L. Bollen, P. van Kampen, C. Baily, M. Kelly, and M. De Cock, Student difficulties regarding symbolic and graphical representations of vector fields, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020109 (2017).
  16. S. V. Chasteen, S. J. Pollock, R. E. Pepper, and K.K. Perkins, Thinking like a physicist: A multi-semester case study of junior-level electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 80, 923 (2012).
  17. P. M. Sadler and R. H. Tai, Success in introductory college physics: The role of high school preparation, Sci. Educ. 85, 111 (2001).
  18. E. W. Burkholder, G. Murillo-Gonzalez, and C. Wieman, Importance of math prerequisites for performance in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010108 (2021).
  19. 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).
  20. C. A. Manogue, P. J. Siemens, J. Tate, K. Browne, M. L. Niess, and A. J. Wolfer, Paradigms in physics: A new upper-division curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 69, 978 (2001).
  21. S. V. Chasteen, S. J. Pollock, R. E. Pepper, and K. K. Perkins, Transforming the junior level: Outcomes from instruction and research in E&M, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020107 (2012).
  22. J. Li and C. Singh, Investigating and improving introductory physics students’ understanding of symmetry and Gauss’s law, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 015702 (2018).
  23. C. Singh, Student understanding of symmetry and Gauss’s law of electricity, Am. J. Phys. 74, 923 (2006).
  24. A. Maries, M. J. Brundage, and C. Singh, Using the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism to investigate progression in student understanding from introductory to advanced levels, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020114 (2022).
  25. S. J. Pollock, Longitudinal study of student conceptual understanding in electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020110 (2009).
  26. C. Tzanakis, Mathematics and physics: An innermost relationship. Didactical implications for their teaching and learning, in Proceedings of the 2016 ICME Satellite Meeting – HPM 2016, edited by L. Radford, F. Furinghetti, and T. Hausberger (2016), pp. 79–104.
  27. O. Uhden, R. Karam, M. Pietrocola, and G. Pospiech, Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education, Sci. Educ. 21, 485 (2012).
  28. D. J. Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995).
  29. T. H. Kjeldsen and J. Lützen, Interactions between mathematics and physics: The history of the concept of function—teaching with and about nature of mathematics, Sci. Educ. 24, 543 (2015).
  30. G. Pospiech et al., Mathematics in Physics Education (Springer, New York, 2019).
  31. E. F. Redish, Problem solving and the use of math in physics courses, in Proceedings of the World View on Physics Education in 2005: Focusing on Change, Delhi (2005), arXiv:physics/0608268.
  32. E. F. Redish and E. Kuo, Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology, Sci. Educ. 24, 561 (2015).
  33. M. Pietrocola, Mathematics as structural language of physical thought, in Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education, edited by M. Vicentini and E. Sassi (International Commission on Physics Education, 2008), pp. 13–18, https://www.per-central.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=9881.
  34. D. Hestenes, Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 55, 440 (1987).
  35. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
  36. National Research Council, Adapting to a Changing World: Challenges and Opportunities in Undergraduate Physics Education (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013), pp. 60–65, 10.17226/18312.
  37. P. C. Peters, Even honors students have conceptual difficulties with physics, Am. J. Phys. 50, 501 (1982).
  38. M. A. McDaniel, S. M. Stoen, R. F. Frey, Z. E. Markow, K. M. Hynes, J. Zhao, and M. J. Cahill, Dissociative conceptual and quantitative problem solving outcomes across interactive engagement and traditional format introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020141 (2016).
  39. J. Li and C. Singh, Developing and validating a conceptual survey to assess introductory physics students’ understanding of magnetism, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 025702 (2017).
  40. D. P. Maloney, T. L. O’Kuma, C. J. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001).
  41. P. V. Engelhardt and R. J. Beichner, Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits, Am. J. Phys. 72, 98 (2004).
  42. L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).
  43. M. Planinic, Assessment of difficulties of some conceptual areas from electricity and magnetism using the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 74, 1143 (2006).
  44. N. Karim, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Exploring one aspect of pedagogical content knowledge of teaching assistants using the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010117 (2018).
  45. 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).
  46. A. J. Mason, J. M. McCardell, P. A. White, and J. S. Colton, Improving performance in upper-division electricity and magnetism with explicit incentives to correct mistakes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020104 (2023).
  47. J. P. Zwolak and C. A. Manogue, Assessing student reasoning in upper-division electricity and magnetism at Oregon State University, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020125 (2015).
  48. R. E. Pepper, S. V. Chasteen, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, Observations on student difficulties with mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010111 (2012).
  49. S. J. Pollock and S. V. Chasteen, Longer term impacts of transformed courses on student conceptual understanding of E&M, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 237 (2009).
  50. D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2017).
  51. 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).
  52. ACT Inc. and College Board, Guide to the 2018 ACT®/SAT® Concordance (ACT, Inc., New York, NY and College Board, Iowa City, IA, 2018).
  53. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988).
  54. F. Wilcoxon, Individual comparisons by ranking methods, in Breakthroughs in Statistics: Methodology and Distribution (Springer, New York, 1992), pp. 196–202.
  55. H. Wickham, ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer-Verlag, New York 2016).
  56. College Board: Understanding Scores, https://research.collegeboard.org/reports/sat-suite/understanding-scores.
  57. D. E. Meltzer and D. H. King, Pre-instruction diagnostic tests can predict grade probabilities in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 93, 528 (2025).
  58. 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).
  59. J. K. Hirons et al., Click, watch, learn: The impact of student self-study materials on physics E&M course outcomes, arXiv:2508.12143.
  60. K. M. Whitcomb and C. Singh, For physics majors, gender differences in introductory physics do not inform future physics performance, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 065701 (2020).
  61. S. F. Itza-Ortiz, S. Rebello, and D. Zollman, Students’ models of Newton’s second law in mechanics and electromagnetism, Eur. J. Phys. 25, 81 (2004).
  62. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognit. Sci. 12, 257 (1988).
  63. P. D. Justice et al., A framework for understanding the impact of integrating conceptual and quantitative reasoning in a quantum optics tutorial on students’ conceptual understanding, Educ. Sci. 15, 1314 (2025).
  64. E. Kuo, M. M. Hull, A. Gupta, and A. Elby, How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems, Sci. Educ. 97, 32 (2013).
  65. K. Shabani et al., Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development, English Lang. Teach. 3, 237 (2010).
  66. L. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978).
  67. E. W. Burkholder and C. E. Wieman, What do AP physics courses teach and the AP physics exam measure?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020117 (2019).
  68. E. Burkholder and S. Salehi, Exploring the pre-instruction gender gap in physics, PLoS One 17, e0271184 (2022).
  69. S. J. Pollock, Comparing student learning with multiple research-based conceptual surveys: CSEM and BEMA, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 171 (2008).
  70. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, and E. C. 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).
  71. R. Henderson, G. Stewart, J. Stewart, L. Michaluk, and A. Traxler, Exploring the gender gap in the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020114 (2017).
  72. A. Ghimire and C. Singh, Perspectives of women and men students and faculty on conceptual and quantitative problem-solving in physics from introductory to graduate levels, Educ. Sci. 15, 1602 (2025).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010142– Published 15 May, 2026
  • Received 10 June 2025
  • Accepted 23 March 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