- 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

Sensemaking tasks with limiting case analysis: A dose-effect relationship in undergraduate physics education

Julia Hofmann1,*, Pascal Klein1, Andreas Müller2, and Josefine Neuhaus1

  • 1Faculty of Physics, Physics Education Research, University of Göttingen, Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1, 37077, Göttingen, Germany
  • 2Faculty of Sciences, Department of Physics and Institute of Teacher Education, University of Geneva, Boulevard du Pont d’Arve 40, 1211, Genève, Switzerland

  • *Contact author: julia.hofmann@uni-goettingen.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020153 – Published 30 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/gx8s-rldd

Abstract

Making sense of mathematical expressions is a central component of expertlike reasoning in physics. Previous research has shown that sensemaking strategies can be successfully integrated into university instruction and that students benefit from explicit support in using such strategies. However, it remains largely unexplored to what extent the amount of practice influences students’ learning. In the present study, we investigate dose-effect relationships for sensemaking tasks with limiting case analysis. The study was conducted during a two-week preparatory course for incoming undergraduate physics students at a German university. The course focuses on the repetition of important mathematical concepts and prepares students for the demands of the first semester of physics studies. Limiting case analysis was systematically embedded in daily exercises that students solved in recitation sessions. A total of N=103 students participated in the study and were randomly assigned to one of five intervention groups, each with a different number of limiting case tasks (0–8 tasks). The study employed a pre-post design to assess perceived usefulness, instructional integration, competence, and performance regarding the analysis of limiting cases. The results show that students’ perceived competence increased with the number of tasks, with effect sizes up to d=0.88. Students’ performance also showed an increase in effect size for a greater number of tasks with effect sizes up to d=1.07. The observed patterns in the target variables are compatible with a sigmoidal dose-effect relationship. Overall, this proof-of-concept study provides the first empirical evidence for dose-effect relationships in the context of sensemaking strategies in physics and demonstrates the feasibility of dose-effect study designs in undergraduate physics education research. The study highlights the importance of explicitly integrating sensemaking strategies into undergraduate physics and indicates that increased and targeted practice can foster both students’ confidence and their ability to apply such strategies.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (45)

  1. K. A. Ericsson, R. T. Krampe, and C. Tesch-Römer, The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance, Psychol. Rev. 100, 363 (1993).
  2. E. M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, Evaluating instructional labs’ use of deliberate practice to teach critical thinking skills, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020150 (2020).
  3. C. Wieman, How to become a successful physicist, Phys. Today 75, 46 (2022).
  4. A. Müller and P. Vogt, Context-based science education by advertisement story problems: A dose-effect relationship for motivation, in Science education research for evidence-based teaching and coherence in learning: Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 conference. Part 2, edited by C. P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris, and A. Hadjigeorgiou (European Science Education Research Association, 2014).
  5. J. M. J. Murre, S-shaped learning curves, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 21, 344 (2014).
  6. M. V. Pusic, K. Boutis, M. R. Pecaric, O. Savenkov, J. W. Beckstead, and M. Y. Jaber, A primer on the statistical modelling of learning curves in health professions education, Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 22, 741 (2017).
  7. G. J. Duhon, B. C. Poncy, C. F. Krawiec, R. E. Davis, N. Ellis-Hervey, and C. H. Skinner, Toward a more comprehensive evaluation of interventions: A dose-response curve analysis of an explicit timing intervention, Sch. Psychol. Rev. 51, 84 (2022).
  8. A. H. Miller, D. R. Espinas, D. McNeish, and M. A. Barnes, Dosage response in intensive mathematics interventions for early elementary students with or at-risk for mathematics learning disability, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 37, 91 (2025).
  9. T. O. B. Odden and R. S. Russ, Defining sensemaking: Bringing clarity to a fragmented theoretical construct, Sci. Educ. 103, 187 (2019).
  10. M. Lenz, Sensemaking throughout the physics curriculum: Understanding expert and student ideas about sensemaking in a physics context, Ph.D. thesis, Oregon State University, 2020.
  11. E. F. Redish and E. Kuo, Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology, Sci. Educ. 24, 561 (2015).
  12. G. White, T.-R. Sikorski, J. Landay, and M. Ahmed, Limiting case analysis in an electricity and magnetism course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010125 (2023).
  13. A. R. Akinyemi, An investigation of students’ use and understanding of evaluation strategies, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maine, 2021.
  14. M. Carlson, S. Jacobs, E. Coe, S. Larsen, and E. Hsu, Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study, J. Res. Math. Educ. 33, 352 (2002).
  15. E. F. Redish, Using math in physics: 2. Estimation, Phys. Teach. 59, 525 (2021).
  16. M. Lenz, K. T. Hahn, P. J. Emigh, and E. Gire, Student perspective of and experience with sense-making: A case study, in 2017 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (2018), pp. 240–243.
  17. N. J. Nersessian, How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science, in Cognitive Models of Science, edited by R. N. Giere (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1992), pp. 3–44.
  18. A. R. Warren, Impact of teaching students to use evaluation strategies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020103 (2010).
  19. K. T. Hahn, P. J. Emigh, M. Lenz, and E. Gire, Student sense-making on homework in a sophomore mechanics course, in 2017 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (2018), pp. 160–163.
  20. J. Hofmann, P. Klein, A. Müller, and J. Neuhaus, Supporting sensemaking of physics equations: An intervention study in undergraduate courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010144 (2026).
  21. B. R. Wilcox, M. D. Caballero, R. E. Pepper, and S. J. Pollock, Upper-division student understanding of Coulomb’s law: Difficulties with continuous charge distributions, AIP Conf. Proceed. 1513, 418 (2013).
  22. E. Kim and S.-J. Pak, Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems, Am. J. Phys. 70, 759 (2002).
  23. W. K. Black, R. L. Matz, M. Mills, and A. E. Evrard, Quantifying grade benefits of study: Practice makes better, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010139 (2023).
  24. A. E. Evrard, M. Mills, D. Winn, K. Jones, J. Tritz, and T. A. McKay, Problem roulette: Studying introductory physics in the cloud, Am. J. Phys. 83, 76 (2015).
  25. P. Vogt, Werbeaufgaben im physikunterricht: Motivations- und lernwirksamkeit authentischer texte, Ph.D. thesis, Vieweg+Teubner, Wiesbaden, 2010.
  26. A. Grebenc, Foundations for a general theory of sigmoid functions: Modelling with 30 methods, Intelligent Systems Conference (Springer, New York, 2025), pp. 481–511.
  27. K. T. Kotsis and D. Panagou, Using alternative ideas for determining the learning curve on the concept of force, Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10, 495 (2022).
  28. K. T. Kotsis and D. Panagou, The determination of the learning curve on the concept of energy using the alternatives ideas, Contemp. Math. Sci. Educ. 4, ep23011 (2023).
  29. A. Heathcote, S. Brown, and D. J. K. Mewhort, The power law repealed: The case for an exponential law of practice, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 7, 185 (2000).
  30. D. E. Pritchard, Y.-J. Lee, and L. Bao, Mathematical learning models that depend on prior knowledge and instructional strategies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010109 (2008).
  31. Kultusministerkonferenz, Abiturnoten im Ländervergleich, https://www.kmk.org/dokumentation-statistik/statistik/schulstatistik/abiturnoten.html (2024), accessed: 08-04-2026.
  32. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/gx8s-rldd for questionnaire, intervention tasks, and performance tests (2026).
  33. N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
  34. A. Renkl, Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning, Cogn. Sci. 38, 1 (2014).
  35. Center for Self-Determination Theory, Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/, accessed: 17-09-2026.
  36. R. M. Ryan, Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43, 450 (1982).
  37. L. Ding and R. Beichner, Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020103 (2009).
  38. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J, 1988).
  39. M. J. Blanca, R. Alarcón, J. Arnau, J. García-Castro, and R. Bono, How to proceed when normality and sphericity are violated in the repeated measures ANOVA, Anales Psicol. 40, 466 (2024).
  40. L. J. Cronbach, Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika 16, 297 (1951).
  41. 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).
  42. V. P. Coletta, J. A. Phillips, and J. J. Steinert, Interpreting force concept inventory scores: Normalized gain and SAT scores, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010106 (2007).
  43. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. T. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, Scientific abilities and their assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006).
  44. M. Wirtz and F. Caspar, Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität: Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen (Hogrefe, Göttingen, 2002).
  45. 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).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020153– Published 30 October, 2026
  • Received 15 May 2026
  • Accepted 21 September 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