- 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

Examining factors influencing the development and evolution of self-efficacy and sense of belonging in a physics class

Danielle Maldonado and John Stewart*

  • *Contact author: jcstewart1@mail.wvu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020128 – Published 31 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/lkdr-cz49

Abstract

This study analyzed the relation between self-efficacy (SE) and sense of belonging (BL) in introductory physics courses by measuring these variables at two time points, early in the semester and midsemester. The study was performed in the introductory, calculus-based mechanics class at a large university in the United States and includes 1373 complete records. An extensive set of Observed Prior Causes (OPCs), including Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation pretest scores, college and high school preparation variables, high school physics and math variables, personality variables, and demographics, were found to be predictive of SE or BL. Early in the semester, SE and BL were highly correlated (r=0.56); after controlling for OPCs, r=0.37 of this correlation remained. SE fully explained the relation of BL to midsemester test average, while OPCs fully explained the relation of SE to test average. Changes to SE and BL in response to course feedback in the form of test averages were also explored. Test average explained little of the relation between early and midsemester SE or BL. The analysis supported a model where test average predicted midsemester SE, which in turn predicted midsemester BL. Mediation analysis found both directed and correlational paths were important in explaining the complex relation of these variables. Some moderation effects were detected, but were generally small.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (101)

  1. S. White, R. Y. Chu, and J. Oman, Has the Number of Students Taking Physics in US High Schools Declined? (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 2025).
  2. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the president. Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Executive Office of the President: Washington, DC, 2012.
  3. T. Hodapp, The back page: The economics of education: Closing undergraduate physics programs, APS News 20, 8 (2011).
  4. J. Stewart, J. Hansen, and E. Burkholder, Visualizing and predicting the path to an undergraduate physics degree at two different institutions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020117 (2022).
  5. J. D. Hansen, Methods for analyzing physics student retention and physics curricula, Ph.D. thesis, West Virginia University, 2023.
  6. Z. Topdemir, Pedagogical effects on student learning, attitude, and retention of physics majors, Ph.D. thesis, Georgia State University, 2020.
  7. D. Maronde. The Effectiveness of Teaching Methods Designed to Improve Student Engagement and Retention of Physics Subject Matter for Both Science and Non-Science Majors, Ph.D. thesis, University of Central Florida, 2011.
  8. J. P. Zwolak, R. Dou, E. A. Williams, and E. Brewe, Students’ network integration as a predictor of persistence in introductory physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010113 (2017).
  9. J. P. Zwolak, M. Zwolak, and E. Brewe, Educational commitment and social networking: The power of informal networks, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010131 (2018).
  10. V. Tinto, Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence, J. High. Educ. 68, 599 (1997).
  11. V. Tinto, Through the eyes of students, J. Coll. Stud. Retent-Res. Theor. Pract. 19, 254 (2017).
  12. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychol. Rev. 84, 191 (1977).
  13. A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy (Academic Press, New York, 1994), Vol. 4, p. 71.
  14. V. Sawtelle, E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer, Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and retention in introductory physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49, 1096 (2012).
  15. L. M. Larson, K. M. Pesch, S. Surapaneni, V. S. Bonitz, T.-F. Wu, and J. D. Werbel, Predicting graduation: The role of mathematics/science self-efficacy, J. Career Assess. 23, 399 (2015).
  16. A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (Freeman, New York, NY, 1997), Vol. 11.
  17. K. Miller, J. Schell, A. Ho, B. Lukoff, and E. Mazur, Response switching and self-efficacy in Peer Instruction classrooms, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010104 (2015).
  18. D. Maldonado and J. Stewart, Adding self-regulated learning instruction to an introductory physics class, in PER Conference Proceedings, Sacramento, CA, PER Conference (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 2023), p. 199.
  19. D. Maldonado and J. Stewart, Comparing the evolution of self-regulated learning behaviors to academic performance, personality, and self-efficacy in the introductory physics classroom, in PER Conference Proceedings, Boston, MA, PER Conference (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 2024), p. 256.
  20. F. Pajares, Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning, Theory Pract. 41, 116 (2002).
  21. J. M. Nissen, Gender differences in self-efficacy states in high school physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 013102 (2019).
  22. A. M. Porter, How Women Persist in Undergraduate Physics (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 2025).
  23. P. Mulvey and S. Nicholson, Percent of Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorates in Physics Earned by Women, Classes 1991 Through 2023 (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 2025).
  24. J. M. Nissen and J. T. Shemwell, Gender, experience, and self-efficacy in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020105 (2016).
  25. R. Henderson, V. Sawtelle, and J. M. Nissen, Gender & self-efficacy: A call to physics educators, Phys. Teach. 58, 345 (2020).
  26. R. Dou, E. Brewe, J. P. Zwolak, G. Potvin, E. A. Williams, and L. H. Kramer, Beyond performance metrics: Examining a decrease in students’ physics self-efficacy through a social networks lens, Phy. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020124 (2016).
  27. S. L. Anderson and N. E. Betz, Sources of social self-efficacy expectations: Their measurement and relation to career development, J. Vocat. Behav. 58, 98 (2001).
  28. A. L. Zeldin and F. Pajares, Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers, Am. Educ. Res. J. 37, 215 (2000).
  29. A. L. Zeldin, S. L. Britner, and F. Pajares, A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 1036 (2008).
  30. V. Sawtelle, E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer, Positive impacts of modeling instruction on self-efficacy, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 289 (2010).
  31. T. Espinosa, K. Miller, I. Araujo, and E. Mazur, Reducing the gender gap in students’ physics self-efficacy in a team-and project-based introductory physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010132 (2019).
  32. Y. Li and C. Singh, Impact of perceived recognition by physics instructors on women’s self-efficacy and interest, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020125 (2023).
  33. R. Henderson, D. Hewagallage, J. Follmer, L. Michaluk, J. Deshler, E. Fuller, and J. Stewart, Mediating role of personality in the relation of gender to self-efficacy in physics and mathematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010143 (2022).
  34. N. Schmitt, The interaction of neuroticism and gender and its impact on self-efficacy and performance, Hum. Perform. 21, 49 (2007).
  35. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Damage caused by societal stereotypes: Women have lower physics self-efficacy controlling for grade even in courses in which they outnumber men, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020138 (2021).
  36. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Gender differences in students’ self-efficacy in introductory physics courses in which women outnumber men predict their grade, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020142 (2022).
  37. R. F. Baumeister and M. R. Leary, The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation, Interpers. Dev., 57 (2017).
  38. K. L. Lewis, J. G. Stout, S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and T. A. Ito, Fitting in or opting out: A review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging for women in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020110 (2016).
  39. X. Ma, A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics, J. Res. Math. Educ. 30, 520 (1999).
  40. N. M. Else-Quest, J. S. Hyde, and M. C. Linn, Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis, Psychol. Bull. 136, 103 (2010).
  41. J. V. Mallow and S. L. Greenburg, Science anxiety: Causes and remedies, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 11, 356 (1982).
  42. J. Mallow, H. Kastrup, F. B. Bryant, N. Hislop, R. Shefner, and M. Udo, Science anxiety, science attitudes, and gender: Interviews from a binational study, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 19, 356 (2010).
  43. M. K. Udo, G. P. Ramsey, and J. V. Mallow, Science anxiety and gender in students taking general education science courses, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13, 435 (2004).
  44. J. R. Shapiro and A. M. Williams, The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields, Sex Roles 66, 175 (2012).
  45. J. G. Stout, T. A. Ito, N. D. Finkelstein, and S. J. Pollock, How a gender gap in belonging contributes to the gender gap in physics participation, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 402 (2013).
  46. Y. Li and C. Singh, Sense of belonging is an important predictor of introductory physics students’ academic performance, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020137 (2023).
  47. K. Rainey, M. Dancy, R. Mickelson, E. Stearns, and S. Moller, Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM, Int. J. STEM Educ. 5, 1 (2018).
  48. G. M. Walton, C. Logel, J. M. Peach, S. J. Spencer, and M. P. Zanna, Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate” transform women’s experience, relationships, and achievement in engineering, J. Educ. Psychol. 107, 468 (2015).
  49. C. Good, A. Rattan, and C. S. Dweck, Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 700 (2012).
  50. M. Franklin and E. Brewe, What correlates with persistence of women in physics?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 010115 (2025).
  51. L. Espinosa, Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence, Harv. Educ. Rev. 81, 209 (2011).
  52. K. Rosa and F. M. Mensah, Educational pathways of Black women physicists: Stories of experiencing and overcoming obstacles in life, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020113 (2016).
  53. D. K. Keblbeck, K. Piatek-Jimenez, and C. Medina Medina, Undergraduate physics students’ experiences: Exploring the impact of underrepresented identities and intersectionality, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020120 (2024).
  54. R. A. Miller and M. Downey, Examining the STEM climate for queer students with disabilities, J. Postsecond. Educ. Di. 33, 169 (2020).
  55. M. B. Weissman, Methods of causal inference in physics education research, arXiv:2110.04266.
  56. M. B. Weissman, Policy recommendations from causal inference in physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020118 (2021).
  57. T. Honicke and J. Broadbent, The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review, Educ. Res. Rev. 17, 63 (2016).
  58. E. L. Usher and F. Pajares, Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions, Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 751 (2008).
  59. S. Zumbrunn, C. McKim, E. Buhs, and L. R. Hawley, Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study, Instr. Sci. 42, 661 (2014).
  60. T. M. Freeman, L. H. Anderman, and J. M. Jensen, Sense of belonging in college freshmen at the classroom and campus levels, J. Exp. Educ. 75, 203 (2007).
  61. J. Pearl, Causality (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2009).
  62. J. Pearl, M. Glymour, and N. P. Jewell, Causal Inference in Statistics: A Primer (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2016).
  63. V. Adlakha and E. Kuo, Critical issues in statistical causal inference for observational physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020160 (2023).
  64. National Center for Education Statistics, https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator. Accessed 2/10/2025.
  65. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
  66. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
  67. R. K. Thornton, D. Kuhl, K. Cummings, and J. Marx, Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010105 (2009).
  68. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/lkdr-cz49 which includes Ref. [69], for descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, variable selection, and interaction plots.
  69. R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny, The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173 (1986).
  70. 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).
  71. J. Stewart and D. Hewagallage, The relation of personality, gender, and achievement in science classes, in AERA Conference Proceedings, Toronto, Ontario (AERA, New York, NY, 2019).
  72. D. Hewagallage, E. Christman, and J. Stewart, Examining the relation of high school preparation and college achievement to conceptual understanding, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010149 (2022).
  73. R. Henderson, C. Zabriskie, and J. Stewart, Rural and first generation performance differences on the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, in PER Conference Proceedings, Washington, DC (AIP, College Park, MD, 2018).
  74. R Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2017.
  75. P. R. Pintrich, D. A. F. Smith, T. Garcia, and W. J. Mckeachie, Reliability and redictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), Educ. Psychol. Meas. 53, 801 (1993).
  76. T. G. Duncan and W. J. McKeachie, The making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, Educ. Psych. 40, 117 (2005).
  77. J. Stewart, R. Henderson, L. Michaluk, J. Deshler, E. Fuller, and K. Rambo-Hernandez, Using the social cognitive theory framework to chart gender differences in the developmental trajectory of STEM self-efficacy in science and engineering students, J. Sci. Educ. Tech. 29, 758 (2020).
  78. C. M. Vogt, D. Hocevar, and L. S. Hagedorn, A social cognitive construct validation: Determining women’s and men’s success in engineering programs, J. High. Educ. 78, 337 (2007).
  79. C. Zabriskie, J. Yang, S. DeVore, and J. Stewart, Using machine learning to predict physics course outcomes, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020120 (2019).
  80. P. A. Westrick, J. P. Marini, L. Young, H. Ng, D. Shmueli, and E. J. Shaw, Validity of the SAT for Predicting First-Year Grades and Retention to the Second Year (College Board, New York, NY, 2019).
  81. P. A. Westrick, H. Le, S. B. Robbins, J. M. R. Radunzel, and F. L. Schmidt, College performance and retention: A meta-analysis of the predictive validities of ACT scores, high school grades, and SES, Educ. Assess. 20, 23 (2015).
  82. J. Allen, Updating the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks, ACT Research Report Series 2013 (6) (ACT, Inc., Iowa City, IA, 2013).
  83. W. J. Camara and G. Echternacht, The SAT I and high school grades: Utility in predicting success in college, Res. Not. 10 (2000).
  84. B. M. Galla, E. P. Shulman, B. D. Plummer, M. Gardner, S. J. Hutt, J. P. Goyer, S. K. D’Mello, A. S. Finn, and A. L. Duckworth, Why high school grades are better predictors of on-time college graduation than are admissions test scores: The roles of self-regulation and cognitive ability, Am. Educ. Res. J. 56, 2077 (2019).
  85. W. G. Bowen, W. M. Chingos, and M. S. McPherson, Test scores and high school grades as predictors, in Crossing the Finish Line (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009), p. 112.
  86. S. L. Geiser and R. Studley, UC and the SAT: Predictive validity and differential impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California, Educ. Assess. 8, 1 (2002).
  87. S. Geiser and M. V. Santelices, Validity of High-School Grades in Predicting Student Success beyond the Freshman Year: High-School Record vs Standardized Tests as Indicators of Four-Year College Outcomes, Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE. 6.07 (Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California - Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2007).
  88. L. R. Goldberg, The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure, Psychol. Assess. 4, 26 (1992).
  89. O. P. John, E. M. Donahue, and R. L. Kentle, The Big Five Inventory–Versions 4a and 54 (Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California - Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1991).
  90. O. P. John, L. P. Naumann, and C. J. Soto, Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues, in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (The Guilford Press, New York, NY, 2008), p. 114.
  91. D. van der Linden, J. te Nijenhuis, and A. B. Bakker, The general factor of personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study, J. Res. Pers. 44, 315 (2010).
  92. A. E. Poropat, A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance, Psychol. Bull. 135, 322 (2009).
  93. T. A. Judge and R. Ilies, Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review, J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 797 (2002).
  94. A. D. Stajkovic, A. Bandura, E. A. Locke, D. Lee, and K. Sergent, Test of three conceptual models of influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis, Pers. Individ. Differ. 120, 238 (2018).
  95. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Academic Press, New York, NY, 1977).
  96. B. T. West, K. B. Welch, and A. T. Galecki, Linear Mixed Models: A Practical Guide Using Statistical Software (Chapman and Hall - CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022).
  97. S. Cwik and C. Singh, Students’ sense of belonging in introductory physics course for bioscience majors predicts their grade, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010139 (2022).
  98. M. C. Atherton, Academic preparedness of first-generation college students: Different perspectives, J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 55, 824 (2014).
  99. K. Bussey and A. Bandura, Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation, Psychol. Rev. 106, 676 (1999).
  100. T. W. Smith, Educated don’t knows: An analysis of the relationship between education and item nonresponse, Polit. Methodol. 8, 47 (1982).
  101. C. Hitt, J. Trivitt, and A. Cheng, When you say nothing at all: The predictive power of student effort on surveys, Econ. Educ. Rev. 52, 105 (2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020128– Published 31 August, 2026
  • Received 1 December 2025
  • Accepted 29 June 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