- Editors' Suggestion
- Open Access
Solution evaluation strategies used by first-year physics students
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020114 – Published 11 August, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/rsh8-1ftk
Abstract
One expected outcome of physics instruction is that students develop quantitative reasoning skills, including strategies for evaluating solutions to problems. Examples of well-known “canonical” evaluation strategies include special case analysis, unit analysis, and checking for reasonable numbers. We report on responses from three tasks in different physics contexts prompting students in an introductory calculus-based physics sequence to evaluate expressions for various quantities: the velocity of a block at the bottom of an incline with friction, the final velocities of two masses involved in an elastic collision, and the electric field due to three point charges. Responses from written () and interview () data were analyzed using modified grounded theory and phenomenology. We also employed the analytical framework of epistemic frames. Students’ evaluation strategies were classified into three broad categories: consulting external sources, checking through computation, and comparing to the physical world. Some of the evaluation strategies observed in our data, including canonical as well as noncanonical strategies, have been reported in prior research on evaluation, albeit sometimes with different names and with varying levels of generalizability. We note four major, general observations prompted by our results. First, most students did not evaluate solutions to physics problems using an approach that an expert would consider an evaluation strategy. Second, many students used evaluation strategies that emphasized computation. Third, many students used evaluation strategies that are not canonical but are nonetheless useful. Fourth, the relative prevalence of different strategies was highly dependent on the task context. We conclude with remarks including implications for classroom instruction.
Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)
Article Text
Supplemental Material
References (54)
- L. Greenfield, Engineering student problem solving, in Cognitive Process Instruction, Research on Teaching Thinking Skills, edited by J. Lochhead and J. Clement (Franklin Institute Press, Philadelphia 1979), pp. 233–254.
- M. E. Loverude, Quantitative reasoning skills in math methods, in Presented at PER Conference (2015), pp. 203–206, 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.046.
- A. Van Heuvelen, Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 59, 891 (1991).
- J. L. Docktor, J. Dornfeld, E. Frodermann, K. Heller, L. Hsu, K. A. Jackson, A. Mason, Q. X. Ryan, and J. Yang, Assessing student written problem solutions: A problem-solving rubric with application to introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010130 (2016).
- B. R. Wilcox and S. J. Pollock, Upper-division student difficulties with separation of variables, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020131 (2015).
- T. Tu, C. F. Li, J. S. Xu, and G. C. Guo, Students’ difficulties with the Dirac delta function in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010104 (2023).
- T. Tu, C.-F. Li, Z.-Q. Zhou, and G.-C. Guo, Students’ difficulties with partial differential equations in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020163 (2020).
- A. R. Warren, Impact of teaching students to use evaluation strategies, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020103 (2010).
- T.-R. Sikorski, G. D. White, and J. Landay, Uptake of solution checks by undergraduate physics students, in Presented at PER Conference (2017), pp. 368–371, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.087.
- M. Lenz, P. J. Emigh, and E. Gire, Surprise! Students don’t do special-case analysis when unaware of it, in Presented at PER Conference (2018), 10.1119/perc.2018.pr.Lenz.
- 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).
- National Research Council, Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011), 10.17226/13099.
- M. Scriven and R. Paul, A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, in Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform (1987), retrieved from criticalthinking.org.
- A. H. Schoenfeld, Mathematical Problem Solving (Academic Press, New York, 1985).
- D. S. Wright and C. D. Williams, A wise strategy for introductory physics, Phys. Teach. 24, 211 (1986).
- P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 60, 627 (1992).
- J. I. Heller and F. Reif, Prescribing effective human problem-solving processes: Problem description in physics, Cognit. Instr. 1(2), 177 (1984).
- D. Huffman, Effect of explicit problem solving instruction on high school students’ problem-solving performance and conceptual understanding of physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 551 (1997).
- G. Polya, How to Solve It (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1945).
- O. Uhden, R. Karam, M. Pietrocola, and G. Pospiech, Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics education, Sci. Educ. 21, 485 (2012).
- B. R. Wilcox, M. D. Caballero, D. A. Rehn, and S. J. Pollock, Analytic framework for students’ use of mathematics in upper-division physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020119 (2013).
- J. Tuminaro, A cognitive framework for analyzing and describing introductory students’ use and understanding of mathematics in physics, dissertation, University of Maryland, 2004.
- T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020108 (2009).
- T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, Epistemic complexity and the journeyman-expert transition, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010105 (2012).
- 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).
- E. Kuo, M. M. Hull, A. Elby, and A. Gupta, Assessing mathematical sensemaking in physics through calculation-concept crossover, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020109 (2020).
- M. Kryjevskaia, P. R. L. Heron, and A. F. Heckler, Intuitive or rational? Students and experts need to be both, Phys. Today 74, No. 8, 28 (2021).
- 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).
- M. Carlson, A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Development of the Function Concept (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998), pp. 114–162, 10.1090/cbmath/007/04.
- S. R. Jones, Multivariation and students’ multivariational reasoning, J. Math. Behav. 67, 100991 (2022).
- W. J. Leonard, R. J. Dufresne, and J. P. Mestre, Using qualitative problem-solving strategies to highlight the role of conceptual knowledge in solving problems, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1495 (1996).
- J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
- A. F. Heckler, The role of automatic, bottom-up processes: In the ubiquitous patterns of incorrect answers to science questions, Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 55, 227 (2011).
- J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
- R. Knight, Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach with Modern Physics, 4th ed. (Pearson Education Inc., 2016).
- G. Knoblich, S. Ohlsson, H. Haider, and D. Rhenius, Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 25, 1534 (1999).
- M. Lenz and E. Gire, Faculty views of and expectations for dimensional analysis, in Presented at PER Conference (2016), pp. 196–199, 10.1119/perc.2016.pr.044.
- E. F. Redish, Using math in physics: 1. Dimensional analysis, Phys. Teach. 59, 397 (2021).
- Y. Chen, P. W. Irving, and E. C. Sayre, Epistemic game for answer making in learning about hydrostatics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010108 (2013).
- R. R. Bajracharya and J. R. Thompson, Analytical derivation: An epistemic game for solving mathematically based physics problems, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010124 (2016).
- See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/rsh8-1ftk for a comprehensive list of codes and corresponding sample responses.
- C. Zimmerman, A. Olsho, S. W. Brahmia, A. Boudreaux, T. I. Smith, and P. Eaton, Exploring student facility with “goes like” reasoning in introductory physics, in Presented at PER Conference (2020), pp. 605–610, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Zimmerman.
- P. Her and M. E. Loverude, Examining student understanding of matrix algebra and eigentheory, in Presented at PER Confernce 2020 (2020), pp. 210–215, 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.Her.
- E. Torigoe and G. Gladding, Same to us, different to them: Numeric computation versus symbolic representation, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 153 (2007).
- E. Redish, Using math in physics: 5. Functional dependence, Phys. Teach. 60, 18 (2022).
- E. F. Redish and E. Kuo, Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology, Sci. Educ. 24, 561 (2015).
- M. C. Wittmann and K. E. Black, Mathematical actions as procedural resources: An example from the separation of variables, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020114 (2015).
- B. L. Sherin, How students understand physics equations, Cognit. Instr. 19, 479 (2001).
- J. Mestre, Is transfer ubiquitous or rare? New paradigms for studying transfer, AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 3 (2005).
- R. Dufresne, J. Mestre, T. Thaden-Koch, W. Gerace, and W. Leonard, Knowledge representation and coordination in the transfer process, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2005), pp. 155–215.
- M. T. H. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices*, Cognit. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).
- D. L. Schwartz, J. D. Bransford, and D. Sears, Efficiency and innovation in transfer, in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives (Current Perspectives on Cognition, Learning, and Instruction), edited by J. Mestre (2005).
- B. J. Zimmerman and M. M. Pons, Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies, Am. Educ. Res. J. 23, 614 (1986).
- M. D. George et al., Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 26, 163 (1997).