- 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

Does presentation matter? Examining show-work presentation quality and student performance in introductory physics

Heather Mei1,*, Qiaoyi Liu1, Kentaro Fujita2, and Andrew F. Heckler1

  • *Contact author: mei.228@osu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020155 – Published 5 November, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/wp62-bwjs

Abstract

Physics problem-solving assessments often prioritize accuracy over presentation. However, the presentation quality of a student’s written solution—such as its handwriting clarity and layout—may play an important role both as an indicator and facilitator of student problem-solving and achievement. In this study, we investigated the relationships between show-work presentation (SWP), conscientiousness, and student performance in a large-enrollment introductory calculus-based physics course. Using an emergent coding process, we first iteratively developed a reliable rubric for quantifying several presentation qualities of student solutions to two introductory mechanics final exam show-work questions. We found that the coding produced scores for 2 orthogonal factors, which we label as Form, measuring layout and legibility, and Annotation, measuring student notation of their work. Statistical analyses showed that Form was a moderate-to-weak positive predictor of various course performance measures (r∼0.3), including show-work score, exam score, nonexam scores, and course grade. Even when controlling for ACT Math and conscientiousness scores, Form still accounted for 4%–5% of the variance of these course performance scores. In contrast, Annotation was at best very weakly and inconsistently (in sign) correlated with these performance scores. Sex differences were also observed, with female students’ mean scores for both Form and Annotation typically about one-half standard deviation higher than male students’ scores. Simultaneous mediation models of the relation between sex and course outcomes included the mediators of ACT score, conscientiousness, and Form. Results indicate that Form partially mediated the relation between sex and course grade, show-work score, multiple-choice score, and nonexam score. Specifically, women tended to score higher on Form, and this effect in turn led to a positive effect on scores on all of these outcomes, typically compensating for other negative effects. The (simultaneous) mediations of ACT score and conscientiousness were much weaker, consistent with being vanishingly small. It is important to note that these are correlational results only, and control-treatment designs are called for to investigate potential causal links between Form and performance. Overall, by developing and implementing a validated rubric measuring show-work presentation quality, we find evidence that presentation quality may play a relatively small but reliable role in student performance on show-work problems and is a weak but reliable predictor of most components of course performance. These results suggest that show-work presentation may be an important factor to consider in physics instruction.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (68)

  1. J. H. Larkin and F. Reif, Understanding and teaching problem-solving in physics, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 191 (1979).
  2. J. P. Mestre, J. L. Docktor, N. E. Strand, and B. H. Ross, Chapter Nine—Conceptual problem solving in physics, in Psychology of Learning and Motivation, edited by J. P. Mestre and B. H. Ross (Academic Press, New York, 2011), Vol. 55, p. 298.
  3. 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).
  4. F. Reif and J. I. Heller, Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics, Educ. Psychol. 17, 102 (1982).
  5. L. Hsu, E. Brewe, T. M. Foster, and K. A. Harper, Resource letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 72, 1147 (2004).
  6. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  7. 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).
  8. 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).
  9. B. Ibrahim, L. Ding, A. F. Heckler, D. R. White, and R. Badeau, How students process equations in solving quantitative synthesis problems? Role of mathematical complexity in students’ mathematical performance, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020120 (2017).
  10. M. De Cock, Representation use and strategy choice in physics problem solving, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020117 (2012).
  11. C. O. Sweedler-Brown, Effect of training on the appearance bias of holistic essay graders, J. Res. Dev. Educ. 26, 24 (1992).
  12. V. Connelly, J. E. Dockrell, and J. Barnett, The slow handwriting of undergraduate students constrains overall performance in exam essays, Educ. Psychol. 25, 99 (2005).
  13. J. Stewart and S. Ballard, Effect of written presentation on performance in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020120 (2010).
  14. S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, and J. Fitzgerald, Best Practices in Writing Instruction (Guilford Publications, New York, USA, 2025).
  15. R. E. Mayer, Rote versus meaningful learning, Theory Pract. 41, 226 (2002).
  16. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cogn. Sci. 12, 257 (1988).
  17. B. J. Zimmerman, Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview, Theory Pract. 41, 64 (2002).
  18. O. P. John and S. Srivastava, The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives, in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, edited by L. A. Pervin and O. P. John (Guilford Press, New York, 1999), p. 138.
  19. S. Mammadov, Big five personality traits and academic performance: A meta-analysis, J. Pers. 90, 222 (2022).
  20. A. E. Poropat, A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance, Psychol. Bull. 135, 322 (2009).
  21. N. Conrad and M. Patry, Conscientiousness and academic performance: A mediational analysis, Int. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. 6 (2012).
  22. B. W. Roberts, C. Lejuez, R. F. Krueger, J. M. Richards, and P. L. Hill, What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed?, Dev. Psychol. 50, 1315 (2014).
  23. 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).
  24. V. W. Berninger, K. H. Nielsen, R. D. Abbott, E. Wijsman, and W. Raskind, Gender differences in severity of writing and reading disabilities, J. Sch. Psychol. 46, 151 (2008).
  25. K. P. Feder and A. Majnemer, Handwriting development, competency, and intervention, Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 49, 312 (2007).
  26. A. B. Simmons and A. F. Heckler, Grades, grade component weighting, and demographic disparities in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020125 (2020).
  27. S. Salehi, S. Cotner, S. M. Azarin, E. E. Carlson, M. Driessen, V. E. Ferry, W. Harcombe, S. McGaugh, D. Wassenberg, A. Yonas, and C. J. Ballen, Gender performance gaps across different assessment methods and the underlying mechanisms: The case of incoming preparation and test anxiety, Front. Educ. 4, 107 (2019).
  28. N. van Drempt, A. McCluskey, and N. A. Lannin, A review of factors that influence adult handwriting performance, Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 58, 321 (2011).
  29. S. Graham, V. Berninger, N. Weintraub, and W. Schafer, Development of handwriting speed and legibility in grades 1-9, J. Educ. Res. 92, 42 (1998).
  30. J. M. Malouff and E. B. Thorsteinsson, Bias in grading: A meta-analysis of experimental research findings, Aust. J. Educ. 60, 245 (2016).
  31. R. Greifeneder, S. Zelt, T. Seele, K. Bottenberg, and A. Alt, Towards a better understanding of the legibility bias in performance assessments: The case of gender-based inferences, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 361 (2012).
  32. F. G. W. C. Paas and J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach, J. Educ. Psychol. 86, 122 (1994).
  33. J. Hattie, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement (Routledge, London, 2008).
  34. E. W. Burkholder, J. K. Miles, T. J. Layden, K. D. Wang, A. V. Fritz, and C. E. Wieman, Template for teaching and assessment of problem solving in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010123 (2020).
  35. T. Santangelo and S. Graham, A comprehensive meta-analysis of handwriting instruction, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28, 225 (2016).
  36. S. L. Hammerschmidt and P. Sudsawad, Teachers’ survey on problems with handwriting: Referral, evaluation, and outcomes, Am. J. Occup. Ther. 58, 185 (2004).
  37. Z. Ivcevic and M. Brackett, Predicting school success: Comparing conscientiousness, grit, and emotion regulation ability, J. Res. Pers. 52, 29 (2014).
  38. B. Dumfart and A. C. Neubauer, Conscientiousness is the most powerful noncognitive predictor of school achievement in adolescents, J. Individ. Differ. 37, 8 (2016).
  39. A. L. Duckworth and M. E. P. Seligman, Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents, Psychol. Sci. 16, 939 (2005).
  40. A. Zusho, P. R. Pintrich, and B. Coppola, Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 1081 (2003).
  41. K. G. Rice, F. G. Lopez, and C. M. E. Richardson, Perfectionism and performance among STEM students, J. Vocat. Behav. 82, 124 (2013).
  42. C. J. Ballen, S. Salehi, and S. Cotner, Exams disadvantage women in introductory biology, PLoS One 12, e0186419 (2017).
  43. P. Balart and M. Oosterveen, Females show more sustained performance during test-taking than males, Nat. Commun. 10, 3798 (2019).
  44. S. M. Lindberg, J. S. Hyde, J. L. Petersen, and M. C. Linn, New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis, Psychol. Bull. 136, 1123 (2010).
  45. K. F. Stanger-Hall and E. H. Chudler, Multiple-choice exams: An obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes, Life Sci. Educ. 11, 294 (2012).
  46. C. Hill, C. Corbett, and A. St. Rose, Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (American Association of University Women, 2010).
  47. C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham, and J. Handelsman, Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 16474 (2012).
  48. V. Burr, Judging gender from samples of adult handwriting: Accuracy and use of cues, J. Soc. Psychol. 142, 691 (2002).
  49. S. I. Hofer, Studying gender bias in physics grading: the role of teaching experience and country, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 37, 2879 (2015).
  50. S. D. Schneid, C. Armour, and K. Brandl, Beyond right or wrong: How partial credit scoring on multiple-choice questions improves student performance and assessment perceptions, Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 92, 2542 (2026).
  51. G. W. Procop, T. McCarthy, A. Schlinsog, and M. Ghofrani, A comparison of free-response and multiple-choice questions on the American board of pathology primary certification examinations, Acad. Pathol. 13, 100248 (2026).
  52. H. Mei, A. Heckler, and Q. Liu, Evaluating conscientiousness in student responses to show-work exam questions (2013), Accessed: Aug. 12, 2025, https://osf.io/ven87.
  53. J. Cohen, A power primer, Psychol. Bull. 112, 155 (1992).
  54. S. D. Gosling, P. J. Rentfrow, and W. B. Swann, A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains, J. Res. Pers. 37, 504 (2003).
  55. R. Eisinga, M. te Grotenhuis, and B. Pelzer, The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?, Int. J. Pub. Health 58, 637 (2013).
  56. B. G. Glaser, A. L. Strauss, and E. Strutzel, The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research, Nurs. Res. 17, 364 (1968).
  57. K. Charmaz, Constructing grounded theory, in Introducing Qualitative Methods, 2nd ed. (SAGE Publications, London, 2014).
  58. R. E. Boyatzis, Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998).
  59. K. Sijtsma, J. L. Ellis, and D. Borsboom, Recognize the value of the sum score, psychometrics’ greatest accomplishment, Psychometrika 89, 84 (2024).
  60. K. F. Widaman and W. Revelle, Thinking thrice about sum scores, and then some more about measurement and analysis, Behav. Res. Methods 55, 788 (2023).
  61. T. Lange, K. W. Hansen, R. Sørensen, and S. Galatius, Applied mediation analyses: A review and tutorial, Epidemiol. Health 39, e2017035 (2017).
  62. Y. Rosseel, Lavaan: An R package for structural Equation modeling, J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1 (2012).
  63. P. R. Pintrich and E. V. D. Groot, Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance, J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 33 (1990).
  64. B. J. Zimmerman, Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance, in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, Educational Psychology Handbook Series (Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY, US, 2011), pp. 49–64.
  65. J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. P. Simon, and H. A. Simon, Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science (New York, N.Y.) 208, 1335 (1980).
  66. M. A. Runco, Divergent thinking, creativity, and ideation, in The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, edited by J. C. Kaufman and R. J. Sternberg (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010), p. 446
  67. M. Merino, J. F. Tornero-Aguilera, A. Rubio-Zarapuz, C. V. Villanueva-Tobaldo, A. Martín-Rodríguez, and V. J. Clemente-Suárez, Body perceptions and psychological well-being: A review of the impact of social media and physical measurements on self-esteem and mental health with a focus on body image satisfaction and its relationship with cultural and gender factors, Healthcare (Basel) 12, 1396 (2024).
  68. C. Leaper and C. K. Friedman, The socialization of gender, in Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research (The Guilford Press, New York, NY, US, 2007), pp. 561–587.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020155– Published 5 November, 2026
  • Received 13 August 2025
  • Accepted 5 October 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