In this paper, we explore the use of isomorphic problem pairs (IPPs) to assess introductory physics students’ ability to solve and successfully transfer problem-solving knowledge from one context to another in mechanics. We call the paired problems “isomorphic” because they require the same physics principle to solve them. We analyze written responses and individual discussions for a range of isomorphic problems. We examine potential factors that may help or hinder transfer of problem-solving skills from one problem in a pair to the other. For some paired isomorphic problems, one context often turned out to be easier for students in that it was more often correctly solved than the other. When quantitative and conceptual questions were paired and given back to back, students who answered both questions in the IPP often performed better on the conceptual questions than those who answered the corresponding conceptual questions only. Although students often took advantage of the quantitative counterpart to answer a conceptual question of an IPP correctly, when only given the conceptual question, students seldom tried to convert it into a quantitative question, solve it, and then reason about the solution conceptually. Even in individual interviews when students who were given only conceptual questions had difficulty and the interviewer explicitly encouraged them to convert the conceptual question into the corresponding quantitative problem by choosing appropriate variables, a majority of students were reluctant and preferred to guess the answer to the conceptual question based upon their gut feeling. Misconceptions associated with friction in some problems were so robust that pairing them with isomorphic problems not involving friction did not help students discern their underlying similarities. Alternatively, from the knowledge-in-pieces perspective, the activation of the knowledge resource related to friction was so strongly and automatically triggered by the context, which is outside the conscious control of the student, that students did not look for analogies with paired problems or other aids that may be present.

Investigations related to expertise in problem solving and ability to transfer learning from one context to another are important for developing strategies to help students perform more expertlike tasks. Here we analyze written responses to a pair of nonintuitive isomorphic problems given to introductory physics students and discussions with a subset of students about them. Students were asked to explain their reasoning for their written responses. We call the paired problems isomorphic because they require the same physics principle to solve them. However, the initial conditions are different, and the frictional force is responsible for increasing the linear speed of an object in one of the problems while it is responsible for decreasing the linear speed in the other problem. We categorize student responses and evaluate student performance within the context of their evolving expertise. We compare and contrast the patterns of student categorization for the two isomorphic problems. We discuss why certain incorrect responses were better than others and shed light on the evolution of students’ expertise. We compare the performance of students who worked on both isomorphic problems with those who worked only on one of the problems to understand whether students recognized their underlying similarity and whether isomorphic pairs gave students additional insight into solving each problem.

Some education researchers have claimed that we should not teach the Bohr model of the atom because it inhibits students’ ability to learn the true quantum nature of electrons in atoms. Although the evidence for this claim is weak, many have accepted it. This claim has implications for how to present atoms in classes ranging from elementary school to graduate school. We present results from a study designed to test this claim by developing a curriculum on models of the atom, including the Bohr and Schrödinger models. We examine student descriptions of atoms on final exams in transformed modern physics classes using various versions of this curriculum. We find that if the curriculum does not include sufficient connections between different models, many students still have a Bohr-like view of atoms rather than a more accurate Schrödinger model. However, with an improved curriculum designed to develop model-building skills and with better integration between different models, it is possible to get most students to describe atoms using the Schrödinger model. In comparing our results with previous research, we find that comparing and contrasting different models is a key feature of a curriculum that helps students move beyond the Bohr model and adopt Schrödinger’s view of the atom. We find that understanding the reasons for the development of models is much more difficult for students than understanding the features of the models. We also present interactive computer simulations designed to help students build models of the atom more effectively.

We investigate short-term learning from hints and feedback in a Web-based physics tutoring system. Both the skill of students and the difficulty and discrimination of items were determined by applying item response theory (IRT) to the first answers of students who are working on for-credit homework items in an introductory Newtonian physics course. We show that after tutoring a shifted logistic item response function with lower discrimination fits the students’ second responses to an item previously answered incorrectly. Student skill decreased by 1.0 standard deviation when students used no tutoring between their (incorrect) first and second attempts, which we attribute to “item-wrong bias.” On average, using hints or feedback increased students’ skill by 0.8 standard deviation. A skill increase of 1.9 standard deviation was observed when hints were requested after viewing, but prior to attempting to answer, a particular item. The skill changes measured in this way will enable the use of IRT to assess students based on their second attempt in a tutoring environment.

Systematic observations of student gestures can not only fill in gaps in students’ verbal expressions, but can also offer valuable information about student ideas, including their source, their novelty to the speaker, and their construction in real time. This paper provides a review of the research in gesture analysis that is most relevant to physics education researchers and illustrates gesture analysis for the purpose of better understanding student thinking about physics.

To identify and describe the basis upon which instructors make curricular and pedagogical decisions, we have developed an artifact-based interview and an analysis technique based on multilayered concept maps. The policy capturing technique used in the interview asks instructors to make judgments about concrete instructional artifacts similar to those they likely encounter in their teaching environment. The analysis procedure alternatively employs both an a priori systems view analysis and an emergent categorization to construct a multilayered concept map, which is a hierarchically arranged set of concept maps where child maps include more details than parent maps. Although our goal was to develop a model of physics faculty beliefs about the teaching and learning of problem solving in the context of an introductory calculus-based physics course, the techniques described here are applicable to a variety of situations in which instructors make decisions that influence teaching and learning.

In higher education, instructors’ choices of both curricular material and pedagogy are determined by their beliefs about learning and teaching, the values of their profession, and perceived external constraints. Dissemination of research-based educational reforms is based on assumptions about that mental structure. This study reports the initial phase of an investigation of the beliefs and values of physics professors as they relate to the teaching and learning of problem solving in introductory physics. Based on an analysis of a series of structured interviews with six college physics faculty, a model of a common structure of such beliefs for all physics faculty teaching introductory physics was constructed. This preliminary model, when tested and modified by future research, can be used by curriculum developers to design materials, pedagogy, and professional development that gain acceptance among instructors.

This paper describes ongoing research investigating student approaches to quantitative and qualitative problem solving in physics. This empirical study was conducted using a phenomenographic approach to analyze data from individual semistructured problem solving interviews with 22 introductory college physics students. The main result of the study is a hierarchical set of categories that describe the students’ problem solving approaches in the context of introductory physics.

We use clustering, an analysis method not presently common to the physics education research community, to group and characterize student responses to written questions about two-dimensional kinematics. Previously, clustering has been used to analyze multiple-choice data; we analyze free-response data that includes both sketches of vectors and written elements. The primary goal of this paper is to describe the methodology itself; we include a brief overview of relevant results.

National studies of science education have unanimously concluded that preparing our students for the demands of the 21st century workplace is one of the major goals. This paper describes a study of student activities in introductory college physics labs, which were designed to help students acquire abilities that are valuable in the workplace. In these labs [called Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE) labs], students design their own experiments. Our previous studies have shown that students in these labs acquire scientific abilities such as the ability to design an experiment to solve a problem, the ability to collect and analyze data, the ability to evaluate assumptions and uncertainties, and the ability to communicate. These studies mostly concentrated on analyzing students’ writing, evaluated by specially designed scientific ability rubrics. Recently, we started to study whether the ISLE labs make students not only write like scientists but also engage in discussions and act like scientists while doing the labs. For example, do students plan an experiment, validate assumptions, evaluate results, and revise the experiment if necessary? A brief report of some of our findings that came from monitoring students’ activity during ISLE and nondesign labs was presented in the Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings. We found differences in student behavior and discussions that indicated that ISLE labs do in fact encourage a scientistlike approach to experimental design and promote high-quality discussions. This paper presents a full description of the study.

Although guided-inquiry methods for teaching introductory physics have been individually shown to be more effective at improving conceptual understanding than traditional lecture-style instruction, researchers in physics education have not studied differences among reform-based curricula in much detail. Several researchers have developed University of Washington–style tutorial materials, but the different curricula have not been compared against each other. Our study examines three tutorials designed to improve student understanding of Newton’s third law: the University of Washington’s Tutorials in Introductory Physics (TIP), the University of Maryland’s Activity-Based Tutorials (ABT), and the Open Source Tutorials (OST) also developed at the University of Maryland. Each tutorial was designed with different goals and agendas, and each employs different methods to help students understand the physics. We analyzed pretest and post-test data, including course examinations and data from the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). Using both FMCE and course data, we find that students using the OST version of the tutorial perform better than students using either of the other two.

Previously, we proposed a model of student reasoning which combines the roles of representation, analogy, and layering of meaning—analogical scaffolding [Podolefsky and Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010109 (2007)]. The present empirical studies build on this model to examine its utility and demonstrate the vital intertwining of representation, analogy, and conceptual learning in physics. In two studies of student reasoning using analogy, we show that representations couple to students’ existing prior knowledge and also lead to the dynamic formation of new knowledge. Students presented with abstract, concrete, or blended (both abstract and concrete) representations produced markedly different response patterns. In the first study, using analogies to scaffold understanding of electromagnetic (EM) waves, students in the blend group were more likely to reason productively about EM waves than students in the abstract group by as much as a factor of 3 (73% vs 24% correct, $p=0.002$). In the second study, examining representation use within one domain (sound waves), the blend group was more likely to reason productively about sound waves than the abstract group by as much as a factor of 2 (48% vs 23% correct, $p=0.002$). Using the analogical scaffolding model we examine when and why students succeed and fail to use analogies and interpret representations appropriately.

Many proven research-based instructional strategies have been developed for introductory college-level physics. Significant efforts to disseminate these strategies have focused on convincing individual instructors to give up their traditional practices in favor of particular research-based practices. Yet evidence suggests that the findings of educational research are, at best, only marginally incorporated into typical introductory physics courses. In this paper we present partial results of an interview study designed to generate new ideas about why proven strategies are slow to integrate in mainstream instruction. Specifically we describe the results of open-ended interviews with five physics instructors who represent likely users of educational research. We found that these instructors have conceptions about teaching and learning that are more compatible with educational research than with their self-described instructional practices. Instructors often blamed this discrepancy on situational factors that favor traditional instruction. A theoretical model is introduced to explain these findings.

Although much is known about the differences between expert and novice problem solvers, knowledge of those differences typically does not provide enough detail to help instructors understand why some students seem to learn physics while solving problems and others do not. A critical issue is how students access the knowledge they have in the context of solving a particular problem. In this paper, we discuss our observations of students solving physics problems in authentic situations in an algebra-based physics class at the University of Maryland. We find that when these students are working together and interacting effectively, they often use a limited set of locally coherent resources for blocks of time of a few minutes or more. This coherence appears to provide the student with guidance as to what knowledge and procedures to access and what to ignore. Often, this leads to the students failing to apply relevant knowledge they later show they possess. In this paper, we outline a theoretical phenomenology for describing these local coherences and identify six organizational structures that we refer to as epistemic games. The hypothesis that students tend to function within the narrow confines of a fairly limited set of games provides a good description of our observations. We demonstrate how students use these games in two case studies and discuss the implications for instruction.

This paper describes a model of analogy, analogical scaffolding, which explains present and prior results of student learning with analogies. We build on prior models of representation, blending, and layering of ideas. Extending this model’s explanatory power, we propose ways in which the model can be applied to design a curriculum directed at teaching abstract ideas in physics using multiple, layered analogies. We report on a recent empirical study that motivates this model. Students taught about electromagnetic waves in a curriculum that builds on the model of analogical scaffolding posted substantially greater gains pre- to postinstruction than students taught using a more traditional (non-analogy-based) tutorial (21% vs 7%).

Good use of multiple representations is considered key to learning physics, and so there is considerable motivation both to learn how students use multiple representations when solving problems and to learn how best to teach problem solving using multiple representations. In this study of two large-lecture algebra-based physics courses at the University of Colorado (CU) and Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, we address both issues. Students in each of the two courses solved five common electrostatics problems of varying difficulty, and we examine their solutions to clarify the relationship between multiple representation use and performance on problems involving free-body diagrams. We also compare our data across the courses, since the two physics-education-research-based courses take substantially different approaches to teaching the use of multiple representations. The course at Rutgers takes a strongly directed approach, emphasizing specific heuristics and problem-solving strategies. The course at CU takes a weakly directed approach, modeling good problem solving without teaching a specific strategy. We find that, in both courses, students make extensive use of multiple representations, and that this use (when both complete and correct) is associated with significantly increased performance. Some minor differences in representation use exist, and are consistent with the types of instruction given. Most significant are the strong and broad similarities in the results, suggesting that either instructional approach or a combination thereof can be useful for helping students learn to use multiple representations for problem solving and concept development.