Using written questionnaires, I surveyed introductory physics students about how they study and about how they would advise a hypothetical student to study if she were trying to learn physics deeply with no grade pressure. The survey teases apart students’ “epistemological” beliefs about learning and understanding physics from their more course-specific beliefs about how to earn high grades. The results indicate that students perceive “trying to understand physics well” to be a significantly different activity from “trying to do well in the course.”
REFERENCES
1.
The existence of this problem is discussed in
L. C.
McDermott
, “What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 301
–315
(1991
).2.
M.
Schommer
, “Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension
,” J. Ed. Psych.
82
(3
), 406
–411
(1990
).3.
B.
Eylon
and F.
Reif
, “Effects of knowledge organization on task performance
,” Cognit. Instr.
1
(1
), 5
–44
(1984
).4.
D.
Hammer
, “Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics
,” Cognit. Instr.
12
(2
), 151
–183
(1994
).5.
On surveys, students’ responses also reflect how they think they are supposed to answer.
6.
This research also led to results, reported elsewhere, concerning the correlations between epistemological beliefs, self-reported study habits, and academic performance. See A. Elby, “Why do epistemologically sophisticated students perform better in physics classes?,” unpublished manuscript.
7.
These categories emerged from examining popular textbooks. The pilot version of the questionnaire contained a fifth category, “historical sketches,” but it was eliminated, because almost all the pilot-study subjects indicated that they spend negligible time on that category. Subjects had the opportunity to write in other categories, but few did. The pilot study led to the hypothesis that students “distort” their study habits towards formulas and away from concepts.
8.
A careful analysis of students’ written responses supports these conclusions.
9.
Before calculating these distortion percentages, I normalized Diana’s time allocations, which originally added up to 109% on average. (By contrast, students’ time-allocation percentages for themselves summed to approximately 100% on average.) Figure 1 is based on this normalized data. It turns out, however, that the distribution of total distortion percentages comes out nearly the same whether or not the time-allocation data is normalized. With normalization, the average total distortion percentage was Without normalization, it was In both cases, the distribution has approximately the same shape.
10.
The fact that nearly 40% of students recommended that Diana spend “over 40%” of her time on concepts, and the fact that time allocations for Diana added up to 109% on average, may indicate that “over 40%” often meant over 50%. But nothing in my analysis rides on this speculation.
11.
D.
Hammer
, “Two approaches to learning physics
,” Phys. Teach.
27
(12
), 664
–670
(1989
).12.
This research also led to results, reported elsewhere, concerning the correlations between epistemological beliefs, self-reported study habits, and academic performance. See A. Elby, “Why do epistemologically sophisticated students perform better in physics classes?,” unpublished manuscript.
13.
A.
Schoenfeld
, “When good teaching leads to bad results: the disasters of well taught mathematics classes
,” Educat. Psycholog.
23
, 145
–166
(1989
).14.
Although, as Hammer’s11 “Ellen” demonstrates, the strategy of trying to obtain a deep understanding might not be viable for all students in fast-paced courses.
15.
See E. Seymour and N. M. Hewitt, Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (Westview, 1997). They show that men disproportionately attribute poor performance to the unfairness of the test and instructor, while women disproportionately attribute poor performance to their own lack of ability.
16.
L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Research Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics: Homework (Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998).
17.
E. F.
Redish
, J. M.
Saul
, and R. N.
Steinberg
, “Student expectations in introductory physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 212
–224
(1998
).
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1999 American Association of Physics Teachers.
1999
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
