There have been many investigations into the factors that underlie variations in individual student performance in college physics courses. Numerous studies report a positive correlation between students’ mathematical skills and their exam grades in college physics. However, few studies have examined students’ learning gain resulting from physics instruction, particularly with regard to qualitative, conceptual understanding. We report on the results of our investigation into some of the factors, including mathematical skill, that might be associated with variations in students’ ability to achieve conceptual learning gains in a physics course that employs interactive-engagement methods. It was found that students’ normalized learning gains are not significantly correlated with their pretest scores on a physics concept test. In contrast, in three of the four sample populations studied it was found that there is a significant correlation between normalized learning gain and students’ preinstruction mathematics skill. In two of the samples, both males and females independently exhibited the correlation between learning gain and mathematics skill. These results suggest that students’ initial level of physics concept knowledge might be largely unrelated to their ability to make learning gains in an interactive-engagement course; students’ preinstruction algebra skills might be associated with their facility at acquiring physics conceptual knowledge in such a course; and between-class differences in normalized learning gain may reflect not only differences in instructional method, but student population differences (“hidden variables”) as well.
Topics
Educational assessment
REFERENCES
1.
Ralph H.
Blumenthal
, “Multiple instruction and other factors related to achievement in college physics
,” Sci. Educ.
45
, 336
–342
(1961
).2.
H. Daniel
Cohen
, Donald F.
Hillman
, and Russell M.
Agne
, “Cognitive level and college physics achievement
,” Am. J. Phys.
46
, 1026
–1029
(1978
).3.
H. T.
Hudson
and W. R.
McIntire
, “Correlation between mathematical skills and success in physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
45
, 470
–471
(1977
);H. T.
Hudson
and Ray M.
Rottmann
, “Correlation between performance in physics and prior mathematics knowledge
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
18
, 291
–294
(1981
);Warren
Wollman
and Frances
Lawrenz
, “Identifying potential ‘dropouts’ from college physics classes
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
21
, 385
–390
(1984
);H. T.
Hudson
, “A comparison of cognitive skills between completes and dropouts in a college physics course
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
23
, 41
–50
(1986
);C. J.
Linder
and H. T.
Hudson
, “A comparison of mathematics backgrounds between American and South African physics students
,” Sci. Educ.
73
, 459
–465
(1989
).4.
Audrey B.
Champagne
, Leopold E.
Klopfer
, and John H.
Anderson
, “Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics
,” Am. J. Phys.
48
, 1074
–1079
(1980
);Audrey B.
Champagne
and Leopold E.
Klopfer
, “A causal model of students’ achievement in a college physics course
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
19
, 299
–309
(1982
).5.
H. T.
Hudson
and Dov
Liberman
, “The combined effect of mathematics skills and formal operational reasoning on student performance in the general physics course
,” Am. J. Phys.
50
, 1117
–1119
(1982
).6.
W. T.
Griffith
, “Factors affecting performance in introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
53
, 839
–842
(1985
).7.
Ibrahim Abou
Halloun
and David
Hestenes
, “The initial knowledge state of college physics students
,” Am. J. Phys.
53
, 1043
–1055
(1985
).8.
Susan
McCammon
, Jeannie
Golden
, and Karl K.
Wuensch
, “Predicting course performance in freshman and sophomore physics courses: women are more predictable than men
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
25
, 501
–510
(1988
).9.
R. R.
Hake
, R.
Wakeland
, A.
Bhattacharrya
, and R.
Sirochman
, “Assessment of individual student performance in an introductory mechanics course
,” AAPT Announcer
24
(4
), 76
(1994
).10.
Michael J.
Thoresen
and Carl M.
Gross
, “Factors contributing to success in college physics
,” AAPT Announcer
30
(4
), 128
(2000
).11.
John R.
Bolte
, “Background factors and success in college physics
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
4
, 74
–78
(1966
);Gerald E.
Hart
and Paul D.
Cottle
, “Academic backgrounds and achievement in college physics
,” Phys. Teach.
31
, 470
–475
(1993
);Brian J.
Alters
, “Counseling physics students: A research basis
,” Phys. Teach.
33
, 413
–415
(1995
).12.
Philip M.
Sadler
and Robert H.
Tai
, “Success in introductory college physics: The role of high school preparation
,” Sci. Educ.
85
, 111
–136
(2001
).13.
George
Barnes
, “Scores on a Piaget-type questionnaire versus semester grades for lower-division college physics students
,” Am. J. Phys.
45
, 841
–847
(1977
);Dov
Liberman
and H. T.
Hudson
, “Correlation between logical abilities and success in physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
47
, 784
–786
(1979
);Morris A.
Enyeart
, Dale
Baker
, and Dave
Vanharlingen
, “Correlation of inductive and deductive logical reasoning to college physics achievement
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
17
, 263
–267
(1980
);J.
Cilliers
, P.
Kruger
, I.
Basson
, and P. A.
Kirschner
, “Psychometric testing as a predictor of student performance in first year physics practicals
,” J. Sci. Educ. Tech.
5
, 47
–57
(1996
).14.
John M.
Clement
, “Using physics to raise students’ thinking skills
,” AAPT Announcer
30
(4
), 81
(2000
);John M.
Clement
, “Techniques used to raise thinking skills in high school
,” AAPT Announcer
30
(4
), 92
(2000
);John M.
Clement
, “The correlation between scientific thinking skill and gain in physics conceptual understanding
,” AAPT Announcer
31
(2
), 82
(2001
).15.
O. J.
Ehindero
, “Correlates of physics achievement: The role of genderand non-induced student expectations
,” J. Expt. Educ.
54
, 189
–192
(1986
).16.
M. J.
Marr
, E. W.
Thomas
, M. R.
Benne
, A.
Thomas
, and R. M.
Hume
, “Development of instructional systems for teaching an electricity and magnetism course for engineers
,” Am. J. Phys.
67
, 789
–802
(1999
).17.
Christoph
von Rhöneck
, Karl
Grob
, Gerhard W.
Schnaitmann
, and Bruno
Völker
, “Learning in basic electricity: How do motivation, cognitive and classroom climate factors influence achievement in physics
,” Int. J. Sci. Educ.
20
, 551
–565
(1998
).18.
Lillian C.
McDermott
and Edward F.
Redish
, “Resource Letter: PER1: Physics Education Research
,” Am. J. Phys.
67
, 755
–767
(1999
), and available at 〈http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe〉19.
David P.
Maloney
, Thomas L.
O’Kuma
, Curtis J.
Hieggelke
, and Alan
Van Heuvelen
, “Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism
,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl.
69
, S12
–S23
(2001
).20.
Richard R.
Hake
, “Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 64
–74
(1998
); available at 21.
Karen
Cummings
, Jeffrey
Marx
, Ronald
Thornton
, and Dennis
Kuhl
, “Evaluating innovations in studio physics
,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl.
67
, S38
–S44
(1999
).22.
Ronald K.
Thornton
and David 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
–352
(1998
).23.
Lillian C.
McDermott
, “Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned–Closing the gap
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 301
–315
(1991
);Lillian C.
McDermott
, “Bridging the gap between teaching and learning: The role of research
,” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education
, edited by Edward F.
Redish
and John S.
Rigden
[AIP Conf. Proc.
399
, 139
–165
(1997
)], Pt. 1.24.
Eric Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997), pp. 3–7, and passim.
25.
Walter R. Borg and Meredith D. Gall, Educational Research, An Introduction (Longman, New York, 1989), 5th ed., pp. 728–733.
26.
is found by using the mean pretest score and mean posttest score of all students in the class. Note that the notation to be adopted in the present paper is unorthodox; see Ref. 31.
27.
Edward F.
Redish
and Richard N.
Steinberg
, “Teaching physics: figuring out what works
,” Phys. Today
52
, 24
–30
(1999
);Richard R.
Hake
, “Lessons from the physics education reform effort
,” Conservation Ecology
5
, 28
(2002
), available at 〈http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28〉28.
Charles R.
Henderson
, Kenneth
Heller
and Patricia
Heller
, “Common concerns about the Force Concept Inventory
,” AAPT Announcer
29
(4
), 99
(1999
), and available at 〈http://www.physics.umn.edu〉29.
David E.
Meltzer
and Kandiah
Manivannan
, “Promoting interactivity in physics lecture classes
,” Phys. Teach.
34
, 72
–78
(1996
);David E.
Meltzer
and Kandiah
Manivannan
, “Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture
,” Am. J. Phys.
70
, 639
–654
(2002
).30.
The following item numbers on CSE Form D were used in all cases [more recent versions of the CSE use different numbering; corresponding CSEM item numbers are shown in brackets]: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9[7], 10[8], 11[9], 12, 13[10], 14[11], 15, 16[12], 23[17], 24[18], 25[19], 26, 27[16], 28[20], 31[3], 32[4], 33[5]. In several cases, there are minor differences between the CSE questions and the corresponding CSEM items.
31.
Here the notation is used to symbolize the mean value of the individual student ’s. Its more common use in the literature is to symbolize the calculated by using mean values of the pretest and post-test scores of all students in a class.
32.
David J. Sheskin, Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2000), 2nd ed., pp. 782–784.
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2002 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2002
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.
