Physics students' approaches to learning and cognitive processes in solving physics problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined traditional instruction and problem-based learning (PBL) approaches to teaching and the extent to which they foster the development of desirable cognitive processes, including metacognition, critical thinking, physical intuition, and problem solving among undergraduate physics students. The study also examined students' approaches to learning and their perceived role as physics students. The research took place in the context of advanced courses of electromagnetism at a Canadian research university. The cognitive science, expertise, physics and science education, instructional psychology, and discourse processes literature provided the framework and background to conceptualize and structure this study. A within-stage mixed-model design was used and a number of instruments, including a survey, observation grids, and problem sets were developed specifically for this study. A special one-week long problem-based learning (PBL) intervention was also designed. Interviews with the instructors participating in the study provided complementary data. Findings include evidence that students in general engage in metacognitive processes in the organization of their personal study time. However, this potential, including the development of other cognitive processes, might not be stimulated as much as it could in the traditional lecture instructional context. The PBL approach was deemed as more empowering for the students. An unexpected finding came from the realisation that a simple exposure to a structured exercise of problem-solving (pre-test) was sufficient to produce superior planning and solving strategies on a second exposure (post-test) even for the students who had not been exposed to any special treatment. Maturation was ruled out as a potential threat to the validity of this finding. Another promising finding appears to be that the problem-based learning (PBL) intervention tends to foster the development of cognitive competencies, particularly physical intuition, even if it was only implemented for a short period of time. Other findings relate to the nature of the cognitive actions and activities that the students engage in when learning to solve electromagnetism problems in a PBL environment for the first time and the tutoring actions that guide students in this context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".