AbstractIntroductory algebra-based physics courses frequently feature multiple student major populations in the same course section; however, different majors' requirements may impact students' motivations towards different aspects of the course material, e.g. problem solving, and hence, impact course performance. A preliminary categorization of student attitudes towards a lab group coordinated problem solving exercise, in which students individually reflect on their group-based problem attempt, is based upon students' written interpretations about the usefulness of the exercise: respectively towards intrinsic value of a problem solving framework, towards performing well in the course, and towards less specific aspects of the exercise. The relationship between choice of major and this preliminary categorization for a typical algebra-based physics course is analyzed, as are trends by major and by category type in several measures of class performance. We also discuss more in-depth development of interpretation for the categorization construct via written artifacts from the problem solving exercise.

Potential Relationship of Chosen Major to Problem Solving Attitudes and Course Performance Andrew Mason, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 72035

Background- IPLS courses1: Consideration for IPLS problem solving pedagogies2

- Lab group coordinated problem solving3-5

- Attitudes towards physics from non-physics majors: - Can vary between life science, health science, etc. - Can affect course performance- Question: Is there fluctuation between semesters? - Class behavior can vary for smaller course sizes - Sources of variability: change in text, change in student population

AcknowledgementsUCA Department of Physics and Astronomy Charles Bertram, Student Researcher and Learning Assistant7

Lucus Ratz, Learning Assistant Brittany Davanzo, Student ResearcherUCA Sponsored Programs OfficeFunding provided by UCA University Research Council

References1. E.F. Redish et al., Am. J. Phys. 82, 368 (2014).2. C. Crouch and P. Heller, Am. J. Phys. 82, 378 (2014).3. P. Heller, R. Keith, and M. Anderson, Am. J. Phys. 60(7), 627 (1992).4. P . Heller and M . Hollabaugh, Am. J. Phys. 60(7), 637 (1992).5. E. Yerushalmi, E. Cohen, A. Mason, and C. Singh, Phys. Rev. ST-PER 8, 020109 and

020110 (2012).6. V. Otero, S. Pollock, and N. Finklestein, Am. J. Phys. 78(11), 1218 (2010).7. Z. Hazari, G. Potvin, R. Tai, and J. Almarode, Phys. Rev. ST-PER 6, 010107 (2010).8. W. Adams et al., Phys. Rev ST-PER 2, 010101 (2006).9. J. Cutnell and K. Johnson, “Physics: 9th Edition,” Wiley (2012).10. E. Etkina, M. Gentile, and A. Van Heuvelen, “College Physics,” Pearson (2014).11. C. Bertram, private conversation (2015).12. A. Mason and C. Bertram, US-China Ed. Rev. A 4(12), 873 (2014).

Data Collection- End of semester survey: - Primary question analyzed: “In what ways did you find problem solving exercise useful?” - Secondary question (referenced in case primary response unclear): “What suggestions do you have to improve exercise?”- Answers classified by orientation7: Framework (learning), Performance, or Vague (neither)- Measurements examined by orientation, and by major: - CLASS8 pre-post data (focus on problem solving item clusters) - Course performance- Data from Spring 2014 and Spring 2015 semester classes- Questions considering fluctuation: - Should be similar in class makeup…but are they? - If two classes are similar, will trends repeat? - What factors might cause a difference between semesters?

CLASS and Grade TrendsSample quotes:- Health Science majors are more novice-like to start

the semester on attitudes towards physics - Biology majors seem to benefit the most on

attitudes towards problem solving *and* get the highest average course grade

Differences between Orientations:- Attitudes towards problem solving: Framework >

Performance > Vague (not significant)- Course grade: Framework > Performance > Vague

(not significant)

Differences between semesters:- No difference between semesters for any group on

CLASS results- Course grade differences between orientations are

statistically significant in S14, but not in S15; Vague students perform much better in S15 than in S14

- Course grade differences between LS majors is more noticeable in S15 than in S14; biology majors performed somewhat better on average in S15, other students’ performance was the same

Student Groups By Major and By OrientationOrientation Framework Performance Vague

Examples (checked by inter-rater reliability)

“It provided a problem typically approachable in different methods so it allowed for perspective and versatility in problem solving.” (S14)

“I thought the exercises were very useful in increasing my understanding of certain topics. They also helped me learn how to approach different situations.” (S15)

“It helped when studying for the exam!” (S14)

“It would be nice if the questions were more similar to those on the test and homework.” (S15)

“This helped me to understand how to solve problems because there were people around to help me when I got stuck.” (S14)

“It was helpful to see how other people approached the problems.” (S15)

S14 S15 All S14 S15 All S14 S15 All

All students (69) 11 12 23 17 8 25 11 10 21

Biology (33) 9 6 15 4 4 8 4 6 10

Health Science (22) 1 5 6 4 4 8 4 3 7

Chemistry/CS (11) 0 1 1 8 0 8 2 1 3

Non-science (3) 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

Orientation Framework Performance Vague All Students

n 23 25 21 69

Total pre(%) 62% 58% 56% 59%

Gain (<g>) +0.06 -0.05 +0.02 +0.01

PS-G pre (%) 61% 62% 68% 64%

Gain (<g>) +0.25 -0.05 -0.09 +0.04

PS-C pre (%) 64% 67% 75% 68%

Gain (<g>) +0.25 -0.02 -0.08 +0.05

PS-S pre (%) 45% 45% 49% 46%

Gain (<g>) +0.07 -0.14 -0.33 -0.13

CLASS Pretests and Gains Means (by Orientation)(p < 0.05 between groups in bold in a given row)

Major Biology Health Science Chemistry/CS All Science

n 33 22 11 66

Total pre(%) 63% 49% 62% 59%

Gain (<g>) +0.04 -0.02 -0.05 +0.01

PS-G pre (%) 67% 57% 65% 64%

Gain (<g>) +0.08 -0.02 -0.06 +0.04

PS-C pre (%) 69% 68% 66% 68%

Gain (<g>) +0.18 -0.14 -0.02 +0.05

PS-S pre (%) 49% 36% 56% 46%

Gain (<g>) -0.04 -0.22 -0.29 -0.13

CLASS Pretests and Gains Means (by Major)(p < 0.05 between groups in bold in a given row)

Semester S14 S15 Both SEAll Students 2.77 3.07 2.90 0.01Framework 3.45 3.25 3.35 0.04

Performance 2.76 3.00 2.84 0.04Vague 2.09 2.90 2.48 0.04

p-values for Orientations F vs. P 0.04 0.59 0.05

F vs. V <0.01 0.36 <0.01P vs. V 0.06 0.81 0.18

Semester S14 S15 Both SEBiology 3.06 3.38 3.22 0.02Health 2.70 2.67 2.68 0.05

Chem/CS 2.63 NA (n = 2) 2.70 0.09 p-values for Majors

B vs. H 0.32 0.04 0.03

B vs. C 0.29 - 0.08H vs. C 0.88 - 0.96

Course Grades for All Groups(p < 0.05 between groups in bold in a given row)

Future DirectionsPreliminary evidence of differences between life science majors (biology vs. health science) seem to suggest that different pedagogical expectations may result in a different level of performance. - An IPLS-focused PER-based textbook9 might have been beneficial for the biology majors in

comparison to a traditional textbook covering similar topics. Benefit is not apparent for health science majors, however.

- Pre-professional students are present with both biology (pre-medical, pre-dental, pre-pharmacy) and health science (pre-physical therapy) majors. Further semesters needed to examine student populations.

Orientation categorization appears to demonstrate some differences, but statistics are uncertain. Refinement of the categorization seems necessary11.- May wish to refine in terms of focus: goals (learning the framework and achieving a desired

performance level) vs. process (learning to collaborate in groups).- Does PER-based textbook address differences in orientation? S14 students were

statistically different by orientation in terms of course performance, but S15 students were not.

Quantitative data is a snapshot over the entire course; qualitative data presented is for an end-of-semester written measurement. A closer look at student interactions is in progress.12

- Audiovisual data demonstrates routine lab-group interactions and problem solving strategies

- Student rubric self-evaluations may show student trends over the semester for regularly-attending students. Currently examining by student over time, and by problem for all students.

Qualitative Survey TrendsCommon to both semesters:- Especially “Vague”-oriented students frequently voiced a response that focused upon process, rather than goals.

They voiced appreciation for the process of collaborative effort with lab partners. There was also some trend of this in “Performance”-oriented and “Framework”-oriented groups.

- Examples: - “It was helpful to see how other people approached the problems.” (S15, Vague) - “I found it useful because if I got stuck on it, my partners were there to help me and explain the problem to me.” (S14, Vague) - “Getting to work together as a team allowed me to solve it my way, explain, then try and solve it the different ways my group members did. Also, [the instructor] going over the correct way to do it (step-by-step) was a great help.” (S15, Framework) - “I found it useful in that it provided practice for homework and tests. Working on it as a class made me aware of different styles I could use to approach a problem.” (S14, Performance)

Differences between semesters:- Trend of S15 students to compare lab exercise to the homework and lecture in terms of usefulness (e.g. “this is

more useful than the lecture”). While some S14 students of performance orientation were goal-oriented with regard to other aspects of the course (“helps me with the exams”), they did not show this trend of comparing the effectiveness of different elements of the course.

- Examples: - “It helped understand ideas better than the homework/lecture because there was discussion.” (S15 Vague) - “The exercise was very helpful in the fact that it gave us more practice on the previous material that we learned in lecture. Also, it helped us communicate better with our lab-mates and gain relationships. … It would be nice if the questions were more similar to those on the test and homework.” (S15 Performance) - “I liked the lab assignments and they were more coherent than the [new online homework] website.” (S15 Vague)

What may have caused this difference?- Department switched textbooks; S14 students had a traditional textbook9 while S15 students PER-based

textbook.10 Students may reference notes during lab exercise, so there may be some pedagogical influence.

Task- Lab groups given context-

rich problem to solve at beginning of each lab period

- Instructor and LA6 provide assistance as needed to ensure progress and help with struggles

- At end of period, students given “self-diagnosis” rubric to go over their struggles