Behavioral self-regulation in a physics class

Abstract

This study examined the regulation of out-of-class time invested in the academic activities associated with a physics class for 20 consecutive semesters. The academic activities of 1676 students were included in the study. Students reported investing a semester average of 6.5 AE 2.9 h out of class per week. During weeks not containing an examination, a total of 4.3 AE 2.1 h was reported which was divided between 2.5 AE 1.2 h working homework and 1.8 AE 1.4 h reading. Students reported spending 7.6 AE 4.8 h preparing for each in-semester examination. Students showed a significant correlation between the change in time invested in examination preparation (r ¼ −0.12, p < 0.0001) and their score on the previous examination. The correlation increased as the data were averaged over semester (r ¼ −0.70, p ¼ 0.0006) and academic year (r ¼ −0.82, p ¼ 0.0039). While significant, the overall correlation indicates a small effect size and implies that an increase of 1 standard deviation of test score (18%) was related to a decrease of 0.12 standard deviations or 0.9 h of study time. Students also modified their time invested in reading as the length of the textbook changed; however, this modification was not proportional to the size of the change in textbook length. Very little regulation of the time invested in homework was detected either in response to test grades or in response to changes in the length of homework assignments. Patterns of regulation were different for higher performing students than for lower performing students with students receiving a course grade of "C" or "D" demonstrating little change in examination preparation time in response to lower examination grades. This study suggests that homework preparation time is a fixed variable while examination preparation time and reading time are weakly mutable variables.

A longitudinal analysis of students’ motivational characteristics in introductory physics courses: Gender differences

“…For example, in physics, tutorials, peer instruction (clicker questions with peer discussion), collaborative group problem solving with context-rich physics problems, POGIL (process-oriented guided-inquiry learning) activities, etc. have been found effective in helping students learn [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]. Furthermore, several validated conceptual standardized surveys have been developed [83] to assess students' conceptual understanding of various physics topics.…”

“…In the past few decades, physics education researchers have investigated the challenges students face in learning physics and developed research-based instructional tools to improve student understanding of physics and their problem-solving and reasoning skills [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]. Indeed, effective pedagogies and learning tools build on students' prior knowledge and skills and provide appropriate coaching and support to help all students learn [77][78][79][80][81].…”

Modernizing use of regression models in physics education research: A review of hierarchical linear modeling

“…Of the two publications in Physical Review PER that mentioned hierarchical linear model, the first mentioned HLM as a possible method of analysis but did not use it [12]. The second publication stated that they performed both HLM and linear regression, but because they had similar results they only included the linear regression results in the publication [13]. Independent of our literature search, we identified two Physical Review PER articles [14,15] that used HLM but did not show up in our search because they referred to HLM using the less common nomenclature of hierarchical-model analysis and hierarchical linear regression.…”

Exploring student learning profiles in algebra-based studio physics: A person-centered approach

“…On the other hand, Kortemeyer found that students who tended to make physics-related comments on an online course discussion board had higher course grades and concept test scores compared to students who tended to make solution-oriented comments [11]. Stewart and colleagues found that students who earned high end-of-course grades were better able to self-regulate by changing their exam preparation time in reaction to their progress in the course compared to those who earned low end-of-course grades [12,13]. We expect that such behaviors may play an even more significant role in determining student success in studio-mode courses, which require active engagement of students both inside and outside of class.…”