Learning and Individual Differences 24 (2013) 53–62

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

A multivariate model of physics problem solving

Gita Taasoobshirazi a,⁎, John Farley b
a
Kennesaw State University, Department of Secondary & Middle Grades Education, United States
b
University of Nevada, Las Vegas Department of Physics, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A model of expertise in physics problem solving was tested on undergraduate science, physics, and engineer-
Received 12 October 2011 ing majors enrolled in an introductory-level physics course. Structural equation modeling was used to test
Received in revised form 11 March 2012 hypothesized relationships among variables linked to expertise in physics problem solving including motiva-
Accepted 1 May 2012
tion, metacognitive planning, strategy use, categorization skills, and free-body diagrams. Results indicated
that student motivation had a significant influence on metacognitive planning, strategy use, and categoriza-
Keywords:
Physics
tion skills. Categorization skills influenced problem-solution scores directly, and indirectly, through strategy
Problem solving use. Categorization skills also had a significant influence on free-body diagrams. Free-body diagrams and
Expertise metacognitive planning both had a significant influence on strategy use. Finally, strategy use had a significant
Motivation influence on problem-solution scores. The implications of these findings for future research and developing
Statistics/multivariate students' expertise in physics problem solving are discussed.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction A number of critical variables contribute to experts' success in a

domain like physics, and discriminates experts from novices. Within
One major goal in educating college physics students is to foster their domain of expertise, experts use more goal-directed strategies
their expertise in physics problem solving. Carl Wieman, a recipient when solving problems, have greater and more organized knowledge,
of the Noble Prize in physics, explains this goal in the following way: are more metacognitive, have greater motivation, and tend to receive
more social support (e.g., Alexander, 2003; Ericsson, 2006; Hatano &
Expert competence is a primary goal of education and is an area in
Oura, 2003; Zimmerman, 2006). The research on expertise in physics
which research has provided useful insights. An apt metaphor is
problem solving suggests that the following variables are important:
that of the student and the expert separated by the mental equiv-
the way physics problems are solved, including the actual problem
alent of a canyon; the function of teaching is to guide the student
solving strategies used; the way problems are categorized which sug-
along the path that leads safely and effectively across the canyon
gests depth, breadth, and organization of conceptual knowledge; the
to the nirvana of expert like thinking. Educational research, careful
metacognitive strategies used; and whether problems are pictorially
measurement, and new technology make it possible to guide most
represented in the form of a free-body diagram (e.g., Anzai, 1991;
students safely across the path towards a true understanding and
Taasoobshirazi & Carr, 2009; Chi, 2006). These variables contribute
appreciation of physics (Wieman & Perkins, 2005, pp. 38–40).
to the development of expertise in physics problem solving and dis-
criminate experts from novices in physics.
Unfortunately, research has found that college physics instruction
Although research specifies the variables that lead to expertise in
often does a poor job at helping students acquire the knowledge and
physics problem solving, these variables are usually studied individual-
skills needed for expertise in physics problem solving. Students are
ly. There is a lack of research examining the relationships among these
leaving both their introductory level and more advanced level physics
variables and a lack of research indicating which variables are most im-
courses confused about important concepts in mechanics, optics,
portant for problem-solving success. As a result, physics instructors do
electricity, and magnetism, and using poor problem-solving strategies
not know what should be focused on during instruction and what is of
(e.g., Henderson, 2005; McDermott, 2001). In response, physics edu-
less importance. Little research provides guidance on the best way to
cators are calling for reform in the teaching and learning of physics
move students towards more expert levels of performance, although re-
because they would like all of their students to become, relatively
searchers are suggesting we do just that (e.g. Gerace, 2001; Wieman &
speaking, experts in solving the problems posed in these courses
Perkins, 2005). This is especially important for physics students who
(Wieman & Perkins, 2005).
are majoring in science, physics, and engineering and developing their
expertise in physics problem solving.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 770 339 8281. Furthermore, within the domain of physics and most sciences, the
E-mail address: gita.tshirazi@gmail.com (G. Taasoobshirazi). research on expertise focuses almost exclusively on cognitive

1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.001
54 G. Taasoobshirazi, J. Farley / Learning and Individual Differences 24 (2013) 53–62
variables, including differences in problem-solving skills and knowl-
edge. There is little examination of the role that motivation plays in
influencing expert problem solving. Given these limitations and the
need to understand and support students' expertise in physics problem
solving, the goal of the present study was to examine the research on ex-
pert and novice differences in problem solving in general, and in physics
in particular, in order to formulate and test a model of expertise in physics
problem solving. The model identifies the important components of prob-
lem solving, describes how these components influence each other, and
quantifies the relative contributions of each component. Specifically, the
model examines the influence of motivation, metacognitive planning,
strategy use, categorization skills, and free-body diagrams on problem-
solution scores. The knowledge that results from studying these compo-
nents, and how they ideally interact, can be used to improve the teaching
and learning of physics problem solving. Because some of the
problem-solving components (e.g., strategy use, categorization skills) in
physics are similar to those in chemistry, biology, and other sciences
(e.g., Stains & Talanquer, 2008; Williams & Noyes, 2007), the model will
be informative to researchers and instructors in other sciences as well.
2. Expertise in physics problem solving
A review of the research on the variables used to develop the
model (Fig. 1) is presented in detail below. The research examining
what is important for expertise in physics problem solving typically
does so by comparing experts to novices as they solve or categorize
physics problems.
2.1. Free-body diagrams
One major difference between experts and novices in physics is in
their use of pictorial representations. These pictorial representations,
typically called free-body diagrams, are used by a problem solver to de-
pict key variables (e.g., objects, forces) and their relationships in a phys-
ics problem. Drawing a free-body diagram before beginning to work on
calculations allows the problem solver to determine which approach to
the problem is appropriate, to identify the forces and energies at work,
and to reduce the amount of information that must be attended to at
one time (Anderson & Leinhardt, 2002; Rosengrant, Van Heuvelen &
Etkina, 2009; Friedman & diSessa, 1999; Hewitt, 2005). Drawing a
free-body diagram is particularly important as problems become more
Motivation
Metacognitive
Planning
Strategy Problem
Categorization
Problem Free-Body
Solution Diagram
Fig. 1. Theoretical model of expertise in physics problem solving.
complex and additional factors (e.g., forces) begin to play a role in the
problems.
Before solving a problem, experts tend to draw a free-body dia-
gram. Novices, in contrast, tend to focus solely on setting up and solv-
ing equations (Dhillon, 1998; Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon,
1980; Larkin & Simon, 1987; Stylianou & Silver, 2004). When novices
do draw free-body diagrams, the diagrams are simpler and less thor-
ough than those drawn by experts; experts tend to draw more com-
plex pictures, including more of the important factors that play a
role in a problem (e.g., Taasoobshirazi & Carr, 2009). It is thought
that novices often fail to draw adequate free-body diagrams because
they do not understand the concepts and principles underlying the
problems they are solving (Taasoobshirazi & Carr, 2009). Thus, as
novices progress towards expertise and gain more conceptual knowl-
edge, the use of free-body diagrams is likely to increase, as is the qual-
ity of those diagrams.
2.2. Strategy use
A second major difference between experts and novices is in the
strategies they use to solve physics problems. Novices tend to use
the working-backward strategy when solving physics problems
(Chi, 2006; Larkin, 1985; Williams & Noyes, 2007). They start with
an equation that contains the goal and other unknowns that cannot
be directly calculated. The novices then construct additional equa-
tions to calculate these unknowns. When the unknowns are calculat-
ed, the novices reverse, or chain backwards, inserting the values of
the unknowns in the preceding equations, in order to solve the prob-
lem. The process is data driven with a goal of performing calculations
to solve equations to find unknowns. Experts, in contrast, tend to use
the working-forward strategy (Chi, 2006; Davidson, 2003; Williams &
Noyes, 2007). When solving physics problems, experts start with un-
known quantities that can be directly calculated and construct a set of
equations that lead to the goal of the problem. This process is more
goal directed and cognitively efficient (i.e., exerting less cognitive
load on working memory) than the working-backward strategy
(Davidson, 2003; Sweller, 2003).
Although the working-forward and working-backward strategies
may result in the same answer, the working-forward strategy is consid-
ered to be purposeful problem solving (Snyder, 2000). In contrast, the
working-backward strategy involves manipulating equations with al-
most no planning and little conceptual understanding of what is being
done (Williams & Noyes, 2007). It is for these reasons that the
working-forward strategy is more likely to lead to the correct problem
solution (e.g., Taasoobshirazi & Carr, 2009; Zajchowski & Martin, 1993).
Although research indicates that the working-forward strategy is used
primarily by experts, novices are capable of using this strategy. For exam-
ple, Zajchowski and Martin (1993) examined 10 introductory-level col-
lege physics students solving mechanics problems and thinking aloud as
they solved the problems. They found that the more novice problem
solvers (as assessed by a pretest), who had been instructed to conceptu-
ally analyze problems prior to solving them, were using the working-
forward strategy to the same extent as the more expert problem solvers.
The authors suggested that these results were due to the novices' practice
conceptually analyzing the mechanics problems. One goal of testing the
model in the present study was to examine the extent to which the
working-forward strategy is linked to conceptual knowledge of physics.
2.3. Conceptual knowledge: problem categorization
Another major difference between experts and novices is in their
conceptual knowledge. Experts have greater domain knowledge,
and this knowledge is better organized in comparison to that of nov-
ices (Alexander, 2003; Hatano & Oura, 2003; Sabella & Redish, 2007).
In physics, evidence of the difference between experts and novices in
their conceptual knowledge and how they store, relate, and use this
 G. Taasoobshirazi, J. Farley / Learning and Individual Differences 24 (2013) 53–62
knowledge can be found in how they categorize problems (Chi,
Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Snyder, 2000; Zimmerman & Campillo,
2003). In these studies, conceptual knowledge is operationally defined
as the categorization (sorting) of problems by type (e.g., kinematics).
Studies of problem categorization indicate that expert problem
solvers tend to view two problems as similar when the same law or
principle can be applied to the problems. The reason for this is that
experts' knowledge is based on principles critical to a problem's solu-
tion, not on details that are superficial to a solution. Experts are able
to focus on meaningful patterns of information, identify relevant
cues as to what constitutes important information, and make accurate
inferences based on that information (Hambrick & Engle, 2003).
Novice problem solvers, in contrast, tend to view two problems as
similar when the problems share the same surface features such as
terminology or objects (Chi et al., 1981; Chi & Slotta, 1993; Williams
& Noyes, 2007). The reason for this is that novices often either lack
relevant knowledge, or the knowledge they have is less complete,
interconnected, and accurate (Wieman & Perkins, 2005). Further-
more, novices are typically unable to differentiate relevant problem
information from irrelevant details. And, even when novices can dis-
tinguish relevant from irrelevant details, they are usually unable to
generate inferences and relations not explicitly stated in the prob-
lems (Hambrick & Engle, 2003).
Differences in problem categorizations have been linked to strategy
use and problem-solution scores with principle-based categorizations
supporting the more expert working-forward strategy and accurate
problem-solving solutions (Taasoobshirazi & Carr, 2009; Schneider,
1993). For the present study, problem categorization was expected to
directly predict strategy use, problem-solution scores, and free-body
diagrams.
2.4. Metacognitive planning
Metacognitive planning, a component of metacognition, involves
thinking about what one needs in order to accomplish a goal and think-
ing about how one intends to achieve that goal. In a problem-solving
context, this includes thinking about what a problem is asking, possible
strategies for solving a problem, and how to most successfully imple-
ment a strategy in order to solve a problem (Schraw & Moshman,
1995; Shin, Jonassen, & McGee, 2003). Ideally, planning occurs before
beginning a problem, and it occurs throughout the problem-solving
process as a student revisits what is needed in order to attain a goal
(Zimmerman, 1989).
Metacognitive planning, more than any other metacognitive com-
ponent, has been found to be important for expertise in problem solv-
ing (Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006; Zimmerman, 2002). Research
indicates that experts are more metacognitive in comparison to
novices primarily because they spend more time planning during
scientific problem solving (Schraw, 1998; Schraw et al., 2006). For ex-
ample, experts do more planning before beginning calculations, set-
ting subordinate goals that are hierarchically related to their overall
goal of solving a problem. Furthermore, experts are more motivated
than novices to engage in metacognitive planning (Zimmerman,
1998, 2002).
Although research indicates the importance of metacognitive
planning for expertise in physics problem solving (e.g., Neto &
Valente, 1997; Zimmerman, 2006), little is known about exactly
how planning influences success in physics problem solving. A critical
question addressed in this study is: Does metacognitive planning sup-
port the use of an effective strategy, which, in turn, supports success-
ful problem solving? Also of interest was the extent to which
metacognitive planning is linked to and influenced by motivation.
For the present study, motivation was expected to directly influence
metacognitive planning, and planning was expected to support the
use of the working-forward strategy.
55
2.5. Motivation
Although not described in the literature on expertise in physics prob-
lem solving, the role of motivation in influencing expertise is expected to
be critical in any domain (e.g., Ericsson, 1996, 2004, 2006). Students who
are highly motivated engage persistently in the deliberate practice that
leads to expertise (Ericsson, 2006; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer,
1993). Deliberate practice involves hard work, which is unlikely to
occur without significant motivation (Ericsson, 2006; Zimmerman &
Campillo, 2003). Research indicates that the important components that
should be taken into account when examining students' motivation in sci-
ence include intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, task relevancy,
self-determination, self-efficacy, and assessment anxiety (e.g., Duncan &
McKeachie, 2005; Glynn & Koballa, 2006; Glynn, Taasoobshirazi, &
Brickman, 2007; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Motivation to perform a task for its own sake is intrinsic, whereas
motivation to perform a task as a means to an end is extrinsic (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). Students who are intrinsically motivated work on a task
because they find it interesting; students who are extrinsically moti-
vated work on a task to attain a desirable outcome such as a good
grade. Both types of motivation, however, are important in contribut-
ing to students' success (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Other important components of motivation include task relevancy
and self-determination. How relevant students see a task to their per-
sonal goals has been found to influence time and effort spent on the
task (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Self-determination refers to students
having some choice in and control over their learning (Reeve, Hamm,
& Nix, 2003). For instance, when college science students have the
opportunity to choose what their assignments will be, they are
more likely to learn from the assignments (Glynn & Koballa, 2006).
Self-efficacy refers to students' beliefs about their capabilities in a
specific area, which influences choice of activities and achievement
(Bong, 2001). Zusho and Pintrich (2003) found that even after control-
ling for prior achievement, students' self-efficacy was the best predictor
of grades in an introductory-level college chemistry course. Finally, as-
sessment anxiety is an important component of motivation. A high
level of assessment anxiety has been found to interfere with a student's
performance on a task, and students perform best when their level of
anxiety is at a low to moderate level (e.g., Cassady & Johnson, 2002).
The work by Ericsson (2006) discusses the importance of deliber-
ate practice for expertise, but high levels of practice are a symptom of
a number of underlying motivations. For instance, students who en-
gage in practice both see the domain as relevant and believe that
they will be able to achieve expertise in that domain. For the present
study, motivation was expected to be directly linked to metacognitive
planning, strategy use, and categorizations.
3. Present study
The present study refined and tested—by means of structural equa-
tion modeling—a theoretical model of expertise in physics problem
solving. The model—developed by (Taasoobshirazi & Carr, 2009)—was
refined by the inclusion of metacognitive planning, consistent with
the perspective on metacognitive planning recently described by
Lajoie (2008) and Schraw et al. (2006). The goal was to refine, extend
on, and retest the previous model, and examine the interaction among
the model variables once metacognitive planning was included in the
model. The model tested in the present study depicts relationships
among key components of students' physics problem solving, including
motivation, metacognitive planning, strategy use, categorization skills,
and free-body diagrams. By means of structural equation modeling, re-
lationships among these components are examined, and the students'
success in physics problem solving explained.
Using the existing research on expert and novice differences in
problem solving in general, and in physics in particular, the model
shown in Fig. 1 was developed. As can be seen in the figure, students
56 G. Taasoobshirazi, J. Farley / Learning and Individual Differences 24 (2013) 53–62
with higher motivation were expected to be more inclined to engage
in the practice that would support them learning the material at a deeper
level, resulting in better categorizations. Similarly, students with higher
motivation were expected to engage in more problem-solving practice,
supporting the more expert working-forward strategy. Furthermore,
motivated students were expected to be more likely to engage in
metacognitive planning when solving physics problems. Metacognitive
planning was expected to influence strategy use, specifically the
working-forward strategy. Therefore, it was expected that students
who planned out how they would solve problems before beginning cal-
culations would be more likely to use the more expert working-forward
strategy.
Conceptual knowledge, as assessed by problem categorizations, was
expected to influence problem-solution scores both directly, and indi-
rectly, through use of the more expert working-forward strategy.
Consistent with the research, better problem categorizations were
expected to support better free-body diagrams. With better diagrams,
the use of the working-forward strategy was expected to increase as a
deeper understanding of the concepts and principles and their relation-
ship to one another increased. Finally, the working-forward strategy
was expected to directly predict problem-solution scores.
Because all of the model variables are observed rather than latent
and because there is one measure of each variable, the structural
equation modeling technique of path analysis was used to examine
the hypothesized relationships among the variables (Kline, 2005).
Using path analysis, the specific goals were to estimate the direct
and indirect effects in the model, to control for the correlations
among the hypothesized causal variables, and to decompose the ob-
served correlations into their component parts.
4. Method
4.1. Participants
Subjects included 125 Georgia and Nevada students (90 men and 35
women) from a total of approximately 171 students (119 men and 52
women) enrolled in introductory-level physics courses (trigonometry-
based or calculus-based physics) for science, physics, and engineering
majors. Regarding ethnicity, 58 students were Caucasian (46%), 29
were Asian (23%), 27 were Hispanic (22%), 10 were African American
(8%), and 1 was Native American (0.8%).
Overall, a majority of the students participated in the study (73%),
and students volunteered to earn a small amount of extra credit and
help study how students solve physics problems. Students' participation
was voluntary rather than compulsory, as specified by the guidelines for
research with human participants specified by the institutional review
board. The students participated towards the end of the 15-week
semester: At this point in time, the students had already covered the
types of mechanics problems that they were asked to solve and catego-
rize in this study.
4.2. Procedure and materials
Students were administered a packet that included, in order, a moti-
vation questionnaire, questions assessing metacognitive planning, five
physics problems designed to assess strategy use, free-body diagrams,
and problem-solution scores, and four categorization tasks designed
to assess if students are focusing on conceptual or surface features of
physics problems. Students were asked to complete the packet individ-
ually. The packet can be obtained by contacting the author.
4.2.1. Motivation
Student motivation in physics was assessed using the Physics Mo-
tivation Questionnaire (PMQ) (Glynn & Koballa, 2006). The PMQ in-
cludes 30 items that assess six important components of student
motivation in physics including intrinsically motivated physics
learning (e.g., I enjoy learning physics), extrinsically motivated phys-
ics learning (e.g., I like to do better than other students on physics
tests), relevance of learning physics to personal goals (e.g., The phys-
ics I learn relates to my personal goals.), self-determination for learn-
ing physics (e.g., It is my fault if I do not understand physics.),
self-efficacy in learning physics (e.g., I believe I can master the knowl-
edge and skills in physics courses.), and anxiety about physics assess-
ment (e.g., I become anxious when it is time to take a physics test.).
Students responded to each of the 30 randomly-ordered items on a
5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always) from the
perspective of when learning physics. The anxiety about physics as-
sessment items were reverse scored when added to the total, so
that a higher score on this component meant less anxiety.
Previous findings (Glynn & Koballa, 2006) indicate that the PMQ is
reliable as measured by coefficient alpha (α = .93), and valid in terms
of positive correlations with college students' physics grades, interest
in physics-related careers, and number of physics courses taken. For
this study, coefficient alpha was found to be .88.
4.2.2. Metacognitive planning
Items from Howard, McGee, Shia, and Hong's (2000) Metacognitive
Self-Regulation for problem solving were administered to students. The
items were adapted for physics Problem Solving. The adapted items ad-
ministered in the present study were:
• I try to understand what the physics problem is asking me.
• I think about what information I need to solve the physics problem.
• I make sure I complete each step of the physics problem.
• I identify all the important parts of the physics problem.
• I try to understand the physics problem so I know what to do.
• I pick out the steps I need to solve a physics problem.
• I try and break down the physics problem to just the necessary
information.
These items were selected and categorized as metacognitive plan-
ning because of the similarity of these items and the planning items
on Schraw and Dennison's (1994) metacognitive awareness invento-
ry. Students responded to each of these items on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Items were found to be reliable
in terms of their internal consistency, as measured by coefficient
alpha (α = .81). Any missing data/responses for the items and for
the PMQ were scored using a response on a similar item.
4.2.3. Strategy use, free-body diagrams, and problem-solution scores
Five mechanics problems were administered to the students
(Table 1). The students were asked to solve the five quantitative,
well-defined problems, showing their work, and producing the math-
ematical solution associated with each. Each of the problems is based
on one of five major topics in mechanics including Kinematics, Forces
and Newton's Laws of Motion, Work and Energy, Impulse and Mo-
mentum, and Simple Harmonic Motion and Elasticity (Cutnell &
Johnson, 2007). The first problem involves Forces and Newton's
Laws of Motion; the second problem involves Kinematics; the third
problem involves Impulse and Momentum; the fourth problem in-
volves Work and Energy; the fifth problem involves Simple Harmonic
Motion and Elasticity.
The first of the five problems was designed by Priest and Lindsay
(1992), and used in their own study assessing the working-forward
and working-backward strategies with intermediate-level physics stu-
dents. The other four problems were from a physics final examination
used by a professor teaching the course at a university that did not par-
ticipate in the study. This was done to ensure that the problems were dif-
ferent than those the students had seen in their course. Strategy-scoring
guidelines based on those by Chi (2006) and Priest and Lindsay (1992)
were used to score the strategies as either working forward or working
backward. For the five problems, the less efficient working-backward
strategy was identified as being used by a student when the first
 G. Taasoobshirazi, J. Farley / Learning and Individual Differences 24 (2013) 53–62
Table 1
The physics problems solved by the students.
A block of mass 7 kg starts sliding down a plane of length 5 m, inclined at an angle of
30° to the horizontal. If the coefficient of friction between the block and the plane is
0.2, find the velocity vt of the block when it reaches the bottom of the plane.
An airplane flies horizontally with a speed of 300 m/s at an altitude of 400 m.
Assume that the ground is level. What horizontal distance from a target must
the pilot release a bomb so as to hit the target?
A 0.15 kg steel ball is dropped onto a steel plate where its speed just before impact
and after impact is 4.5 m/s and 4.2 m/s, respectively. If the ball is in contact with
the plate for .03 seconds, what is the magnitude of the average force (in N)
applied by the plate on the ball?
An escalator is 30.0 meters long and slants 30° relative to the horizontal. If it
moves at 1.00 m/s, at what rate does it do work in lifting a 50.0 kg man from
the bottom to the top of the escalator?
A 1.0 kg block is released from rest at the top of a frictionless incline that makes an
angle of 37° with the horizontal. An unknown distance down the incline from
the point of release, there is a spring with k = 200 N/m. It is observed that the
mass is brought momentarily to rest after compressing the spring 0.20 m.
What distance does the mass slide from the point of release until it is brought
momentarily to rest?
equation generated attempted to solve (impossibly) for the sought
quantity, and additional equations attempted to solve for unknown
quantities introduced by previous equations. These newly found quanti-
ties were then inserted into the preceding equations in order to work
backwards to solve the problem. The more efficient working-forward
strategy was identified as being used by a student when the first equa-
tion contained only a single unknown. Each subsequent equation provid-
ed the value of a single unknown quantity, resulting in equations that led
to the sought quantity.
Students received zero points for using the working-backward strat-
egy and one point for using the working-forward strategy. Consistent
with the research scoring the working-forward and working-backward
strategies, the strategies were found to fall clearly into one of the two cat-
egories so that strategy use for each problem was scored as either work-
ing forward or working backward. Points were summed across the
problems and ranged from zero to five.
Each problem was also analyzed for the quality of free-body diagrams.
Typically, prior studies have only scored whether or not a picture was cre-
ated during problem solving. For this study, the quality of student dia-
grams was examined because, more recently, considerable emphasis in
physics instruction is placed on the importance of students drawing a di-
agram to accompany the problems they are solving (e.g., Taasoobshirazi
& Carr, 2009; Rosengrant et al., 2009). Physics textbooks, college physics
instructors, and researchers are emphasizing the importance of drawing
free-body diagrams when solving physics problems. Thus, it was
expected that students who do not necessarily have a good understand-
ing of the material would attempt to draw free-body diagrams, but the di-
agrams would be more simple and less thorough than those drawn by
students who have a good conceptual understanding of the material.
The diagrams were scored by comparing the students' diagrams to a
target sketch for each problem. The target sketches for the five prob-
lems were established by a college physics professor and included the
necessary factors needed to have a complete and inclusive diagram.
For the first problem, a complete sketch included the representation
of three forces (normal force, frictional force, and force of gravity broken
into its horizontal and vertical components), and one angle, resulting in
a total of four main factors. In the second problem, a complete sketch in-
cluded two important factors, the change in the vertical distance, and
the horizontal velocity. In the third problem, a complete sketch in-
cluded two important factors, the velocity of the object both before
and after collision. In the fourth problem, a complete sketch included
a total of four factors, including two forces (the normal force and the
force of gravity broken into its horizontal and vertical components),
length of the slant, and the angle of the slant. In the fifth problem, a
complete sketch included the angle, spring, and length of the com-
pression of the spring, for a total of three factors. For each sketch,
57
students received one point for each main factor pictorially repre-
sented with scores ranging from 0 to 15.
In order to obtain problem-solution scores, students' responses on
the five physics problems were scored one point for correct and zero
points for incorrect. However, if a simple calculation error occurred,
full credit was still given for the problem. This occurred in only
about 50 of the 625 possible instances (8%). A simple calculation
error was computational as opposed to conceptual, and there was ev-
idence in the work shown that indicated that the student was able to
correctly set up the problem.
4.2.4. Problem categorization
Four problem categorization tasks based on major topics in me-
chanics including Kinematics, Forces and Newton's Laws of Motion,
Work and Energy, and Impulse and Momentum (Cutnell & Johnson,
2007) were administered to the students. Each task included four
physics problems, two problems from two major subtopics within a
major topic. Students were not required to solve the problems, but
were asked to categorize the four problems into pairs, and then de-
scribe in detail why they felt those particular problems went togeth-
er. For the first task, concerning the topic of Kinematics, the problems
involved either kinematics in one dimension or kinematics in two di-
mensions. For the second task, Forces and Newton's Laws of Motion,
the problems involved either the equilibrium or nonequilibrium ap-
plication of Newton's laws of motion. For the third task, Work and En-
ergy, the problems involved either work done by a constant force or
work done by a varying force. Finally for the fourth task, Impulse
and Momentum, the problems involved either collisions in one di-
mension or collisions in two dimensions. Examples of the physics
problems categorized by the students can be seen in Table 2. The
problems for the tasks came from two intermediate-level college
physics textbooks (Cutnell & Johnson, 2001; Serway & Faughn,
2002) not being used at the participating universities.
Students' categorizations and explanations were used to determine
if students were focusing on surface features of the problems or on
the underlying conceptual laws and principles. In order to deal with
chance levels of correct responses to the pairings, correct explanations
were needed to receive full credit for the pairings of problems. Specifi-
cally, for each task, students could receive up to three points: one point
for correctly categorizing the problems, and one point for each correct
explanation. Students could receive up to a total of 12 points, where a
higher score suggested a focus on and understanding of laws and prin-
ciples when encountering physics problems.
5. Results
The Statistical Program for the Social Sciences, version 14.0 (SPSS
Inc., 2005) was used to compute descriptive statistics, mean compari-
sons, and correlations among the model variables. Structural equation
modeling was used to test the model. Specifically, LISREL Version 8.80
(Jörkeskog & Sörbom, 2007), with a covariance matrix generated by
PRELIS Version 2.80 (Jörkeskog & Sorbom, 2006) was used to test the
theoretical model.
5.1. Descriptive statistics, mean comparisons, and correlations
The results of independent-samples t-tests indicated that there
was a significant difference between the men (M=104.96, SD=15.75)
and women (M= 98.94, SD= 12.33) in their motivation ratings
t(123) = −2.028, p =.05. The results of a one-way ANOVA indicated
no significant differences between students in the different ethnic
groups on any of the model variables. The data for all students were
combined for analyses.
All correlations are reported in Table 3. Among the model vari-
ables, there were significant correlations between motivation and
strategy use, motivation and metacognitive planning, and motivation
58 G. Taasoobshirazi, J. Farley / Learning and Individual Differences 24 (2013) 53–62

Table 2 were solved incorrectly using the working-forward strategy (112) than
Examples of the physics problems categorized by the students. the working-backward strategy (288).
Kinematics: Kinematics in one dimension
Starting from rest, a jet is moves forward with a constant acceleration of +31 m/s2 5.2. Model testing
along a straight line and reaches a velocity of +6.2 m/s. Find the displacement of
the jet.
Before empirically testing the model, the data were examined for
Kinematics: Kinematics in two dimensions
You are driving in a convertible with the top down. The car is moving at a normality and homoscedasticity. Based on the data plots (histograms
constant velocity of 25 m/s, due east along flat ground. You throw a tomato of the variables), examination of skewness and kurtosis statistics
straight upward at a speed of 11 m/s. How far has the car moved when you (Table 3), and Mardia's coefficient = 1.01, the data were consistent
get a chance to catch the tomato?
with the assumptions of both univariate and multivariate normality,
Forces and Newton's Laws of Motion: Equilibrium application
A jet plane is flying with a constant speed along a straight line, at an angle of 30°
justifying the use of maximum-likelihood estimation to test the
above the horizon. The plane has weight W whose magnitude is 86,500 N, and model.
its engines provide a forward thrust T of magnitude T= 103,000 N. In addition, The overall fit of the model was very good, as indicated by a number
the lift force L (directed perpendicular to the wings) and the force R of air resis- of fit indices, all of which are described in detail in the paragraphs
tance (directed opposite to the motion) act on the plane. Find L and R.
below. Any given index evaluates only a particular aspect of model fit.
Forces and Newton's Laws of Motion: Non-equilibrium application
A 1300 kg car is moving due east with an initial speed of 27.0 m/s. After 8.00 s Therefore, to evaluate the fit of the model, it is recommended that
the car has slowed down to 17.0 m/s. Find the magnitude and direction of the several fit indices be used (Kline, 2005). First, the chi-square statistic
net force that causes the car to slow down. was used. The chi-square is a fit index that addresses the degree to
Work and Energy: Work done by a constant force
which the variances and covariances implied by the model match the
A student removes a 10.5 kg amplifier from a shelf that is 1.85 m high. The
amplifier is lowered at a constant speed to a height of 0.75 m. What is the
observed variances and covariances. A non-significant chi-square indi-
work done by (a) the person and (b) the gravitational force that acts on the cates that the model is a good representation of the underlying covari-
amplifier? ance matrix. The chi-square, χ2 (6) = 10.96, p = .09, indicated a good fit
Work and Energy: Work done by a varying force because the p-value was greater than .05. Further, the χ2/df ratio was
A force acting on an object is given by Fx = (8x − 16) N, where x is in meters.
1.83, suggesting a good fit based on Kline's (1998) rule that values
Find the net work done by this force as the object moves from x = 0 to x = 3.
Impulse and Momentum: Collisions in one dimension less than three indicate a good fit.
Kevin has a mass of 87 kg and is skating with in-line skates. He sees his 22 kg The Steiger–Lind root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA)
younger brother straight ahead skating straight towards him. Kevin grabs his assesses a lack of fit of the data to the estimated model. It is an index that
brother, holds on, and rolls off at a speed of 2.4 m/s. Ignoring friction, find includes adjustments for model complexity so that evaluation of fit is not
Kevin's speed just before he grabbed his brother.
Impulse and Momentum: Collisions in two dimensions
overly influenced by the number of parameters in the model (Steiger,
A 2000 kg car moving east at 10.0 m/s collides with a 3000 kg car moving north. 1995). Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggest that a RMSEA value of .08 or
The cars stick together and move as a unit after the collision north of east and at less indicates a good model fit. The RMSEA for this model was .07.
a speed of 5.22 m/s. Find the speed of the 3000 kg car before the collision. The standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) is an index
based on the residuals between the observed and estimated covari-
and categorization skills. There was also a significant correlation be- ance matrices (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The advantage of the SRMR is
tween metacognitive planning and strategy use, indicating that en- that it is sensitive to model misspecification (Hu & Bentler, 1998).
gaging in metacognitive planning when solving physics problems is Worthington and Whittaker (2006) suggest that a SRMR value of
related to the use of the more expert working-forward strategy. .10 or less indicates a good model fit. The SRMR for this model was
The correlation between categorization skills and free-body diagrams .08.
was significant, indicating that a focus on the conceptual aspects of phys- The incremental fit index (IFI) is a fit index that is sensitive to
ics problems and material is related to more complex diagrams; diagram model misspecification, but not to sample size (Bentler, 1990; Hu &
use was significantly correlated with strategy use. Furthermore, there Bentler, 1999; Widaman & Thompson, 2003), making it a valuable in-
were significant correlations between categorization skills and strategy dication of fit. The IFI compares the model to a baseline model in
use and categorization skills and problem-solution scores, indicating which all variables are assumed to be uncorrelated. This is the stan-
that a focus on the conceptual aspects of physics problems and material dard null model (independence model) that assumes zero population
is related to more expert strategy use and higher problem-solution covariances among the observed variables. The IFI values range from
scores. Finally, strategy use was significantly and highly correlated with 0 to 1, with larger values indicating a better fit. A value greater than
problem-solution scores. Thus the use of the more expert working- .95 is considered to be a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The value for
forward strategy is related to increased problem-solving accuracy. this model was .98.
More problems were solved correctly using the working-forward strate- Finally, the Bentler comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990) was
gy (199) than the working-backward strategy (26), and fewer problems used to compare the model to a baseline model in which the covari-
ances among all the variables are assumed to be zero. Like the IFI,
Table 3 this index ranges from 0 to 1, with larger values indicating a better
Correlation matrix, means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for the physics fit. A value greater than .95 is considered to be a good fit (Hu &
students. Bentler, 1999). The value for this model was .98.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 Path analysis was used to estimate the direct and indirect effects
in the model, control for the correlations among the hypothesized
Motivation –
Planning .56⁎⁎ –
variables, and “decompose” the observed correlations into their com-
Categorization .21⁎ .18⁎ – ponent parts. The standardized path values and their associated
Diagram .24⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ – t-values for the model are reported in Table 4; the model with stan-
Strategy .34⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .45⁎⁎ – dardized path values can be seen in Fig. 2. A cutoff value of t = 1.96
Solution .27⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .79⁎⁎ –
for a two-tailed test was used to determine if direct and indirect
Mean 103.27 29.64 4.84 6.84 2.49 1.64
SD 15.07 3.67 3.61 3.77 1.65 1.36 paths were statistically significant. In terms of size and influence of
Skewness .08 −.79 .95 −.45 −.04 .52 the standardized path values, Keith's (1993) recommended criteria
Kurtosis −.31 .78 .67 −.77 −1.20 −.61 were used: standardized path values ranging from .05 to .10 are
⁎ p b .05. small, but meaningful influences; path values ranging from .11 to
⁎⁎ p b .01. .25 are moderate in size and influence, and path values above .25
 G. Taasoobshirazi, J. Farley / Learning and Individual Differences 24 (2013) 53–62 59

are large in size and influence. The criterion R 2 (proportion of vari- Motivation
ance explained) by strategy use was .34, by problem categorization
was .04, by metacognitive planning was .32, by free-body diagram
was .07, and by problem-solution score was .65.
The decomposition of effects can be seen in Table 4. All of the direct
.56
paths were statistically significant. Student motivation had a significant
and large influence (.29) on strategy use, indicating that students with .29
Metacognitive
.21
higher motivation are more likely to use the working-forward strategy. Planning
The influence of motivation on problem categorization was significant
and moderate in size (.21), indicating that students with higher motiva-
tion are more likely to focus on the conceptual aspects of physics prob- .18
lems and material. Motivation had a significant and large influence (.56)
on metacognitive planning, indicating that students with higher moti-
vation are more likely to engage in metacognitive planning when .39
Strategy Problem
solving physics problems. Planning had a significant and moderate in- Categorization
fluence (.18) on strategy use, indicating that students who are more .31 .49
likely to think about a problem and how they will solve it are more like-
ly to use the working-forward strategy. .69 .27
Student categorizations had a significant and large influence (.27)
on free-body diagrams, indicating that a focus on the more conceptu-
al aspects of physics problems and material supports more complex Problem Free-Body
Solution Diagram
and expert diagrams. Free-body diagrams had a significant and large
influence (.31) on strategy use; problem categorization also had a sig-
nificant and large influence (.39) on strategy use. Thus more expert Fig. 2. Tested model of expertise in physics problem solving, with standardized path
pictures and a focus on the conceptual aspects of physics problems values.

and material support the use of the more expert working-forward

strategy. The working-forward strategy had a significant and large in- how to solve it supports better strategy use, which, in turn, supports
fluence (.69) on problem-solution scores. Finally, problem categoriza- accurate problem solutions. Problem categorization had a significant
tion had a significant and large influence (.49) on problem-solution influence on problem-solution scores through its influence on strate-
scores. gy use, as the path from Categorization to Strategy to Solution was
Indirect paths and associated t-values can also be seen in Table 4. significant and large in size (.27). The indirect path from Categoriza-
Motivation had a significant influence on problem-solution scores tion to Diagram to Strategy was small in size (.08), but significant, in-
through its influence on strategy use and problem categorization. dicating that a focus on conceptual aspects of physics problems and
This indicates that higher motivation supports the use of the more ex- material supports more expert diagrams, which, in turn, supports
pert working-forward strategy and better conceptual understanding; the use of the more expert working-forward strategy. Finally, the in-
this, in turn, influences problem-solution scores. Motivation had a direct path from Diagram to Strategy to Solution was significant and
significant influence on strategy use through its influence on problem large in size (.21), indicating that more expert pictures are linked to
categorization and metacognitive planning. This indicates that higher better strategy use, which, in turn, is linked to problem-solution
motivation supports better categorizations and increased planning, scores.
which, in turn, influences strategy use.
The path from Planning to Strategy to Solution was significant and 6. Discussion
moderate in size (.12), indicating that thinking about a problem and
The purpose of this study was to develop and test a theoretical model
of expertise in physics problem solving. By means of structural equation
Table 4 modeling, a model of expertise in physics problem solving was tested
Decomposition of effects in the model for the physics students.
and validated. This model is innovative and comprehensive because it in-
Predictor Criterion Effect corporates the influences of motivation, metacognitive planning, strate-
Direct Indirect
gy use, categorization skills, and free-body diagrams on problem-solving
success, allowing an opportunity to determine the contributions of indi-
PC t PC t
vidual variables when other variables are considered.
Motivation Planning .56 7.57 Results indicated that the model effectively explained the relation-
Strategy .29 3.55 .18 2.80
ship among the variables. Motivation had a significant influence on
Diagram .05 1.85
Categorization .21 2.33 the students' strategy use, categorization skills, and metacognitive plan-
Solution .25 3.56 ning. Planning had a significant influence on strategy use. Problem
Planning Strategy .18 1.99 categorization had a significant influence on strategy use, free-body di-
Solution .12 1.96 agrams, and problem-solution scores. Free-body diagrams had a signif-
Categorization Strategy .39 4.91 .08 2.44
Diagram .27 3.06
icant influence on strategy use; strategy use had a significant influence
Solution .49 6.39 .27 4.53 on problem-solution scores.
Strategy Solution .69 11.72 Results also indicated important indirect paths. Motivation had a
Diagram Strategy .31 4.03 significant influence on problem-solution scores as mediated by strat-
Solution .21 3.81
egy use and problem categorization; motivation also had a significant
Note. PC refers to standardized path coefficient. A cutoff value of t = 1.96 for a influence on strategy use as mediated by problem categorization and
two-tailed test was used to determine if paths were statistically significant. In terms metacognitive planning. Planning had a significant influence on
of the relative size and influence of the standardized path coefficients, paths ranging
from .05 to .10 are considered small, but meaningful influences. Paths ranging from
problem-solution scores as mediated by strategy use. Problem cate-
.11 to .25 are moderate in size and influence, and paths above .25 are considered gorization had a significant influence on strategy use as mediated by
large in size and influence (Keith, 1993). free-body diagrams. These diagrams had a significant influence on
60 G. Taasoobshirazi, J. Farley / Learning and Individual Differences 24 (2013) 53–62
problem-solution scores as mediated by strategy use, and problem
categorization had a significant influence on problem-solution scores
as mediated by strategy use.
Strategy use played a central role in the model, influencing
problem-solving success more than any other model component. Stu-
dents who used a working-forward strategy tended to answer the
problems correctly, whereas those who used a working-backward
strategy tended to answer the problems incorrectly. While there is
evidence that physics students can be taught the working-forward
strategy (Zajchowski & Martin, 1993), results of this study indicate
that strategy use is linked to students' understanding of the principles
that underlie the solution to that problem. When teaching students
the working-forward strategy, instructors should concurrently attend
to students' conceptual knowledge. The working-forward strategy is a
tool that enables students to efficiently apply their knowledge in
order to engage in purposeful and goal directed problem solving
(Snyder, 2000). Thus instructors should ensure that students have
the conceptual knowledge needed to solve physics problems when
teaching the working-forward strategy, and should ensure that stu-
dents activate their conceptual knowledge when solving problems.
Results of this study indicate that conceptual knowledge, as
assessed by problem categorization, has a significant impact on strat-
egy use, free-body diagrams, and problem-solution scores. The cur-
rent findings support the small number of studies pointing to the
need for instruction supporting conceptual understanding in physics
(e.g., Taconis, Ferguson-Hessler, & Broekkamp, 2001). One way to
help students develop a good conceptual understanding is to ask
them to compare and contrast physics problems, identify valid simi-
larities and differences, and then categorize the problems through in-
structional activities such as categorization tasks or concept mapping
(Ruiz-Primo, Schultz, Li, & Shavelson, 2001). The problems that stu-
dents categorize or map should not be limited to those they are cur-
rently learning, but should also include those they learned in the
past. Helping students to make a connection between concepts they
learned in the past to those they are presently learning will increase
the cohesion of the students' knowledge and help improve the con-
ceptual understanding that supports successful problem solving.
An important finding of the present study was that students'
metacognitive planning influenced the use of the working-forward strat-
egy, which, in turn, influenced problem-solution scores. Physics instruc-
tors can help students to engage in planning during physics problem
solving by defining metacognitive planning, explaining what it entails,
modeling the process for them, and encouraging them to engage in
metacognitive planning when solving problems (Duggan & Gott, 2002).
Schraw (1998) created a metacognitive planning checklist that students
can use when solving problems. The checklist includes four questions
students ask themselves throughout the problem-solving process in-
cluding: (1) What is the nature of the task/problem? (2) What is my
goal? (3) What kind of information and strategies do I need? and
(4) How much time and resources will I need? The use of this and sim-
ilar checklists have been found to improve problem-solving success in
science (Schraw, 1998). In addition, explaining to students the differ-
ence between the working-forward and working-backward strategies,
and how these strategies are connected to conceptual knowledge can
help promote successful metacognitive planning.
The results of this study indicate that motivation is important for
expertise in physics problem solving. Researchers examining exper-
tise in physics problem solving should study the impact of motivation
on problem-solving success. Results of the present study indicate that
efforts made to increase student motivation will be helpful for im-
proving metacognitive planning, strategy use, conceptual under-
standing, and ultimately problem-solution scores.
Free-body diagrams had a significant influence on strategy use, in-
dicating that students who drew more complex pictures were more
likely to use the working-forward strategy; this more expert strategy
use, in turn, influenced problem-solution scores. This is evidenced by
the indirect path Diagram to Strategy to Solution. This is in contrast to
findings by Taasoobshirazi and Carr (2009) which indicated that the
use of free-body diagrams among college physics students did not im-
pact problem-solving strategy and achievement.
As a result of instructors' and textbook authors' encouragement to
use free-body diagrams, students are drawing free-body diagrams
more frequently, but these diagrams are often simple, incomplete and,
consequently, incorrect (Rosengrant et al., 2009). Research suggests
that a major reason why students draw incomplete free-body diagrams
is because they have difficulty representing the various forces that play
a role in physics problems (e.g., Henderson, 2007; Rosengrant et al.,
2009). To help students represent forces well, resources such as Internet
tutorials, downloadable software programs, and textbook CDs have
been developed which show students how forces should be included
in free-body diagrams (e.g., Henderson, 2007). These tutorials, pro-
grams, and CDs teach students about the nature of forces such as the
force of gravity, normal force, frictional force, applied force, and tension,
and are designed to improve the quality of students' free-body diagrams
and, consequently, increase the likelihood that students will successful-
ly solve problems.
There is a need for more research on how students are using
free-body diagrams to solve physics problems. This research should
be connected to what is known about students' metacognitive knowl-
edge of problem representations: This sort of thinking is described as
meta-representational (diSessa, 2004; diSessa & Sherin, 2000; Kohl &
Finkelstein, 2006). The goals of meta-representation research are to
understand what students typically know about various types of rep-
resentations, and how students can best use this knowledge to repre-
sent and solve problems.
7. Directions for future research
In future research, the model should be expanded to provide a
more comprehensive explanation of expertise in physics problem
solving. For example, the impact of social support is expected to be
critical for expertise in any domain (Bloom, 1985; Ericsson, 2006),
and should also be assessed and included in future models of exper-
tise in physics problem solving. Social support has not been studied
in the research on expertise in physics problem solving, but could
influence successful physics problem solving and uniquely contribute
to the model's potential for explaining the variance in students'
problem-solving success. Furthermore, additional cognitive (e.g., mis-
conceptions), motivational (e.g., goal orientation), and metacognitive
variables (e.g., debugging, evaluation) could be included in the model
to determine how they influence and are influenced by other vari-
ables. The model tested in the present study, and variations of the
model, can be tested and compared among students across varying
levels of expertise, such as students in introductory, intermediate,
and advanced-level physics courses. Doing so would allow re-
searchers to determine which variables are important and at what
time, as different variables may be more critical depending on stu-
dents' level of expertise.
For the present study, patterns of correlations were used to exam-
ine the interaction among the model variables. Follow up studies
using randomized controlled trials with experimental and control
groups, however, would allow the opportunity to go a step further
and obtain causal evidence about the impact of one variable on an-
other. In addition, such studies would allow for comparisons of the
impact of various interventions on problem-solving success.
Comprehensive, open-ended, individual interviews should be
conducted in future research to gain additional information about the
variables in the model (Patton, 2002). Using qualitative procedures, in
conjunction with quantitative procedures, can help provide a compre-
hensive understanding of the nature of expertise in physics problem
solving (Sabella & Redish, 2007).
 G. Taasoobshirazi, J. Farley / Learning and Individual Differences 24 (2013) 53–62
8. Conclusion
Although developing expertise takes years, students can develop
surprising amounts of expertise quickly through effective instruction
(Ericsson, 1996; Schraw et al., 2006). Results of this study have im-
portant implications for physics instruction and for interventions
aimed at developing problem-solving expertise in physics students.
Results indicate that physics instructors should spend more time fo-
cusing students on the conceptual aspects of the material they are
learning, and help foster the motivation that supports conceptual un-
derstanding. Fostering student motivation and encouraging students
engage in metacognitive planning when solving physics problems
should increase the use of the more expert working-forward strategy.
Instructors should also show students the difference between the
working-forward and working-backward strategies, the connection
between the two strategies and conceptual understanding, and en-
courage students to work-forward when solving problems. Finally,
Internet tutorials, downloadable software programs, and textbook
CDs can be used to improve students' free-body diagrams, which
should, in turn, improve strategy use and problem-solution scores.
References
Alexander, P. A. (2003). Can we get there from here? Educational Researcher, 32, 3–4.
Anderson, K. C., & Leinhardt, G. (2002). Maps as representations: Expert novice com-
parison of projectile understanding. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 283–321.
Anzai, Y. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In K. A.
Anders, & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 64–92). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 238–246.
Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task value in predicting college students'
course performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26, 553–570.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic perfor-
mance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 270–295.
Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts' characteristics. In N.
Charness, P. J. Feltovich, R. R. Hoffman, & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook
of expertise and expert performance (pp. 21–30). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of
physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.
Chi, M. T. H., & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics.
Cognition and Instruction, 10, 249–260.
Cutnell, J. D., & Johson, K. W. (2001). Physics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Cutnell, J. D., & Johson, K. W. (2007). Physics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Davidson, J. E. (2003). Insights about insightful problem solving. In J. E. Davidson, & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 149–175). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Dhillon, A. S. (1998). Individual differences within problem-solving strategies used in
physics. Science Education, 82, 379–405.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruc-
tion. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293–331.
diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 19, 385–398.
Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International
Journal of Science Education, 24, 661–679.
Duncan, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40, 117–128.
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The
road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, sciences, sports,
and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of ex-
pert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine, 79, 70–81.
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the devel-
opment of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich,
& R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance
(pp. 685–706). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. American Psychological Association, 100, 363–406.
Friedman, J. S., & diSessa, A. A. (1999). What students should know about technology:
The case of scientific visualization. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8,
175–195.
Gerace, W. (2001). Problem solving and conceptual understanding. Paper presented at
the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, Rochester, New York.
61
Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. R. (2006). Motivation to learn college science. In J. Mintzes, &
W. H. Leonard (Eds.), Handbook of college science teaching. Arlington, VA: National
Science Teachers Association Press.
Glynn, S. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007). Nonscience majors learning sci-
ence: A theoretical model of motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
44(8), 1088–1107.
Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2003). The role of working memory in problem solving.
In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of problem solving. New York:
Cambridge.
Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using
insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32, 26–29.
Henderson, C. (2005). The challenges of instructional change under the best of
circumstances: A case study of one college physics instructor. American Journal of
Physics, 73, 778–786.
Henderson, T. (2007). Drawing free-body diagrams. Available at: http://www.
physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/
Hewitt, P. G. (2005). Conceptual physics. New York, NY: Addison Wesley.
Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Shia, R., & Hong, N. (2000). Metacognitive self-regulation and
problem-solving: Expanding the theory base through factor analysis. New Orleans: Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity
to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional fit criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jörkeskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2006). PRELIS 2: User's reference guide. A program for
multivariate data screening and data summarization: A preprocessor for LISREL.
Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Jörkeskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2007). LISREL 8.80. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software Inter-
national, Inc.
Keith, T. Z. (1993). Causal influences on school learning. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Analytic
methods for educational productivity (pp. 21–47). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kohl, P. B., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2006). Effects of representation on students solving
physics problems: A fine-grained characterization. Physical Review Special Topics:
Physics Education Research, 2, 1–12.
Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: A rose
by any other name? Educational Psychology Review, 20, 469–475.
Larkin, J. H. (1985). Understanding problem representations and skill in physics. In S. F.
Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 2. Research
and open questions. (pp. 141–159) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, H., & Simon, D. (1980). Expert and novice perfor-
mance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand
words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
McDermott, L. C. (2001). Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: Physics education research—The
key to student learning. American Journal of Physics, 69, 1127–1137.
Neto, A. J., & Valente, M. O. (1997). Problem solving in physics: Towards a synergetic
metacognitively developed approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Priest, A. G., & Lindsay, R. O. (1992). New light on novice-expert differences in physics
problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 389–405.
Reeve, J., Hamm, D., & Nix, G. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self determi-
nation in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 375–392.
Rosengrant, D., Van Heuvelen, A. V., & Etkina, E. (2009). Do students use and under-
stand free-body diagrams? Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education
Research, 5, 1–13.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the re-
liability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38, 260–278.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Sabella, M. S., & Redish, E. F. (2007). Knowledge organization and activation in physics
problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 75, 1017–1029.
Schneider, W. (1993). Acquiring expertise: Determinants of exceptional performance. In
K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and
development of giftedness and talent (pp. 311–324). United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science,
26, 113–125.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. D. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science
education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research
in Science Education, 36, 111–139.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology
Review, 7, 351–373.
Serway, R. A., & Faughn, J. S. (2002). College physics. Belmont, CA: Thomson Press.
Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and
ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 40, 6–33.
62 G. Taasoobshirazi, J. Farley / Learning and Individual Differences 24 (2013) 53–62
Snyder, J. L. (2000). An investigation of the knowledge structures of experts, interme-
diates and novices in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 22,
979–992.
SPSS Inc. (2005). SPSS base 14.0 for windows. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Stains, M., & Talanquer, V. (2008). Classification of chemical reactions: Stages of exper-
tise. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 771–793.
Steiger, J. H. (1995). SEPATH. Statistica 5.0. Tulsa, LI: StatSoft.
Stylianou, D. A., & Silver, E. A. (2004). The role of visual representations in advanced
mathematical problem solving: An examination of expert-novice similarities and
differences. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 353–387.
Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Ed.), The
psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 215–266). San Diego: Academic Press.
Taasoobshirazi, G., & Carr, M. (2009). A structural equation model of expertise in col-
lege physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 630–643.
Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching science
problem solving: An overview of experimental work. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 38, 442–468.
Widaman, K. F., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). On specifying the null model for incremental
fit indices in structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 8, 16–37.
Wieman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming physics education. Physics Today, 58,
36–41.
Williams, D. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2007). Effect of experience and mode of presentation on
problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 258–274.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content anal-
ysis and recommendations for best practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806–838.
Zajchowski, R., & Martin, J. (1993). Differences in the problem solving of stronger and
weaker novices in physics: Knowledge strategies, or knowledge structure. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 459–470.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An
analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman
(Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1–19).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41, 64–70.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Development and adaptation of expertise: The role of
self-regulatory processes and beliefs. In N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, R. R. Hoffman,
& K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance
(pp. 705–722). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. E.
Davidson, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 233–262).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Zusho, A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in
the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25,
1081–1094.