Physics faculty beliefs and values about the teaching and learning of problem solving. I. Mapping the common core

In higher education, instructors’ choices of both curricular material and pedagogy are determined by their beliefs about learning and teaching, the values of their profession, and perceived external constraints. Dissemination of research-based educational reforms is based on assumptions about that mental structure. This study reports the initial phase of an investigation of the beliefs and values of physics professors as they relate to the teaching and learning of problem solving in introductory physics. Based on an analysis of a series of structured interviews with six college physics faculty, a model of a common structure of such beliefs for all physics faculty teaching introductory physics was constructed. This preliminary model, when tested and modified by future research, can be used by curriculum developers to design materials, pedagogy, and professional development that gain acceptance among instructors.

Figure 1

(Color) Main map of faculty beliefs and values about learning and teaching problem solving in an introductory physics course. Boxes and links on the main map are common to all six instructors. The boxes framed with a double line indicate principal categories that are elaborated in separate composite map figures, as indicated.

Figure 2

(Color) “Solving Physics Problems” composite map of faculty beliefs about the problem-solving process in an introductory physics course. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category. Uppercase labels refer to specific types of knowledge that also occur in the “Appropriate Knowledge” composite map shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3

(Color) “Appropriate Knowledge” composite map of faculty beliefs about problem-solving goals in an introductory physics course. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category.

Figure 4

(Color) “Work” composite map of faculty beliefs about learning from working problems. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category. The boxes framed with a double line indicate principal categories that are elaborated in other composite maps. Uppercase labels refer to specific types of knowledge that also occur in the “Appropriate Knowledge” composite map shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 5

(Color) “Use Feedback” composite map of faculty beliefs about learning from using feedback. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category. The boxes framed with a double line indicate principal categories that are elaborated in other composite maps.

Figure 6

(Color) “Look/Listen” composite map of faculty beliefs about learning from looking at or listening to an instructor’s lecture or example problem solution. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category. The boxes framed with a double line indicate principal categories that are elaborated in other composite maps.

Figure 7

(Color) “Students Who Can Improve” composite map of faculty beliefs about students who can improve meaningfully in their introductory physics course. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category. The boxes framed with a double line indicate principal categories that are elaborated in other composite maps.

Figure 8

(Color) Part of composite map “Typical Students” concerned with faculty beliefs about the knowledge and skills related to problem solving of typical students in their introductory physics course. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category. Uppercase labels refer to specific types of knowledge that also occur in the “Appropriate Knowledge” composite map shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 9

(Color) Part of composite map “Typical Students” concerned with faculty beliefs about characteristics related to the general learning of typical students in their introductory physics course. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category.

Figure 10

(Color) Values part of composite map “Appropriate Problems” concerned with faculty beliefs about the appropriate structure of problems in their introductory physics course. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category. The boxes framed with a double line indicate principal categories that are elaborated in other composite maps.

Figure 11

(Color) Values part of composite map “Appropriate Example Solutions” concerned with faculty beliefs about the appropriate structure of example solutions in their introductory physics course. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category.

Figure 12

(Color) Values part of composite map “Individualized Response” concerned with faculty beliefs about the appropriate structure of individualized response in their introductory physics course. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category.

Figure 13

(Color) Constraints part of composite map “Appropriate Problems” concerned with faculty beliefs about the appropriate structure of problems in their introductory physics course. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category.

Figure 14

(Color) Constraints part of composite map “Appropriate Example Solutions” concerned with faculty beliefs about the appropriate structure of example solutions in their introductory physics course. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category.

Figure 15

(Color) Constraints part of composite map “Individualized response” concerned with faculty beliefs about the appropriate structure of individualized response in their introductory physics course. Numbers in the parentheses denote the instructor whose statements directly justify that category.