Teaching assistants’ beliefs regarding example solutions in introductory physics

As part of a larger study to understand instructors’ considerations regarding the learning and teaching of problem solving in an introductory physics course, we investigated beliefs of first-year graduate teaching assistants (TAs) regarding the use of example solutions in introductory physics. In particular, we examine how the goal of promoting expertlike problem solving is manifested in the considerations of graduate TAs’ choices of example solutions. Twenty-four first-year graduate TAs were asked to discuss their goals for presenting example solutions to students. They were also provided with different example solutions and asked to discuss their preferences for prominent solution features. TAs’ awareness, preferences, and actual practices related to solution features were examined in light of recommendations from the literature for the modeling of expertlike problem-solving approaches. The study concludes that the goal of helping students develop an expertlike problem-solving approach underlies many TAs’ considerations for the use of example solutions. TAs, however, do not notice and do not use many features described in the research literature as supportive of this goal. A possible explanation for this gap between their belief and practices is that these features conflict with another powerful set of values concerned with keeping students engaged, setting adequate standards, as well as pragmatic considerations such as time requirements and the assignment of grades.

Figure 1

Open-ended questions.

Figure 2

Prediscussion worksheet.

Figure 3

Postdiscussion worksheet.

Figure 4

Problem used in the artifact comparison technique.

Figure 5

Example solution artifact I.

Figure 6

Example solution artifact II.

Figure 7

Example solution artifact III. (The equation in gray was not shown on the solution provided to the TAs due to a problem that occurred in the copying process.)

Figure 8

Percentage of TAs who mentioned each goal or consideration in the general and concrete contexts, respectively.

Figure 9

Percentages of TAs who noticed (total $N=24$) vs used (total $N=23$) features related to “initial problem analysis.” For TAs who noticed the features, their attitudes are also presented. The like or not like rating for each feature was determined by examining the reasons that the TA wrote on the worksheet for why they like or do not like the feature and comparing whether the solution that each TA ranked as highest based on their preference for the feature matches the solution that he or she believed contain the most of this feature. The number of TAs in each case is also labeled.

Figure 10

Diagram used in each of the three example solution artifacts.

Figure 11

Percentage of TAs who noticed ($N=24$) vs used ($N=23$) features related to “solution construction.” For TAs who noticed the features, their attitudes are also presented. The number of TAs in each case is also labeled.

Figure 12

Percentage of TAs who noticed ($N=24$) vs used ($N=23$) features related to “checking of solution.” For TAs who noticed the features, their attitudes are also presented. The number of TAs in each case is also labeled.

Figure 13

Number of TAs who mentioned features as supportive or contradictive to the goals (Gs). To get a somewhat more global picture, the 14 features are compressed into five clusters (Cs) as described in Table .