The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Student expectations in introductory physics
Abstract
Students’ understanding of what science is about, how it is done, and their expectations as to what goes on in a science course, can play a powerful role in what they get out of introductory college physics. In this paper, we describe the Maryland Physics Expectations survey; a 34-item Likert-scale (agree–disagree) survey that probes student attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions about physics. We report on the results of pre- and post-instruction delivery of this survey to 1500 students in introductory calculus-based physics at six colleges and universities. We note a large gap between the expectations of experts and novices and observe a tendency for student expectations to deteriorate rather than improve as a result of the first term of introductory calculus-based physics.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Student attitudes are being assessed with the Maryland Physics Expectations II survey (Redish et al., 1998), a well-validated instrument that has been modified to include a set of questions (referred to as the interdisciplinary cluster) that specifically probes whether students feel interdisciplinary approaches are a valuable problem-solving tool for the biological sciences.”
From Competency-Based Reforms of the Undergraduate Biology Curriculum: Integrating the Physical and Biological Sciences (2013) · cites this paper as Redish et al., 1998
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1374249 · Cited by 2,682
Science Education International
International Council of Associations for Science Education (2019) · Science education international · doi:10.33828/sei · Cited by 1,071
Pea, R. D. (2004) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6 · Cited by 1,047
“... developmental levels of knowledge or of distinctive beliefs about knowledge and learning (e.g., Hofer & Pintrich, 1997), even within science tasks or in terms of epistemological views on the nature of science-although extensive literature is available in science education that uses such developmental levels (e.g.,…”
BackgroundSinger, S. R., & Smith, K. A. (2013) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20030 · Cited by 852
Adams, W. K., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N. D., & Wieman, C. (2006) · Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research · doi:10.1103/physrevstper.2.010101 · Cited by 697
Metadata
- Authors
- Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Physics
- Published
- 1998-03-01
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 212-224
- ISSN
- 0002-9505 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2909
- OpenAlex
- W2061925588
- Cited by
- 693
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 33
- FWCI
- 47.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Physics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Methods and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
- Keywords
- student expectations, introductory physics, student attitudes toward science, calculus-based physics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
