MAUVE: A New Strategy for Solving and Grading Physics Problems

Nicole Breanne Hill

Citation: Phys. Teach. 54, 291 (2016); doi: 10.1119/1.4947158

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4947158
View Table of Contents: http://aapt.scitation.org/toc/pte/54/5
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers
MAUVE: A New Strategy for Solving
and Grading Physics Problems
Nicole Breanne Hill, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
M
AUVE (magnitude, answer, units, variables, and
equations) is a framework and rubric to help stu-
dents and teachers through the process of clearly
solving and assessing solutions to introductory physics
problems. Success in introductory physics often derives from
an understanding of units, a command over dimensional
analysis, and good bookkeeping. I developed MAUVE for an
introductory-level environmental physics course as an easy-
to-remember checklist to help students construct organized
and thoughtful solutions to physics problems. Environmen-
tal physics is a core physics course for environmental and
sustainability science (ESS) majors that teaches principles
of radiation, thermodynamics, and mechanics within the
context of the environment and sustainable energy systems.
ESS student concentrations include environmental biology,
applied ecology, biogeochemistry, and natural resources.
The MAUVE rubric, inspired by nature, has encouraged my
students to produce legible and tactical work, and has signifi-
cantly clarified the grading process.
Fig. 1. MAUVE rubric. When working a problem, students start
from the soil and work their way up, and check their work from
the top-down. When marking a problem, instructors start from
the flower and work their way down.
The scoring breakdown for MAUVE is shown in Fig. 1.
MAUVE can be thought of as a flower where the magnitude
(M) is the overall size of the flower; the answer (A) is repre-
sented by the petals—the prominent part that most students
focus on; the units (U) are the stem, without which the pet-
als (answer) would be insignificant; the variables (V) are the
roots, nutrients, and water contained within the soil; and
the equations (E) or physical principles can be thought of as
the soil—the foundational structure that supports the root
system. Similar to the 40-40-20 rubric,1 40% of the score in
MAUVE is designated to a student’s selection of the relevant
equation(s) or physical relationships and sketching a physical
representation of the situation for solving the problem. In the
DOI: 10.1119/1.4947158
40-40-20 rubric, the second 40% of the score is reserved for
substituting the proper values into the equation and the final
20% is given for the correct answer.
By contrast, in MAUVE 20% credit is given for rearrang-
ing the equation(s) to isolate and solve for the correct variable
before substituting in values, 20% credit is set for demonstrat-
ing through dimensional analysis that the final units are cor-
rect, 10% is awarded for the correct answer, and the final 10%
is reserved for the answer having the correct or physically re-
alistic magnitude and direction along with the right number
of significant figures.
Theoretical framework
Simply solving physics problems does not necessarily help
students become better problem solvers.2-5 Rather than hav-
ing students haphazardly pen solutions to thousands of phys-
ics problems, it is beneficial to teach a problem-solving strate-
gy that can be applied by students to any physical scenario.4-9
In attempts to determine a unified theory of problem solving,
many studies have been dedicated to distinguishing differ-
ences in approaches taken by novice and expert problem
solvers.4,10-14 A “novice” is defined as a beginning physics
student who has been exposed to the fundamental laws, con-
cepts, and principles relevant to solving a given problem. An
“expert” has been immersed in physics beyond the introduc-
tory level, is knowledgeable in the general domain,13 and “can
rapidly evoke the particular items relevant to the problem at
hand.”10 Experts view problem solving as a process and call
upon the core theories and principles (i.e., the deep structure
of a problem) while conceptualizing a solution.11,12,14,15 They
see patterns and are able to connect these patterns to prior
knowledge stored in their long-term memory to efficiently
process the information in their short-term memory to craft
a solution and generate new knowledge.4,10 In contrast, most
novices approach problem solving with a collection of facts,
rules, and tasks that they must recall and apply to a problem
based upon its surface features.11,12,15 For example, if a stu-
dent comes across a problem with a skier on a slope, then she
may classify this as a “skier problem” and apply a previously
memorized (and not necessarily appropriate) “skier problem”
solution sequence to find an answer without really think-
ing through the physical situation presented in the problem.
Many experienced physics instructors have noted that stu-
dents will not likely adopt an expert’s approach to problem
solving by simply watching a skilled problem solver model a
solution.8,9 Students must be provided with an explicit set of
guidelines that encourages them to slow down and (1) un-
derstand the problem, (2) formulate a plan, (3) carry out the
plan while checking each step along the way, and (4) reflect
THE PHYSICS TEACHER ◆ Vol. 54, May 2016 291

Fig. 2. MAUVE problem-solving cycle. The student should begin
at Stage 1 and continue clockwise around the cycle. Stage 7
requires the application of the MAUVE rubric (Fig. 1). The cycle
for a particular problem ends once the student has worked out a
physically meaningful solution.
upon and examine their solution.7,9,16-19 Thus, even after
these studies with intensive observation of expert problem
solvers, the recommended problem-solving strategy comes
back around to that which is naturally intuited by many with
experience in the STEM (science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics) fields17: Pólya’s classic four-step problem-
solving system.16
A large body of research in problem-solving and cognitive
psychology has supported the theoretical basis of Pólya’s uni-
versal problem-solving technique as described in How to Solve
It, first published in 1945.7,9,18,19 To improve students’ recol-
lection of Pólya’s problem-solving process, Beichner, Dear-
dorff, and Zhang devised a memorable mnemonic, GOAL,
which prompts students to “(G)ather information about the
problem, (O)rganize an approach to the solution, (A)nalyze
the problem, and (L)earn from their efforts.”18 The GOAL
mnemonic was inspired by Reif, Larkin, and Brackett’s work
that showed students found a tabulated checklist cumbersome
to follow when solving problems and the students abandoned
the checklist after a short time.7,18 Greater success was found
in having the students pen their solutions directly on a tem-
plate.7 Hence, the GOAL mnemonic functions as a template
that students can internalize and always have handy while
solving problems.18
An earlier mnemonic derived from Pólya is Wright and
Williams’ WISE strategy, which promotes organized and
accurate solutions from students.9 Similar to GOAL, WISE
has four basic steps and provides students with a consistent
methodology for problem solving. WISE was developed in re-
sponse to Wright’s observations that the majority of students
ran into difficulties solving problems from either working too
292 THE PHYSICS TEACHER ◆ Vol. 54, May 2016
fast or not knowing how to approach a problem. WISE has
four primary components: (W)hat’s happening, which is fur-
ther broken down into the identification of the basic physical
principle(s), a sketch or diagram of the physical situation,
and the identification and labeling of the given and required
information in addition to the appropriate units; (I)solate the
unknown, which is subdivided into selecting an equation,
solving it symbolically, and conducting a systematic search
to determine if any other equations or physical principles are
critical to the solution; (S)ubstitute or plug in both the num-
bers and units; and (E)valuate, which requires the students
to check their work.9 See Appendix A20 for further details on
GOAL, WISE, and a review of additional problem-solving
strategies that have evolved from Pólya.
Like WISE and GOAL, MAUVE provides an easy-to-
remember checklist for solving problems and is derived from
Pólya’s framework. However, its benefits extend beyond
that of WISE or GOAL since it is accompanied by a visual
representation, problem-solving analogy, and also functions
as a grading rubric. The conveyance of both visual and ver-
bal information in MAUVE could make the strategy more
memorable for all students and help them to internalize good
problem-solving habits.7,9,18,21 Furthermore, MAUVE pres-
ents problem solving as a cycle to encourage students to check
their work. There are eight stages in the MAUVE problem-
solving cycle as diagrammed in Fig. 2, where the seventh
stage prompts students to employ the MAUVE rubric, shown
in Fig. 1, to assess their solution. If their solution checks out
with the MAUVE rubric, then they have crafted an organized
and thoughtful solution and have completed the problem to
the best of their abilities. If their answer does not check out
with the MAUVE rubric, then they should continue through
the MAUVE cycle again.
Problem-solving procedure
Mauve, the delicate purple color, received its name from
the mallow flower.22 The MAUVE flower analogy is meant
to help students methodically think through the process of
solving a physics problem and could be especially useful for
students with a strong interest in the biological or natural
sciences. The MAUVE problem-solving cycle (Fig. 2) relates
problem solving to the life cycle of a flower (from the gar-
dener’s perspective) and is presented as having eight stages:
(1) seed, (2) visualization, (3) preparation, (4) planting, (5)
germination, (6) growth, (7) flower, and (8) death/decompo-
sition. These life stages are represented by a parallel problem-
solving stage in Fig. 2 and are meant to encourage students
to slow down and carefully think through each stage of their
solution.
The MAUVE cycle was designed as a resource for begin-
ning physics students. It should be introduced early on in
a course in conjunction with the MAUVE rubric. The goal
of the MAUVE cycle is to get students to internalize the
problem-solving process by recalling a familiar analogy. Once
they have adopted a consistent strategy, then students can rely
solely on the MAUVE mnemonic as their problem-solving
checklist. Stages 1–4 of the MAUVE cycle (Fig. 2) align with
the “E” component of the MAUVE rubric (Fig. 1). Stage 5
matches up with “V,” Stage 6 with “U,” and Stage 7 with “A”
and “M.”
The MAUVE cycle begins on a note similar to that of
WISE by encouraging students to read the problem carefully
and ask themselves, “What’s happening?” so they can avoid
the careless mistake of answering the wrong question. For
this reason, students must identify the problem in the first
stage of MAUVE and then predict a solution, or at least the
units the final answer should have (e.g., if SI system units are
provided, then energy should be in joules). Brouwer identi-
fied this prediction step as an essential component to the
problem-solving process, much like forming a hypothesis is
vital to the scientific method and students should learn to
approach solving problems as scientists.6 The second stage
of the MAUVE cycle is to draw a physical representation of
the problem and relate it to personal experience.23 It has been
well documented that expert problem solvers tend to sketch
out a physical representation of the problem prior to car-
rying out their solution and that “a diagram is (sometimes)
worth 10,000 words.”15,24 The purpose of having students
then relate the problem to their own experience is so they can
make a memorable connection to the problem and begin to
build a thoughtful physical conceptualization (and ultimately
“physical intuition”) that they can apply toward working their
solution.10 This is to move students away from the mindset of
considering problem solving a “recall task.”15 After the first
two stages, the students should have dedicated adequate en-
ergy to thinking about the problem physically and conceptu-
ally so that they are prepared to take inventory by listing the
givens and identifying the unknowns in Stage 3 and selecting
the appropriate equation(s)/physical principle(s) in Stage 4.
Stage 5 requires students to solve the problem symbolically to
isolate for the unknown. They are not prompted to enter nu-
merical values into their final equation until Stage 7. This is
to prevent students from “blindly calculating” with numerical
values.7 It is easy to lose track of units, decimals, digits, and
entire terms this way. Therefore, to cultivate their future suc-
cess in physics, it is critical for students to get into the habit
of working with variables and manipulating equations before
“plugging in numbers.” Thus they are first instructed to insert
units in Stage 6 to perform dimensional analysis before pro-
ceeding to the numerical answer in Stage 7. Like the petals on
the flower, students must make sure that their answer stands
out—it must be boxed, circled, or underlined.25 The students
must then check their solution against the MAUVE rubric by
beginning at “M” and working their way down to “E” in Fig.
1, and reflect upon their work by asking the following:
•“Does the magnitude and direction of my
answer make sense physically?”
•“Do I have the correct number of significant
figures recorded?”
THE PHYSICS TEACHER ◆ Vol. 54, May 2016
By implementing the MAUVE procedure, the students
should have penned a carefully reasoned and systematic solu-
tion to the problem.
Grading procedure
Once the students have been provided with a set proce-
dure for solving problems, grading their solutions should
prove easier. Begin at “M” and work your way down following
the rubric in Fig. 1.
• Magnitude. Regardless of whether or not the student’s
answer has the correct digits, check for the correct order of
magnitude, sign and/or direction, and number of significant
figures. One-quarter credit is awarded if either the student’s
answer has the correct order of magnitude or the correct sign
and/or direction. Half credit is given for having the correct
order of magnitude and correct sign and/or direction and the
incorrect number of significant figures or vice versa.
• Answer. The student is given half credit for a fully cor-
rect answer and earns the second half if the answer is boxed,
circled, or underlined.
• Units. Full credit is awarded if the student has indicated
the correct units in the answer and performed dimensional
analysis. Half credit is earned if the student has indicated the
correct units without performing dimensional analysis and
vice versa.
• Variables. Full credit is given for this criterion if the stu-
dent has rearranged the equation(s) and solved for the correct
variable before substituting in numerical values. If the stu-
dent uses numerical values before rearranging the equation,
then he will only earn half credit on the problem. Also, if the
student solves for the correct variable incorrectly, then half
credit will be awarded.
• Equations. Half credit is given if all relevant equations
are indicated in the student’s solution, and the second half is
earned if the student has correctly sketched out the physical
situation described in the problem. Otherwise, partial credit
will be awarded accordingly. For example, if there are three
equations or physical relationships that the student should be
working with and the physical scenario is correctly sketched,
but only two out of the three appropriate equations have been
identified, then 83.5% credit for the equations criterion will
be earned.
A zero is given for any of the criteria that are either fully
incorrect or missing from the student’s solution. For in-
stance, if the student has the correct answer written without
any work shown, then the maximum number of credit that
could be earned on the problem is 40% (35% if the answer is
not boxed). See Appendix B20 for an example employing the
MAUVE problem-solving cycle and rubric on an energy bal-
ance problem for Earth’s greenhouse effect.
293
Learning styles
Richard Felder and Linda Silverman developed the Index
of Learning Styles (ILS) in 1987 as an instrument to improve
engineering education. It is based on individual preferences
for the type of information they are most likely to recollect
(visual or verbal) and the different ways they prefer to process
(actively or reflectively), perceive (intuiting or sensing), and
organize (sequentially or globally) information.21 MAUVE is
likely to resonate with a range of student learning style prefer-
ences. As noted earlier the MAUVE problem-solving strategy
and rubric can appeal to both visual and verbal learners with
its flower diagram and mnemonic device. It could work espe-
cially well for sequential learners as it presents an organized
problem-solving strategy with a numerical cycle to guide
them. By providing a top-down check and scoring rubric,
MAUVE could also facilitate the grading of global learn-
ers since they will often arrive at a correct answer without
showing all the steps for their work.21 MAUVE provides a
reminder of the metrics each problem will be graded on.
Likewise, the top-down check could benefit intuitive learn-
ers as they are also likely to skip steps in their work or pen
quick solutions.21 The foundational step of MAUVE—the
equations and physical principles—requires both an abstract
representation of the problem (e.g., the equations) and a con-
crete representation (e.g., the sketch of the physical situation),
which awards equivalent credit to the aspect of the solution
that is a characteristic strength of natural intuitors (50% for
the equations) and natural sensors (50% for drawing).21 Stu-
dents who have a perception preference as a sensor tend to
take more time on quizzes or exams than intuitors,21 and the
transparency of the MAUVE rubric could enable students to
better strategize their solutions if they are running short on
time. For example, students can earn partial credit on prob-
lems they have not had much time with by simply drawing a
physical sketch of the situation presented in the problem and
writing (and boxing) the final units.
Conclusion
The MAUVE system is designed to teach students orga-
nizational and critical thinking skills when solving physics
problems at the introductory level. Furthermore, the system
provides a clear marking rubric. By knowing exactly how they
will be graded, students have the opportunity to clearly for-
mat their solutions accordingly. As a result, MAUVE makes
each student’s work easier to follow, allowing teachers to
grade more efficiently and be consistent, fair, and transparent
in the grading process.
References
1. E. Nalence, “More ideas about grading,” Phys. Teach. 49, 198–
199 (April 2012).
2. J. Clement, “Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechan-
ics,” Am. J. Phys. 50, 66–71 (Jan. 1982).
3. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, “Force Concept
Inventory,” Phys. Teach. 30, 141–158 (March 1992).
294 THE PHYSICS TEACHER ◆ Vol. 54, May 2016
4. C. Singh, “Problem solving and learning,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1140,
183–197 (2009).
5. T. Byun and G. Lee, “Why students still can’t solve physics
problems after solving over 2000 problems,” Am. J. Phys. 82,
906–913 (Sept. 2014).
6. W. Brouwer, “A process approach to problem solving in phys-
ics,” Phys. Teach. 11, 483–485 (Nov. 1973).
7. F. Reif, J. H. Larkin, and G. C. Brackett, “Teaching general
learning and problem-solving skills,” Am. J. Phys. 44, 212–217
(March 1976).
8. F. Reif, “Teaching problem solving—A scientific approach,”
Phys. Teach. 19, 310–316 (May 1981).
9. D. S. Wright and C. D. Williams, “A WISE strategy for intro-
ductory physics,” Phys. Teach. 24, 211–216 (April 1986).
10. J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. P. Simon, and H. A. Simon, “Expert
and novice performance in solving physics problems,” Sci. 208
(4450), 1335–1343 (June 1980).
11. M. T. H. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, “Categorization and
representation of physics problems by experts and novices,”
Cog. Sci. 5, 121–152 (1981).
12. P. T. Hardiman, R. Dufresne, and J. P. Mestre, “The relation
between problem categorization and problem solving among
experts and novices,” Mem. Cognition 17 (5), 627–638 (1989).
13. K. Schultz and J. Lockhead, “A View from Physics,” in Toward
a Unified Theory of Problem Solving: Views From the Content
Domains, edited by M. U. Smith (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1991),
pp. 99–114.
14. A. Van Heuvelen, “Learning to think like a physicist: A review
of research-based instructional strategies,” Am. J. Phys. 59,
891–897 (Oct. 1991).
15. K. A. Harper, “Student problem-solving behaviors,” Phys.
Teach. 44, 250–251 (April 2006).
16. G. Pólya, How to Solve It (Princeton University Press, 1945).
17. T. Passermore, “Pólya’s legacy: Fully forgotten or getting a new
perspective in theory and practice?” Aust. Sen. Math. J. 21 (2),
44–53 (July 2007).
18. R. Beichner, D. Deardorff, and B. Zhang, “GOAL-oriented
problem solving,” NCSU.edu (June 2002), ftp://ftp.ncsu.edu/
pub/ncsu/beichner/RB/GOALPaper.pdf.
19. E. Lederman, “Journey into problem solving: A gift from
Pólya,” Phys. Teach. 47, 94–97 (Feb. 2009).
20. See [supplementary material] available under the “References”
tab at TPT Online, http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4947158 .
21. R. M. Felder and L. K. Silverman, “Learning and teaching styles
in engineering education,” Eng. Educ. 78 (7), 674–681 (1988
with 2002 author’s preface); http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/
lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/LS-1988.pdf.
22. D. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of
Learning and Development, 2nd ed. (Pearson FT Press, 2014).
23. J. H. Larkin and H. A. Simon, “Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes)
Worth 10,000 Words,” in Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive
and Computational Perspectives, edited by J. Glasgow, N. Hari
Narayanan, and B. Chandrasekaran (AAAI Press/MIT press,
1995).
24. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, edited by
T. F. Hoad (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996).
25. K. A. Harper, “Grading without losing all your time (and your
mind!),” Phys. Teach. 40, 584–585 (Dec. 2011).
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14835; nbp32@cornell.edu