Kong, S.C., Ogata, H., Arnseth, H.C., Chan, C.K.K., Hirashima, T., Klett, F., Lee, J.H.M.

, Liu, C.C., Looi, C.K., Milrad, M., Mitrovic,

A., Nakabayashi, K., Wong, S.L., Yang, S.J.H. (eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in
Education [CDROM] . Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.

Students’ Difficulties When Solving Physics

Problems: Results from an ICT-infused
Revision Intervention

Benson SOONGa, Neil MERCERa, Siew Shin ERb

a
Faculty of Education , University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
b
Department of Science, Bartley Secondary School, Singapore
bmhs2@cam.ac.uk

Abstract: In this paper, we provide a discussion on students' difficulties when they solve
physics problems. First, we establish that students are reluctant to study physics, mainly
because solving physics problems is difficult. Next, we review the literature and
establish that (i) rich insights into students' thought processes and knowledge bases
(including specific difficulties in the process of problem solving) may be gleaned from
their computer-mediated discourse during collaborative problem-solving, and (ii) the
presence of misconceptions and/or activation of inappropriate p-prims, misreading and/or
misinterpretation of the question, and weak mathematical abilities are key impediments to
solving physics problems. We then describe our research methods and state that in
addition to these established factors, we found that other causes also significantly hindered
our students' ability to successful solve the physics questions that we posed. To explicate
our point, we provide protocol data taken directly from our students' computer-mediated
peer discussions. Finally, we set out some implications of the research work, and
propose some future research directions.

Keywords: Physics education research, prescriptive tutoring, learning intervention, peer

discussion, students’ difficulties, problem-solving, computer-mediated communications

1. Introduction

In a survey of why secondary students in the United Kingdom are not interested in
studying physics, Williams et al. [18] found that the main reason offered by students is
that they perceive physics to be a difficult/hard subject. Students find physics hard
essentially because they have difficulties in solving physics problems [2]. To help students
solve physics problems, generic problem-solving strategies (e.g. see [6]) are often
explicitly taught. However, as highlighted by Byun et al., “there is little research on the
students’ specific difficulties in the process of problem solving” ([2], p.87; emphasis
added). Without deep insights into students’ specific difficulties while they
problem-solve, we would only be able to offer students with generic assistance when
prescriptive treatment could be more effective (e.g. see [16]). Hence, in this paper, we
highlight the role synchronous computer-mediated communications technology can play in
uncovering students' physics problem-solving difficulties, and illustrate a specific
difficulty (in the process of problem solving) students in our own study had as revealed by
our methodology.

361
Kong, S.C., Ogata, H., Arnseth, H.C., Chan, C.K.K., Hirashima, T., Klett, F., Lee, J.H.M., Liu, C.C., Looi, C.K., Milrad, M., Mitrovic,
A., Nakabayashi, K., Wong, S.L., Yang, S.J.H. (eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in
Education [CDROM] . Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.

2. Context of Study

This paper draws on a research project that is currently being conducted at a public
secondary school in Singapore. In this one-year longitudinal study (Oct 2008 – Oct
2009), we design, implement, and evaluate an ICT-infused intervention for physics
revision based on collaborative problem-solving between student dyads (i.e. peer
discussions) via commonly available synchronous computer-mediated-communications
technology offering a text-chat and whiteboard facility (for e.g. see [14]). Our
intervention is based on the premise that (i) during peer discussion, students can learn
from each other (in accord with both a Vygotskyan [17]) and Piagetian [10]) account of
cognitive development), and (ii) students’ discussion logs (i.e. protocol data) can allow a
teacher to capture (and hence review at the teacher's convenience) students' knowledge
negotiation and co-construction attempts in situ, which are helpful in allowing a teacher to
uncover specific misconceptions or misunderstandings that a student may have. With
such insights, a teacher may then prescriptively address the students' physics conceptual
shortcomings as evident in the logs (we call this process prescriptive tutoring). However,
while reviewing the students’ protocol data in order to perform prescriptive tutoring, we
noticed that while misconceptions/misunderstandings still accounted for a good proportion
of students’ difficulties during problem solving, other factors were also significant and
highly prevalent. As a result, an additional track to the original research work was added
in which we have sought to map out the difficulties our students encountered while they
were solving physics problems. This paper summaries the key findings to date of this
new strand of research.
One class of pure-physics students (as opposed to students taking combined-science) who
would be taking their GCE "O" level examinations at the end of 2009 is involved in our
research study. This class has a total of 23 students (aged 15-17; 11 boys, 12 girls;
mostly students with working-class parents) from a range of Asian nationalities, including
Singaporeans, Nepalese, Mainland Chinese, and Thai nationals.

3. Literature Review

Our review of the computer-mediated discourse literature indicates that a

suitably-designed computer-mediated medium can be sufficiently rich to allow for
meaningful knowledge co-construction and negotiation between students and, hence, it
should not impede learning (e.g. see [7]; [4]). Also, getting students to work
collaboratively on solving problems in a real-time CMC environment could provide a rich
field for revealing students’ conceptions in a “naturally occurring” context (e.g. see [14];
[16]). These observations have been supported by Soong & Chee’s [15] study on
conceptual change in students, which incorporated computer-mediated collaborative
problem solving by students.
Physics education research indicates three main area of difficulties which impede
students' physics problem solving ability. Broadly, these areas are (i) the presence of
misconceptions (see [8], [1]) and/or the activation of inappropriate phenomenological
primitives during problem solving (see [5], [13]), (ii) misreading and/or misinterpretation
of the question posed (see [11], [3]), and (iii) weak mathematical ability of the students
(see [9], [12]).
Therefore, the literature indicates that rich insights may be gleaned from
computer-mediated discourse. Also, the literature points to misconceptions, p-prims,
reading, and mathematical ability as being largely responsible for students' difficulties

362
Kong, S.C., Ogata, H., Arnseth, H.C., Chan, C.K.K., Hirashima, T., Klett, F., Lee, J.H.M., Liu, C.C., Looi, C.K., Milrad, M., Mitrovic,
A., Nakabayashi, K., Wong, S.L., Yang, S.J.H. (eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in
Education [CDROM] . Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.

during problem-solving. Our data, however, indicates that other factors are also
responsible.

4. Methods

We analysed our students’ peer discussion logs by reading the text they typed and the
diagrams they drew (collectively called the protocol data) and matching their problem
solving attempts against the questions that we posed. A typical peer discussion session
takes about 1 hour and 20 minutes, resulting in an average word count of about 1400
words. On average, each peer discussion contained about 410 conversation turns.
Since we are interested in mapping out our students’ difficulties when solving
physics questions posed, we reviewed (and are re-reviewing in some cases) the students’
protocol data. When reviewing the logs, the first author made notes regarding students’
difficulties. These notes were then compared against the notes made by the third author
(who is the students’ physics teacher in school). The results indicated in this paper
represent our joint conclusions.

5. Analysis and Findings

In line with existing literature, our analysis of the students’ protocol data revealed (i) the
presence of misconceptions and/or the activation of inappropriate p-prims, (ii) instances
where students misread and/or misinterpreted the questions posed, and (iii) mathematical
gaps. However, in addition to these established causes, we also uncovered the following
factors that hampered our students’ ability to solve the problems posed. These factors are
(iv) not understanding the questions posed, (v) knowledge gaps, (vi) concept gaps, (vii)
concept blackouts, and (viii) weak concept awareness. Due to space constraints, we are
able to illustrate only one of our students' exhibited difficulties by providing relevant
snippets taken verbatim from the peer discussion logs. When appropriate, we provide
our comments in square brackets ([...]) to aid the reader in understanding the context of the
students' problem solving attempts.
Problem 1 – You have been asked to select a design for a tank that is to be used for storing a large
amount of mercury. Which design would you choose and why? [2]

D esign 1 D esign 2 D esign 3

Figure 1: Question Posed

Table 1: Snippet revealing weak concept awareness (Problem 1)

Student Discussion Snippet
Qwert the ans is most probably design 2
Fifa i think answer is this
[Fifa drew Design 2 on the whiteboard]
Qwert because mercury is a metal, it would be heavy
[Here, we see that Qwert is saying that he picked Design 2 possibly due to a “stability”
argument, which is incorrect in the given context]
Qwert ya i oso think so
[Qwert is agreeing with Fifa's answer, which Fifa had earlier drew on the whiteboard]
Fifa sorry i dunt think ur answer is right

363
Kong, S.C., Ogata, H., Arnseth, H.C., Chan, C.K.K., Hirashima, T., Klett, F., Lee, J.H.M., Liu, C.C., Looi, C.K., Milrad, M., Mitrovic,
A., Nakabayashi, K., Wong, S.L., Yang, S.J.H. (eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in
Education [CDROM] . Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.

Fifa i mean ur explanation

Fifa would u like to listen to mine ?
[Fifa does not agree with Qwert's “stability” argument, and offers his own]
Qwert issit the mercury part?
Fifa mercury usually is in liquid form
Qwert Ya
Qwert but it is still a metal
Qwert but heavier than water
Fifa as we noe that the deeper the liquid is the greater the pressure is
[Fifa offers that a “pressure” argument is more appropriate given the context ]
Qwert Ya
Qwert but design 2 is more stable
[Once again, Qwert brings up the stability argument]
Fifa so the btm of of the container should be thicker
Qwert Ya
Fifa so that can sustain from the great pressure
[Fifa's reason is inline with what the students have been taught]
Qwert ur rite
[Qwert states that he agrees with Fifa's reason...]
Fifa ok settle qn2
Fifa lets do 3
Qwert wait
Fifa ??
Qwert i havent finish explaining
Fifa ok continue
Qwert when mercury is filled to the top, the possibility that container falling over is reduced
rite?
Qwert because it is more stable
[Here, Qwert makes explicit his “stability” argument. Notice that despite Fifa's
explanation and Qwert's agreement with Fifa's explanation, Qwert still feels strongly
that his “stability” argument is valid as a reason for choosing Design 2]
Qwert agree?
Fifa i think the designer gt consider about that ...

On his own, Qwert obtained the correct answer to the question posed. However, the
reason he offered, while not entirely incorrect, was inappropriate based on the given
context. After all, Designs 1 and 3 are not unstable to the extent that stability becomes an
issue. Fifa recognised this point, and tried explaining to Qwert why a pressure argument
would be more valid. However, while agreeing with Fifa that the pressure argument is
valid, Qwert remained adamant that his stability argument is also equally valid. In other
words, it appears that although Qwert understood both concepts and arguments, he
preferred the stability argument. In our opinion, this episode reveals that students have
difficulties discriminating against appropriate concepts given an unfamiliar setting.
Tentatively, we have labeled this difficulty as weak concept awareness.

6. Implications, Future Research and Conclusions

Our analysis of our students' computer-mediated discourse have allowed us to gain deeper
insights into their knowledge base and thought processes. We have uncovered
misconceptions/misunderstandings which were unexpected and never before encountered.
As a result, we believe that our remedial lessons are effective. However, this research
study reveals that non-physics related deficiencies play a big part in how students solve
problems. The implication of this finding is that a physics-only intervention might not be
sufficient to improve students' final physics grades significantly. After all, students who
understand the physics concepts taught might not do well in an examination if they are
unable to identify the correct concepts that the questions are evaluating, or are unable to

364
Kong, S.C., Ogata, H., Arnseth, H.C., Chan, C.K.K., Hirashima, T., Klett, F., Lee, J.H.M., Liu, C.C., Looi, C.K., Milrad, M., Mitrovic,
A., Nakabayashi, K., Wong, S.L., Yang, S.J.H. (eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in
Education [CDROM] . Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.

understand the questions posed. Further research should explore whether a framework for
students difficulties during problem solving can be constructed. Such a framework is
helpful for categorising students' weaknesses so that differentiated teaching and learning
may take place.
In conclusion, students face many difficulties when solving physics problems, but a
good proportion of those difficulties may not be specifically related to the study of
physics. Hence, in order to help students improve, interventions in other domains might
also be necessary.

References

[1] Bowden, J., Dall'Alba, G., Martin, E., Laurillard, D., Marton, F., Masters, G., Ramsden, P., Stephanou,
A., & Walsh. E. (1992). Displacement, velocity and frames of reference: Phenomenographic studies of
students' understanding and some implications for teaching and assessment. The American Journal of
Physics, 60, 262-269.
[2] Byun, T., Ha, S. & Lee, G. (2008). Identifying student difficulty in problem solving process via the
framework of the house model. Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference (Vol.
1064, pp. 87-90). Edmonton, Alberta: AIP.
[3] Crisp, V., Sweiry, E., Ahmed, A., & Pollitt, A. (2008). Tales of the expected: the influence of
students' expectations on question validity and implications for writing exam questions. Educational
Research, 50(1), 95-115.
[4] De Vries, E., Lund, K. & Baker, M.J. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and
argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,
11(1), 63—103.
[5] diSessa, A. (1993). Towards of epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3),
105-225.
[6] Heller, K., & Heller, P. (2000). The competent problem solver for introductory physics. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
[7] Hung, D. (1996). The social construction of mathematical meanings through computer-mediated
collaborative problem solving environments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, National University
of Singapore.
[8] McDermott, L., Rosenquist, M., & van Zee, E. (1987) Student difficulties in connecting graphs and
physics: examples from kinematics. The American Journal of Physics, 55, 503-513.
[9] Orhun, N.,Orhun,Ö. (2002). Mathematical mistakes of solving physics problems. Proceedings of the
International Conference on the Humanistic Renaissance in Mathematics Education. (pp. 288-289).
Palermo, Italy: The Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project.
[10] Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[11] Pollitt, A. and Ahmed, A. (2001). Science or Reading?: How students think when answering TIMSS
questions. Paper presented at the International Association for Educational Assessment.
http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/collection1/digitalAssets/113880_Science_or_Reading._H
ow_Students_Think_When_Answering_TIMSS_.pdf [viewed 1 Feb 2009].
[12] Tuminaro, J & Redish, E. (2003). Understanding students' poor performance on mathematical problem
solving in physics. Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference (Vol. 720, pp.
113-116). Madison, WI: AIP.
[13] Smith, J, diSessa, A, & Roschelle, J. (1993/1994). Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist
analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
[14] Soong, B. (2008). Learning through computers: Uncovering students' thought processes while solving
physics problems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5), 592-610.
[15] Soong, B. & Chee, Y. (2000). Scientific revolutions and conceptual change: Results of a microgenetic
process study. Proceedings of the ICCE/ICCAI International Conference on Computers in
Education/International Conference on Computer-Assisted Instruction, Taipei, Taiwan, 165-172.
[16] Soong, B. & Mercer, N. (2009). Using ICT to improve students’ revision of physics concept through
co-construction and prescriptive tutoring: results of a pilot study. Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA 2009
Conference. Hawaii, USA, 1180-1189.
[17] Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V.
John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (Eds. and Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
[18] Williams, C., Stanisstreet, M., Spall, K., Boyes, E., & Dickson, D. (2003). Why aren't secondary
students interested in physics? Physics Education, 38(4), 324-329.

365