PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^)
(^) Session Independent
Evaluation Strategy TA’s GradeDescriptionon Physics on RemainderTA’s Grade of Problem Comments
2A 33 86 0 Incomplete Plan, no Execution
2B 83 86 14 Didn’t follow plan, improper Execution
2D 67 100 0 No Plan, no Execution
3A 33 100 100
3B 33 100 100
4A 83 100 100
4B 33 75 50 Messy FBD, incorrect answer
4C (^33 75 67) FBD not clear, Found F but not
4D 33 100 33 Didn’t have clear plan, numerical error
5A 17 75 50 Didn’t do all calculations
5B 83 75 50 Used wrong units in Execution.
5C 83 100 33 Execution Errors.
6B 67 60 80 Lost points on temperature conversion.
7A 50 60 40 Didn’t execute Plan.
Mean 52 85 51
24.3 15.2 34.7^
Table 2-7. Written Solution Grades.
The interpretation of this data table is that these groups typically did better on the
physics description than on the remainder of the problem. In all cases, the major errors in
the entire solution were algebraic or arithmetic mistakes in the Plan and Execution
portions of the problem. The lack of a discernible correlation between the teaching
assistants’ grades on the problems’ physics descriptions and the independent, the
objective evaluation probably represents the subjective nature of the teaching assistants’
grading of the problems. The 52% average score for following the physics
description section of the problem-solving strategy is not surprising either. A perfect
100% would result from following the problem-solving strategy “to the letter” and these
groups never did that.