Discussion and Implications



This chapter provides final responses to the research questions: 1. How do A-level physics students in an inner London comprehensive school approach GCE A-level physics problem solving? and 2. What generative mechanisms are triggered by the explicit teaching of strategies for physics problem solving and how do these generative mechanisms compare to the existing approach? A shift in the regularities was observed which indicated the triggering and suppression of different mechanisms for successful problem solving. However, these observed regularities were different for different students. In addition to discussing the results, this chapter discusses the limitations and implications for practice.


Physics Problem solving Generative mechanisms 


  1. Abdullah, F. A. P. (2010). Patterns of physics problem-solving and metacognition among secondary schol students: a comparative study between the UK and Malaysian cases. In 5th International Conference on Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2–5 August 2010, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  2. Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 137–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Bolton, J., & Ross, S. (1997). Developing students’ physics problem-solving skills. Physics Education, 32(3), 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boudon, R. (1998.) Social mechanisms without black boxes. In P. Hedström & R. Swedberg (Eds.), (1996) Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M., & VanLehn, K. (2007). Accelerated future learning via explicit instruction of a problem solving strategy. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), The 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 409–416). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Dori, Y. J., Mevarech, Z., & Baker, D. (2018). Cognition, metacognition and culture in STEM education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etkina, E., Heuvelen, A. V., & Rosengrant, D. (2009). Do students use and understand free-body diagrams? Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 5.Google Scholar
  14. Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & de Jong, T. (1990). Studying physics texts: Differences in study processes between good and poor performers. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69, 342–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hauser, R. M. (1976). On Boudon’s model of social mobility. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 911–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (Eds.). (1998). Social mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 637–644.Google Scholar
  19. Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60, 627–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modelling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55, 440–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2009). The influence of self-efficacy and working memory capacity on problem-solving efficiency. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huffman, D. (1997). Effect of explicit problem solving instruction on high school students’ problem solving performance and conceptual understanding of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 551–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Kemper, E., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 273–296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Larkin, J. H., & Reif, F. (1979). Understanding and teaching problem solving in physics. European Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Model of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lombard, M., Synder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2003). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 29, 469–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meijer, J., Veenman, M., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics outcomes: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 42, 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (Eds.). (2012). Psychology of science: Implicit and explicit processes. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Reif, F., & Heller, J. (1982). Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics. Educational Psychology, 17(2), 102–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for social-scientists and practitioner-researchers (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rohrkemper, M. M. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmeman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 143–167). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  39. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  40. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series: Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35–53). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Selçuk, G. S., Çalışkan, S., & Erol, M. (2008). Physics self-efficacy beliefs of student teachers’: The relationships with gender and achievement perception. In Balkan Physics Letters, Special Issue: Turkish Physical Society 24th International Physics Congress, 648–651.Google Scholar
  43. Silverman, D. (2011). Qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Veenman, M. V. J., & Verheij, J. (2003). Technical students’ metacognitive skills: Relating general vs. specific metacognitive skills to study success. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (A. R. Luria, M. Lopez-Morillas & M. Cole [with J. V. Wertsch], Trans.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Original work [ca. 1930–1934]).Google Scholar
  49. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students—Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SuffolkSuffolkUK
  2. 2.Institute of EducationUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations