2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Student-centered pedagogy requires instructors to engage with student thinking instead of prescribing one correct problem-solving method [1]. In this work, student understanding of rigid body equilibrium is explored as a follow-on to previous work [2]. A think aloud protocol is used to study how students address a problem with multiple solution paths and how they assess their own thinking. Study participants are students in a combined statics and deformable bodies course that elect to participate and are currently taking or have completed introductory physics. The interview begins with a projectile motion practice problem to get the student comfortable with the interview process, followed by two questions of interest. The first is the box problem followed by the rigid body beam question. The rigid body beam question shows a simply supported T-beam (Figure 1) with an applied load. Students are asked to predict how the reaction forces at the pin support change if the moment arm of the applied load changes. They explain their reasoning using a think aloud protocol, select their answer, and provide their confidence level in that answer. The interviewer asks follow-up questions based off their responses to better understand their thinking and asks if their confidence level or answer has changed after follow-up questions. Responses are recorded on an iPad using audio and screen capture recording and analyzed for common themes.

This work focuses on the rigid body beam question. Thirteen interviewed students completed this question using a think aloud protocol. Initial analysis of student responses shows student confidence increases after follow-up questions, regardless of student answer correctness. This indicates that something about the process of think alouds relates to student confidence. In previous work, think alouds were observed to be educational in nature [2]. When reviewing explanations from students who selected incorrect answers, many students identified a pin to have a reaction moment and answered the question with regards to the magnitude and direction of a reaction moment at A instead of the resultant reaction force. Additionally, many students who answered incorrectly struggled with the concept of a resultant reaction force. Those who got the magnitude correct but had an incorrect direction used physical understanding such as the concept of leverage or equilibrium equations to identify an increase in magnitude resulting from the changed dimension. Researchers posit that students were able to get the magnitude but not the direction because students often struggle with visualizing force direction. By examining student reasoning patterns, instructors can develop more impactful pedagogical practices to target student difficulties.

References
[1] M. Weimer, Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2013.
[2] K. E. Welsh, L. S. Grundy, and B. P. Self, “Thinking Outside the Box: Understanding Students Thinking on Statics in Mechanics,” Asee.org, Jun. 23, 2024. https://peer.asee.org/thinking-outside-the-box-understanding-students-thinking-on-statics-in-mechanics (accessed Sep. 09, 2024).