Correlation study of physics achievement, learning strategy, attitude and gender in an introductory physics course

Means and standard deviations for all the measures are presented in Table 1. Further analyses of bivariate relationships between variables were carried out as indicated in Table 2. Table 2 displays the Pearson correlation among variables and the two-tailed probability for each correlation coefficient.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for all Variables

Variable	M	SD	n
Physics Achievement	49.16	15.28	357
Elaboration	58.20	12.14	357
Comprehension monitoring	19.42	4.63	357
Rehearsal	24.66	4.98	357
Organization	26.97	5.78	357
Sense of interest	67.99	24.62	357
Sense of care	49.69	13.02	357
Gender	1.38	0.487	357

Table 2 Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients of Physics Achievement and the Selected Variables (Learning Strategy, Attitude and Gender)

Variable	PA	ES	CMS	RS	OS	SI	SC
PA
ES	0.739**
CMS	0.690**	0.545**
RS	0.619**	0.458**	0.618**
OS	0.646**	0.436**	0.534**	0.563**
SI	0.025	0.011	-0.028	0.001	0.002
SC	0.071	0.014	0.004	0.036	0.040	0.855**
Gender	-0.086	0.079	-0.048	-0.217**	-0.225**	-0.037	-0.019

Note: Significant for **p<0.01
PA=Physics Achievement, ES=Elaboration Strategy,
CM=Comprehension Monitoring Strategy, RS=Rehearsal Strategy,
OS= Organization Strategy, SI= Sense of Interest, SC= Sense of Care

As can be seen from Table 2, elaboration, comprehension monitoring, rehearsal, and organization strategy clusters in the Revised Learning Strategies Scale for Physics Learning (R-LSSPL) correlated with pre-service teacher physics achievement scores. The correlation was significant and positive ranging from 0.62 to 0.74 (p<0.01). In addition, small but significant correlations were found between gender and rehearsal and organization clusters (r = -0.217 and -0.225, respectively). From Table 3, it is observed that the elaboration cluster has the highest correlation with physics grades (r = 0.739; p<0.01).

After the assumptions validation, an initial Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) analysis was performed on the dependent variable Physics Achievement, entering all independent variables (ES, CMS, RS, OS, SI, SC and gender). The results of the regression analysis for the prediction of student achievement in physics in terms of learning strategy, attitude and gender variables are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 The Results of the Multiple Regression Analysis Concerning the Prediction of Students’ Achievement in Physics

Variable	B	Std. Error	β	t	p	Zero-order r	Partial r
Constant	-27.587	3.380	-	6.470	0.000	-	-
ES	0.567	0.044	0.451	13.035	0.000	0.739	0.572
CMS	0.777	0.128	0.235	6.065	0.000	0.690	0.309
RS	0.366	0.118	0.119	3.107	0.002	0.619	0.164
OS	0.648	0.095	0.245	6.824	0.000	0.646	0.343
SI	-0.40	0.033	-0.065	1.214	0.226	0.025	-0.065
SC	0.124	0.063	0.105	1.963	0.050	0.071	0.104
Gender	-0.916	0.925	-0.029	0.990	0.323	-0.086	-0.053

By applying Multiple Linear Regression Analysis (MLR), it has been identified how accurately learning strategy, attitude and gender variables can predict student physics grades. As a result of this operation, it was found out that R=0.858, Adjusted R²=0.731, p = 0.000. Finally, it was also found that 73% of the total variance in student achievement in physics can be explained by these variables. However, gender and attitude are not significant predictor variables of student achievement in physics.

To assess which independent variables made a significant contribution to the prediction of physics grades, Stepwise Regression was used. In Stepwise Regression, the first step is to model the dependent variable and the independent variable with the highest correlation (see Table 2). Through Stepwise Regression, it was possible to determine which variables significantly predicted student physics grades as well as determine how much each variable contributed to the total variance (see Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4 Stepwise Regression Analysis for Predictors of Student Achievement in Physics

Model	R	R²	Adjusted R²	Std. Error of Estimate
1	0.739	0.546	0.545	10.308
2	0.822	0.675	0.673	8.735
3	0.850	0.723	0.721	8.079
4	0.856	0.732	0.729	7.958

Table 5 B and Beta Coefficients, and Significance Levels for Variables

Model	Predictors	B	Std. Error	β	t	p
1	(Constant) Elaboration	-5.002 0.931	2.675 0.045	0.739	-1.80 20.683	0.062 0.000
2	(Constant) Elaboration Organization	-20.707 0.711 1.055	2.626 0.042 0.089	0.565 0.399	-7.887 16.791 11.851	0.000 0.000 0.000
3	(Constant) Elaboration Organization Comp.Monitoring	-23.458 0.574 0.781 0.935	2.454 0.043 0.090 0.120	0.456 0.295 0.283	-9.559 13.353 8.718 7.794	0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
4	(Constant) Elaboration Organization Comp.Monitoring Rehearsal	-26.134 0.556 0.676 0.765 0.398	2.540 0.043 0.093 0.128 0.116	0.442 0.256 0.232 0.130	-10.291 13.036 7.248 5.978 3.438	0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

In the first model (see Tables 4 and 5), the elaboration variable was introduced into regression equation. The elaboration variable explained 54.6% of the total variance in physics grades (R = 0.739, R² = 0.546). In other words, the elaboration strategies variable was the most influential predictor of the physics grade. The fact that there is a positive Beta value shows that there is a parallel relationship between the physics grade and elaboration, because as the elaboration score increases, the grade increases.

In the second regression model, the organization variable was added. Consequently, the variance in physics grade rose from 54.6% to 67.5% (R = 0.822, R² = 0.675). This means that the organization variable contributed to the overall variance an additional 12.9%. The Beta value for the organization variable (0.300) shows that there is a positive correlation between organization and physics achievement, because the physics grade increased in the same direction as the rise in organization score.

In the third regression model, the comprehension monitoring variable was included in addition to the elaboration and organization variables. The variance in physics grade increased from 67.5% to 72.3% indicating that the comprehension monitoring variable contributed to the variance a further 4.7%.

Finally, in the fourth model, the variable rehearsal was added to the other three variables. The variance increased from 72.3% to 73.2%. Although this increase was significant, it was small.

The final model used only four predictor variables. The predictor variables of attitude clusters and gender were not significant. The regression model was significant (F_{[4, 352]} = 240.330; p<0.001) and yielded an adjusted R² of 0.729. In summary, Multiple Regression Analyses revealed that learning strategies accounted for 73.2% of the variation in physics course achievement.