We have investigated the effect of peer-review on the development of students' problem-solving abilities in an introductory physics course. Specifically, we report the results of a multiple-group pre/post-test quasiexperiment comparing two groups receiving different treatments with respect to activities completed after cooperative group problem-solving (CGPS) sessions. Both the treatment and control groups received identical instruction in lecture and CGPS discussion sections. Individual student problem solutions submitted on-line were evaluated via a validated problem-solving process rubric that was supplied to all participants at the beginning of the course. The treatment group completed rubric-based peer-review on-line for three randomly selected students, whereas the control group did not. Reliability-corrected analysis of covariance showed that the treatment group demonstrated greater improvement in problem-solving process compared to the control over the four-week study period.

We have begun the development and validation of a rubric for the assessment of problem-solving process in introductory physics courses. The initial rubric consisted of 12 criteria based on research in expert-like problem solving practice and aspects of Cooperative Group Problem Solving (CGPS) pedagogy. In contrast to recent work on problem-solving assessment for use in research and curriculum development, this rubric was specifically designed for instructor use in the assignment of grades and for student use as a scaffold. After assessment of seven problems across content in motion and force, exploratory factor analysis identified 3 factors that we have categorized as: (1) framing, (2) physics formalism, and (3) planning and executing. These factors roughly align with our initial theory of the construct, suggesting evidence for criterion-related validity. Tauequivalent reliability (N = 256) was found to be 0.80, and inter-rater reliability was high.