Thematic analysis of student perceptions of resources and demands experienced in introductory physics

The current work aims to better understand student course experiences for those who reported negative perceptions in introductory physics. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 students who reported negative perceptions of their class on a screening survey. Participants were asked to share general reflections on challenges and successes they experienced, as well as their reflections on specific aspects of the course (e.g., experiences with instructors and peers). Interview transcripts were then coded to identify the types of experiences students reported, whether they were experienced as positive or negative, as well as the themes and features associated with those experiences. Experiences with the classroom, course structure, instructors, and exams were most frequently reported as negative. Experiences with peers, help-seeking, course curriculum, and specific learning activities were the most positive, though only experiences with peers had more positive reports than negative. We then used a resources vs. demands framework [Soc Personal Psychol Compass 7, 637 (2013)] to interpret the common instructional, cognitive, and motivational themes and features reported across multiple contexts. We discuss the implications of the results for theory and practice.

💡 Research Summary

The present study investigates the lived experiences of undergraduate students who reported negative perceptions of their introductory physics courses. Using a mixed‑methods approach, the authors first administered a large‑scale screening survey (N = 135) that measured nine affect‑cognitive constructs (interest, utility value, fixed mindset, self‑efficacy, excitement, belonging, irritation, stress, and dread). Students whose composite scores indicated overall negative perceptions were eligible for follow‑up focus groups. From this pool, 24 participants (13 algebra‑based, 11 calculus‑based) were recruited for semi‑structured interviews lasting about one hour each.

Interview transcripts were coded for (1) the type of experience (e.g., classroom environment, course structure, instructor behavior, exams, peers, help‑seeking, curriculum, specific learning activities) and (2) the affective valence (positive or negative) of each reported experience. Frequency counts revealed that experiences related to the classroom, course structure, instructors, and exams were most often described negatively, whereas experiences with peers, help‑seeking opportunities, the curriculum, and particular learning activities (e.g., labs, discussions) were reported more positively. Notably, only peer‑related experiences had a net positive balance; all other categories were dominated by negative reports.

To make sense of these patterns, the authors applied the “resources versus demands” framework derived from the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (see e.g., Seery et al., 2013). In this model, a learning situation is conceptualized as a set of demands (task difficulty, time pressure, affective load) that must be met by the learner’s available resources (prior knowledge, motivation, social support, self‑regulation). When perceived resources meet or exceed demands, the learner experiences a “challenge” state, associated with positive affect, engagement, and better performance. Conversely, when demands outweigh resources, a “threat” state emerges, linked to negative affect, avoidance, and poorer outcomes. The framework is iterative: prior appraisals influence future ones, and altering the learning environment can shift the balance of resources and demands.

The authors mapped the coded experiences onto three dimensions of the framework: instructional, cognitive, and motivational. Instructionally, unclear expectations, high‑stakes exams, and rigid lecture formats were identified as high demands that often lacked compensating resources such as timely feedback or flexible pacing. Cognitively, students’ prior physics knowledge and problem‑solving strategies served as resources; when these were insufficient for the task demands, students reported confusion and anxiety. Motivationally, self‑efficacy, belonging, and interest functioned as resources that could buffer demands; peer interaction emerged as a particularly potent resource, explaining why peer‑related experiences were the only net positive category.

The study highlights that repeated mismatches between demands and resources can lead to cumulative negative affect, potentially contributing to disengagement, lower grades, or even course withdrawal. Consequently, the authors recommend several instructional interventions: (1) aligning assessments with learning objectives and providing low‑stakes practice opportunities; (2) delivering frequent, specific feedback to reduce uncertainty; (3) fostering peer‑to‑peer tutoring or study groups to amplify social resources; (4) designing activities that explicitly connect content to students’ goals, thereby enhancing motivational resources; and (5) training instructors to recognize and mitigate hidden demands (e.g., implicit expectations, time constraints).

Limitations include the modest sample size (24 interviewees) drawn from a single public university in the Mid‑Atlantic United States, which restricts generalizability. Moreover, the resources‑demands analysis remained qualitative; the study did not quantify the magnitude of demands versus resources, limiting the ability to predict performance outcomes statistically. Future work should expand the sample across institutions, develop quantitative metrics for demands and resources, and test the predictive power of the challenge‑threat balance on academic achievement and affective trajectories.

In sum, this paper provides a nuanced, theory‑driven account of why certain aspects of introductory physics are experienced as threatening versus challenging for students with negative prior perceptions. By framing these experiences within the resources‑vs‑demands model, the authors demonstrate that targeted adjustments to course design—reducing unnecessary demands while bolstering accessible resources—can shift students’ appraisals toward challenge, thereby improving motivation, engagement, and ultimately learning outcomes in large‑enrollment physics courses.