Representation and content in student's exam note sheets

Ignatius Edi Santosa


Various forms of representation are used to understand physics concepts. This study aims to reveal the representations used by students in summarizing their physics teaching materials. The observed representations include mathematical equations, verbal statements and graphs. The participants were students who attended lectures in two academic years, namely 2016 and 2018. Students were permitted to freely write a summary of lecture material that would be used as resources during the exam. The research investigated the types of representations used and their percentages. In addition, the content in the summary was also taken into consideration. The results showed that the representation of mathematical equations or formulas, verbal explanations and graphs were used by 100%, 97% and 40% of the total students, respectively. This finding is also reflected in the percentage of paper area used in the summary; the uses of formulas are 60%, verbal explanations are 32.5% and the remaining 4.2% are graphs. Most note sheets contain almost all of teaching material. This students’ tendency should be considered for teaching strategy.


Appiah-Kubi, P. (2016). Evaluation of engineering teaching effectiveness through cheat-sheet data-mining. 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, 2016-June.
Chang, W. (2012). The impact of using formula sheets for physics examinations. 2nd International Conference The Future of Education, 4–6.
Chang, W., & Shieh, R. S. (2013). Exploration of the value of using a formula sheet for physics examinations. European Journal of Physics, 34(6), 1411–1422.
Cone, D. I. (2003). Benefits of a “Cheat Sheet.” The Physics Teacher, 41(9), 509–510.
Danielian, S. A., & Buswell, N. T. (2019). Do support sheets actually support students? A content analysis of student support sheets for exams. 2019 Pacific Southwest Section Meeting.
de Raadt, M. (2012). Student created cheat-sheets in examinations: Impact on student outcomes. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2012), 123, 71–76.
Hamed, K. M. (2008). Do you prefer to have the text or a sheet with your physics exams? The Physics Teacher, 46(5), 290–293.
Harper, K. A. (2006). Student problem-solving behaviors. The Physics Teacher, 44(4), 250–251.
Hernández, C., & Tecpan, S. (2018). Correct answers with wrong justifications? Analysis of explanations in classical mechanics with FCI test. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1043, 012056.
Hill, N. B. (2016). MAUVE: A new strategy for solving and grading physics problems. The Physics Teacher, 54(5), 291–294.
Kuo, E., Hull, M. M., Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2013). How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems. Science Education, 97(1), 32–57.
Mason, A. J., & Singh, C. (2016). Impact of guided reflection with peers on the development of effective problem solving strategies and physics learning. The Physics Teacher, 54(5), 295–299.
McCaskey, T. L. (2013). Using student notecards as an epistemological lens. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1513, 290–293.
McCaskey, T. L. (2015). Potential danger in pre-populating exam note sheets with formulas. The Physics Teacher, 53(6), 363–366.
McCaskey, T. L. (2014). Understanding student preparation of exam note sheets. 2013 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 249–252.
Meltzer, D. E. (2005). Relation between students’ problem-solving performance and representational format. American Journal of Physics, 73(5), 463–478.
Mualem, R., & Eylon, B.-S. (2007). “Physics with a smile”—Explaining phenomena with a qualitative problem-solving strategy. The Physics Teacher, 45(3), 158–163.
Niss, M. (2017). Obstacles related to structuring for mathematization encountered by students when solving physics problems. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1441–1462.
Paquin, J. D., Miller, M. L., & Barron, J. (2020). Efficacy of learning with course-provided equation reference sheets in engineering education. Fall ASEE Mid-Atlantic Section Meeting.
Rehfuss, D. E. (2003). Formula sheet caveat. The Physics Teacher, 41(6), 375–376.
Rojas, R., & Robles, P. (2018). Graphic representation of quasi-static heat exchange. The Physics Teacher, 56(6), 386–388.
Santosa, I. E. (2021). Analysing students’ problem solving skills on the topics of modern physics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2019(1).
Song, Y., Guo, Y., & Thuente, D. (2016). A quantitative case study on students’ strategy for using authorized cheat-sheets. 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2016-Novem(October), 1–9.
Song, Y., & Thuente, D. (2015). A quantitative case study in engineering of the efficacy of quality cheat-sheets. 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2015(February 2017), 1–7.
Van Heuvelen, A., & Zou, X. (2001). Multiple representations of work–energy processes. American Journal of Physics, 69(2), 184–194.
Wallace, C. S., Chambers, T. G., Prather, E. E., & Brissenden, G. (2016). Using graphical and pictorial representations to teach introductory astronomy students about the detection of extrasolar planets via gravitational microlensing. American Journal of Physics, 84(5), 335–343.
Wiener, G. J., Schmeling, S. M., & Hopf, M. (2017). An Alternative Proposal for the Graphical Representation of Anticolor Charge. The Physics Teacher, 55(8), 472–474.
Zuza, K., Garmendia, M., Barragués, J. I., & Guisasola, J. (2016). Exercises are problems too: Implications for teaching problem-solving in introductory physics courses. European Journal of Physics, 37(5), 1–8.


Ignatius Edi Santosa (Primary Contact)
Santosa, I. E. (2022). Representation and content in student’s exam note sheets. Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 6(2), 139–149.

Article Details