Bulletin of the American Physical Society
APS April Meeting 2019
Volume 64, Number 3
Saturday–Tuesday, April 13–16, 2019; Denver, Colorado
Session R07: Disentangling Intuition, Reasoning, and Conceptual Understanding in PhysicsEducation Invited
|
Hide Abstracts |
Sponsoring Units: FEd GPER Chair: Mila Kryjevskaia, North Dakota State University Room: Sheraton Governor's Square 16 |
Monday, April 15, 2019 1:30PM - 2:06PM |
R07.00001: Probing student reasoning in physics through the lens of dual-process theories Invited Speaker: Paula R L Heron In the past several decades, systematic research has identified significant conceptual difficulties in a number of topics in physics. In many cases, these findings have led to the development of effective instructional interventions. Nevertheless, there are problems that still prove very difficult for most students, even those who demonstrate sound conceptual understanding elsewhere. In a series of investigations informed by dual-process theories of reasoning and decision-making, we are attempting to identify those cases in which the tendency to reply on quick, intuitive judgments is a deciding factor in student success. Moreover, we are attempting to use such findings to enhance the effectiveness of instructional interventions. In this talk, an example in the context of buoyancy will be used to illustrate the process. In introductory physics courses we conducted a series of experiments in order to gain greater insight into the factors impacting student performance on the “five-blocks problem,” which has been used in the literature to probe student thinking about buoyancy. In particular, we examined both the impact of problem design and the impact of targeted instruction focused on density-based arguments for sinking and floating, and on neutral buoyancy. We found that instructional modifications designed to diminish the intuitive appeal of the first-available response led to significantly improved performance, without improving student conceptual understanding of the requisite buoyancy concepts. These findings represent an important first step in identifying systematic strategies for using theories from cognitive science to guide the development and refinement of research-based instructional materials. |
Monday, April 15, 2019 2:06PM - 2:42PM |
R07.00002: Using reasoning chain construction tasks to explore the nature of student reasoning in physics Invited Speaker: MacKenzie R Stetzer For more than 30 years, research-based materials developed by the physics education research community have helped improve student learning in introductory physics. An emerging body of research, however, suggests that poor student performance on certain physics tasks – even after research-based instruction – may stem more from the nature of human reasoning itself than from specific conceptual difficulties. As part of a larger, multi-institutional effort to investigate and characterize the nature of student reasoning in physics and to leverage the findings to improve instruction, we have designed research tasks that expressly focus on student construction of qualitative inferential reasoning chains. In an online “chaining” task, students are provided with correct reasoning elements (i.e., true statements about the physical situation as well as correct concepts and mathematical relationships) and are asked to assemble them into an argument in order to answer a physics question. In our work, we have used these chaining tasks in order to better explore the extent to which some reasoning phenomena in physics may be accounted for by dual-process theories of reasoning and decision-making. We have also sought to leverage such theories to impact student performance by manipulating aspects of the chaining task format. In this talk, an overview of these chaining tasks will be provided and results will be used to highlight the role that the nature of human reasoning may play when students work on physics questions. |
Monday, April 15, 2019 2:42PM - 3:18PM |
R07.00003: Why is scientific reasoning so hard, and what can we do about it? Invited Speaker: Andrew F Heckler Decades of cognitive psychology research have demonstrated that reasoning and decision making are often influenced by strong tendencies for people to reply quickly, use the most available information, and make unwitting assumptions and observations aligned with beliefs and experience. While these tendencies may optimize every-day living and survival, they run counter to dispositions necessary for scientific understanding and inquiry. I show empirical examples in the context of physics content commonly seen in classrooms. Some examples are based on simple conceptual questions, while other examples ask students to make inferences from tables of data in cases with or without significant prior beliefs about the data. The question is, how do we negotiate these natural and inevitable “cognitive contours” to help students more effectively learn science and reason scientifically? Because of the inescapable interaction and ambiguous distinction between rapid, automatic intuitions and slower, deliberate reasoning, one possibility may be to improve fluency in basic STEM skills that are involved in more complex reasoning and problem solving. I will report on our success in improving accuracy and fluency in some of these basic skills via the implementation of carefully designed, spaced, and interleaved mastery practice course assignments online. But open questions remain as to which skills to improve and the precise role that fluency with basic skills plays in success with tasks that are regarded as involving scientific reasoning or problem solving. |
Follow Us |
Engage
Become an APS Member |
My APS
Renew Membership |
Information for |
About APSThe American Physical Society (APS) is a non-profit membership organization working to advance the knowledge of physics. |
© 2024 American Physical Society
| All rights reserved | Terms of Use
| Contact Us
Headquarters
1 Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3844
(301) 209-3200
Editorial Office
100 Motor Pkwy, Suite 110, Hauppauge, NY 11788
(631) 591-4000
Office of Public Affairs
529 14th St NW, Suite 1050, Washington, D.C. 20045-2001
(202) 662-8700