- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Answer first: Applying the heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning to examine student intuitive thinking in the context of physics

Mila Kryjevskaia*

MacKenzie R. Stetzer†

Nathaniel Grosz‡

  • Department of Physics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58105, USA

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy & Maine Center for Research in STEM Education, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, USA

  • Department of Physics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58105, USA

  • *mila.kryjevskaia@ndsu.edu
  • †mackenzie.stetzer@maine.edu
  • ‡Nathaniel.C.Grosz@my.ndsu.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020109 – Published 28 July, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020109

Abstract

We have applied the heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning to interpret inconsistencies in student reasoning approaches to physics problems. This study was motivated by an emerging body of evidence that suggests that student conceptual and reasoning competence demonstrated on one task often fails to be exhibited on another. Indeed, even after instruction specifically designed to address student conceptual and reasoning difficulties identified by rigorous research, many undergraduate physics students fail to build reasoning chains from fundamental principles even though they possess the required knowledge and skills to do so. Instead, they often rely on a variety of intuitive reasoning strategies. In this study, we developed and employed a methodology that allowed for the disentanglement of student conceptual understanding and reasoning approaches through the use of sequences of related questions. We have shown that the heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning can be used to account for, in a mechanistic fashion, the observed inconsistencies in student responses. In particular, we found that students tended to apply their correct ideas in a selective manner that supported a specific and likely anticipated conclusion while neglecting to employ the same ideas to refute an erroneous intuitive conclusion. The observed reasoning patterns were consistent with the heuristic-analytic theory, according to which reasoners develop a “first-impression” mental model and then construct an argument in support of the answer suggested by this model. We discuss implications for instruction and argue that efforts to improve student metacognition, which serves to regulate the interaction between intuitive and analytical reasoning, is likely to lead to improved student reasoning.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (38)

  1. National Research Council, Adapting to a Changing World–Challenges and Opportunities in Undergraduate Physics Education, Committee on Undergraduate Physics Education Research and Implementation, Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA), Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences (DEPS) (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013).
  2. D. E. Meltzer and R. K. Thornton, Resource letter ALIP-1: Active-learning instruction in physics, 80, 478 (2012).
  3. See, for example, M. E. Loverude, C. H. Kautz, and P. R. L. Heron, Student understanding of the first law of thermodynamics: Relating work to the adiabatic compression of an ideal gas, Am. J. Phys. 70, 137 (2002); H. G. Close and P. R. L. Heron, Research as a guide for improving student learning: An example from momentum conservation, ibid. 78, 961 (2010); M. Kryjevskaia, M. R. Stetzer, and P. R. L. Heron, Student understanding of wave behavior at a boundary: The limiting case of reflection from fixed and free ends, ibid. 79, 508 (2011).
  4. E. F. Redish, Oersted lecture 2013: How should we think about how our students think?, Am. J. Phys. 82, 537 (2014).
  5. M. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Making sense of how students make sense of mechanical waves, Phys. Teach. 37, 15 (1999).
  6. C. H. Kautz, P. R. L. Heron, P. S. Shaffer, and L. C. McDermott, Student understanding of the ideal gas law, Part II: A microscopic perspective, Am. J. Phys. 73, 1064 (2005).
  7. J. St. B. T. Evans, The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: extension and evaluation, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 378 (2006).
  8. A. F. Heckler, The ubiquitous patterns of incorrect answers to science questions: The role of automatic, bottom-up processes, Psych. Learn. Motiv. 55, 227 (2011).
  9. K. Frankish, Dual-process and dual-system theories of reasoning, Philos. Compass 5/10, 914 (2010).
  10. P. N. Johnson-Laird, How We Reason (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2006).
  11. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability, Cogn. Psychol. 5, 207 (1973).
  12. B. Geller, B. Dreyfus, J. Gouvea, V. Sawtelle, C. Turpen, and E. Redish, Like Dissolves Like: Unpacking Student Reasoning About Thermodynamic Heuristics, 2013 PERC Proceedings edited by (Portland, OR, 2013).
  13. M. Sabella and G. L. Cochran, Evidence of intuitive and formal knowledge in student responses: Examples from the context of dynamics, AIP Conf. Proc. 720, 89 (2004).
  14. E. Watkins and M. Sabella, Examining the effectiveness of clickers on promoting learning by tracking the evolution of student responses, AIP Conf. Proc. 1064, 223 (2008).
  15. L. Lising and A. Elby, The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 73, 372 (2005).
  16. C. Singh, Assessing student expertise in introductory physics with isomorphic problems. II. Effect of some potential factors on problem solving and transfer, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010105 (2008).
  17. C. Singh, When physical intuition fails, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1103 (2002).
  18. A. diSessa, Knowledge in pieces, in Constructivism in the Computer Age, edited by G. Forman and P. Pufall (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988).
  19. H. A. Simon, What is an “Explanation” of behavior?, Psychol. Sci. 3, 150 (1992).
  20. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2011).
  21. M. Kryjevskaia and M. R. Stetzer, Examining inconsistencies in student reasoning approaches, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 226 (2013).
  22. M. Kryjevskaia, M. R. Stetzer, and P. R. L. Heron, Student understanding of wave behavior at a boundary: The relationships among wavelength, propagation speed, and frequency, Am. J. Phys. 80, 339 (2012).
  23. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics, Preliminary Second Edition (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2011).

  24. In the course with Tutorials implemented in a lecture-based format, modified tutorial worksheet questions were presented one by one on a screen and all students were asked to consider a given question at the same time. Those questions deemed critical for the development of ideas were converted to clicker questions, and students were asked to discuss their reasoning with one another prior to voting. Results of the class vote were then immediately revealed, and students were encouraged to justify their answers in a whole-class discussion. Key features of the canonical implementation of the UW tutorials such as a low student-to-instructor ratios, self-paced work in small groups, instructor feedback tailored to individual students, and opportunities for metacognition could not be implemented in the instructional environment at NDSU. For a complete discussion of tutorial implementation in the lecture-based format, see Ref. [25].

  25. M. Kryjevskaia, A. Boudreaux, and D. Heins, Assessing the flexibility of research-based instructional strategies: Implementing, Tutorials in Introductory Physics in the lecture environment, Am. J. Phys. 82, 238 (2014).
  26. R. Lawson and L. C. McDermott, Student understanding of the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems, Am. J. Phys. 55, 811 (1987).
  27. B. A. Lindsey, P. R. L. Heron, and P. S. Shaffer, Student ability to apply the concepts of work and energy to extended systems, Am. J. Phys. 77, 999 (2009).

  28. Analysis of student performance on all course exams as well as in the entire course suggest that the two groups of students are not significantly different.

  29. K. E. S. Stanovich and Richard F. West, Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?, Behav. Brain Sci. 23, 645 (2000).
  30. L. Bao and E. F. Redish, Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010103 (2006).
  31. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, edited by J. Bransford, A. Brown, and R. Cocking (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000), expanded edition.
  32. E. Amsel, P. A. Klaczynski, A. Johnston, S. Bench, J. Close, E. Sadler, and R. Walker, A dual-process account of the development of scientific reasoning: The nature and development of metacognitive intercession skills, Cognit. Dev. 23, 452 (2008).
  33. O. Herscovitz, Z. Kaberman, L. Saar, and Y. J. Dori, The relationship between metacognition and the ability to pose questions in chemical education, in Metacognition in Science Education: Trends in Current Research, edited by A. Zohar and Y. J. Dori (Springer, New York, 2012).
  34. R. E. Scherr and A. Elby, Enabling informed adaptation: Open-source physics worksheets integrated with implementation resources, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 46 (2007).
  35. T. I. Smith and M. C. Wittmann, Comparing three methods for teaching newton’s third law, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020105 (2007).
  36. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, and X. Zou, Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design, Am. J. Phys. 74, 979 (2006).
  37. See, for example, E. Yerushalmi, E. Cohen, A. Mason, and C. Singh, What do students do when asked to diagnose their mistakes? Does it help them? I. An atypical quiz context, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020109 (2012); What do students do when asked to diagnose their mistakes? Does it help them? II. A more typical quiz context, 8, 020110 (2012); C. Henderson and K. A. Harper, Quiz corrections: Improving learning by encouraging students to reflect on their mistakes, Phys. Teach. 47, 581 (2009).
  38. A. Elby, Helping physics students learn how to learn, Am. J. Phys. 69, S54 (2001).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020109– Published 28 July, 2014
  • Received 22 November 2013
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation