Colloquium: Prof. Mila Kryjevskaia

Department of Physics, North Dakota State University

 

Examining inconsistencies in student reasoning approaches in physics:
intuitive vs. formal thinking

Friday, Feb 7, 2014 4:01pm-4:50pm

It is a common expectation that, after instruction, students will consciously and
systematically construct chains of reasoning that start from established scientific
principles and lead to well-justified predictions. When student performance on course
exams does not reveal such patterns, it is often assumed that students either do not
possess a suitable understanding of the relevant physics or are unable to construct such
inferential reasoning chains due to deficiencies in reasoning abilities. Psychological
research, however, suggests that in many cases thinking processes are strikingly different
from those outlined above. Dual-process theories suggest that there are two distinct
processes involved in many cognitive tasks. Process 1 supports reasoning that is quick,
intuitive, and automatic, while Process 2 is slow, rule-based, analytical, and reflective.
In this project, we will apply the extended heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning proposed
by Evans, which was specifically designed to explain a particularly puzzling phenomenon
related to reasoning: logical competence demonstrated on one task is often not
exhibited in the performance of another related task. Indeed, students often rely on a
variety of intuitive (often erroneous) reasoning strategies even though they possess the
knowledge and skills necessary to arrive at a correct answer. In this study, we
developed a methodology that allowed for the disentanglement of student conceptual
understanding and reasoning approaches. We then applied the heuristic-analytic theory
of reasoning in order to account for, in a mechanistic fashion, the observed
inconsistencies in student responses. Data from introductory calculus-based physics
courses will be presented and implications for instruction will be discussed.