Change blindness as a means of studying expertise in physics

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 480-505

  Feil, Adam ^a   Mestre, Jose P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049430338     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2010.505139     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology (pp. 177-193). New York, NY: Ballantine.
2. Brookes, D. T., & Etkina, E. (2009). "Force," ontology and language. Physical Review E-Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(1). Retrieved from http://prst-per.aps.org/abstract/ PRSTPER/v5/i1/e010110. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010110
3. Burkhardt, J.-M., Détienne, F., & Wiedenbeck, S. (1997, July). Mental representations constructed by experts and novices in object-oriented program comprehension. Presentation at INTERACT'97, Sydney, Australia.
4. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81.
5. Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Laboratory methods for assessing experts' and novices' knowledge. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 167-184). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
7. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
8. Clancey, W. J. (2006). Observation of work practices in natural settings. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 127-145). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9. Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 49-58.
10. Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The case of analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 334-339.
11. Egan, D. E., & Schwartz, B. J. (1979). Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings. Memory & Cognition, 7,149-158.
12. Ehrlich, K., & Soloway, E. (1984). An empirical investigation of the tacit plan knowledge in programming. In J. Thomas & M. L. Schneider (Eds.), Human factors in computer systems (pp. 113-134). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
13. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts' performance on representative tasks. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223-241). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
14. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.
15. Feil, A., & Mestre, J. (2007). Expert-novice differences on a recognition memory test of physics diagrams. In L. Hsu, C. Henderson, & L. McCullough (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 Physics Education Research Conference (Vol. 951, pp. 100-103). Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics.
16. Fugelsang, J. A., Stein, C. B., Green, A. E., & Dunbar, K. N. (2004). Theory and data interactions of the scientific mind: Evidence from the molecular and the cognitive laboratory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 86-95.
17. Galili, I., & Bar, V. (1992). Motion implies force: Where to expect vestiges of the misconception? International Journal of Science Education, 14, 63-81.
18. Gobet, F., & Charness, N. (2006). Expertise in chess. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 523-538). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
19. Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Recall of rapidly presented random chess positions is a function of skill. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 59-163.
20. Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
21. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
22. Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89-120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
23. Hardiman, P. T., Dufresne, R., & Mestre, J. P. (1989). The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices. Memory & Cognition, 17, 627-638.
24. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
25. Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, C. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2,5-62.
26. Jones, B. T., Jones, B. C., Smith, H., & Copley, N. (2003). A flicker paradigm for inducing change blindness reveals alcohol and cannabis information processing biases in social users. Addiction, 98, 235-244.
27. Kelley, T. A., Chun, M. M., & Chua, K. (2003). Effects of scene inversion on change detection of targets matched for visual salience. Journal of Vision, 2, 1-5.
28. Lesgold, A., Rubinson, H., Feltovich, P., Glaser, R., Klopfer, D., & Wang, Y. (1988). Expertise in a complex skill: Diagnosing X-ray pictures. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 311-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Levin, D. T., & Simons, D. J. (1997). Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 501-506.
30. MacLachlan, G. L., & Reid, I. (1994). Framing and interpretation. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Carlton.
31. McDermott, L. C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37(7), 24-32.
32. McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., & Somers, M. D. (1994). Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood's machine. American Journal of Physics, 62, 46-55.
33. Mestre, J. P. (2002). Probing adults' conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 9-50.
34. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
35. Novak, J. D. (Ed.). (1987). Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of Education.
36. Pearson, P. M., & Schaefer, E. G. (2005). Toupee or not toupee? The role of instructional set, centrality, and relevance in change blindness. Visual Cognition, 12, 1528-1543.
37. Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching physics with the physics suite. New York, NY: Wiley.
38. Redish, E. F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E. F. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 1-63). Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society.
39. Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368-373.
40. Sabers, D. S., Cushing, K. S., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Differences among teachers in a task characterized by simultaneity, multidimensionality, and immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 63-88.
41. Schoenfeld, A. H., & Herrmann, D. J. (1982). Problem perception and knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 8, 484-494.
42. Simons, D. J. (2000). Current approaches to change blindness. Visual Cognition, 7, 1-15.
43. Simons, D. J., Chabris, C. F., Schnur, T., & Levin, D. T. (2002). Evidence for preserved representations in change blindness. Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 78-97.
44. Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 261-267.
45. Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 644-649.
46. Simons, D. J., & Rensink, R. A. (2005). Change blindness: Past, present, and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 16-20.
47. Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48. Vicente, K. J., & Wang, J. H. (1998). An ecological theory of expertise effects in memory recall. Psychological Review, 105, 33-57.
49. Watts, D. M., & Zylbersztajn, A. (1981). A survey of some children's ideas about force. Physics Education, 16, 360-365.
50. Werner, S., & Thies, B. (2000). Is "change blindness" attenuated by domain-specific expertise? An expert-novices comparison of change detection in football images. Visual Cognition, 7, 163-173.