Can dual processing theory explain physics students' performance on the Force Concept Inventory?

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2016, Pages

  Wood, Anna K ^a   Galloway, Ross K ^a   Hardy, Judy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011419296     PISSN: None     EISSN: 24699896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.023101     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. J. St. B. T. Evans and K. E. Stanovich, Dual-process theories of higher cognition advancing the debate, Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 223 (2013).
2. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (MacMillan, London, 2011).
3. M. E. Toplak, R. F. West, and K. E. Stanovich, The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks, Mem. Cogn. 39, 1275 (2011).
4. S. Frederick, Cognitive reflection and decision making, J. Econ. Perspect. 19, 4 (2005).
5. G. Pennycook, J. A. Cheyne, D. J. Koehler, and J. A. Fugelsang, Is the cognitive reflection test a measure of both reflection and intuition?, Behav. Res. Meth. Instrum. Comput. 48, 341 (2016).
6. The original question uses dollars. We asked the question using local currency as this would be more familiar to the students (and would avoid adding unwanted additional cognitive load).
7. J. M. Liberali, V. F. Reyna, S. Furlan, L. M. Stein, and S. T. Pardo, Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment, J. Behav. Decis. Making 25, 361 (2012).
8. G. Campitelli and P. Gerrans, Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach, Mem. Cogn. 42, 434 (2014).
9. M. E. Toplak, R. F. West, and K. E. Stanovich, Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test, Think. Reas. 20, 147 (2014).
10. A. L. Alter, D. M. Oppenheimer, N. Epley, and R. N. Eyre, Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning., J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 136, 569 (2007).
11. S. Vosniadou, C. Ioannides, A. Dimitrakopoulou, and E. Papademetriou, Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science, Learn. Instr. 11, 381 (2001).
12. J. P. Smith III, A. A. diSessa, and J. Roschelle, Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition, J. Learn. Sci. 3, 115 (1994).
13. A. A. DiSessa, N. M. Gillespie, and J. B. Esterly, Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force, Cogn. Sci. 28, 843 (2004).
14. J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020101 (2007).
15. A. A. DiSessa, Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001).
16. A. A. DiSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
17. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
18. The 1995 version of FCI is available at http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html.
19. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985).
20. S. Vosniadou, Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change, Learn. Instr. 4, 45 (1994).
21. A. K. Wood, R. Galloway, R. Donnelly, and J. Hardy, Characterizing interactive engagement activities in a flipped introductory physics class, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010140 (2016).
22. R. Donnelly, Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2014.
23. P. Branas-Garza, P. Kujal, and B. Lenkei, "15-25 Cognitive Reflection Test: Whom, how, when" (to be published).
24. A. Sinayev and E. Peters, Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making, Front. Psychol. 6, 532 (2015).
25. R. McGill, J.W. Tukey, and W. A. Larsen, Variations of box plots, Am. Stat. 32, 12 (1978).
26. A. Shtulman and K. McCallum, Cognitive reflection predicts science understanding, in Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Quebec City, 2014), pp. 2937-2942, https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2014/.
27. D. Sands, Evidence for dual processing theory, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Physics Education (Prague, 2013), http://www.icpe2013.org/uploads/ICPE-EPEC-2013-ConferenceProceedings.pdf.
28. M. Kryjevskaia, M. R. Stetzer, and N. Grosz, Answer first: Applying the heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning to examine student intuitive thinking in the context of physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020109 (2014).
29. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Epistemological resources, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, University of Michigan (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2000), pp. 4-5.
30. E. F. Redish, A Theoretical Framework for Physics Education Research: Modeling Student Thinking, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi" (IOS Press, Varenna, 2003), Vol. 156, pp. 1-63.