Helping Students Recognize and Resolve Reasoning Inconsistencies: An Application of Dual-Process Theories

Abstract

Recent educational objectives have focused on preparing students for the future workforce and society through the development of 21st-century skills. Physics education research (PER), in combination with this broad educational objective, has informed discipline-specific educational goals, where one emphasis lies in helping students correctly apply physical concepts in a variety of contexts, including those that are unfamiliar. It has been observed that some students demonstrate reasoning inconsistencies on such tasks that tend to elicit an incorrect intuitive idea likely due to contextual surface features and low-level cognitive processes. This dissertation explores how the theoretical framework of dual-process theories (DPTs) can give insight into this type of student inconsistency and inform the development of intervention strategies ultimately intended to help students succeed on these kinds of tasks in physics. Dual-process theories of reasoning posit that humans reason using two processes: process 1 is intuitive and automatic while process 2 is analytical and deliberate. When confronted with a situation that requires a decision, process 1 automatically engages to produce a provisional model to address the task at hand. The reasoner may or may not activate process 2 to assess the validity of this provisional model before arriving at a conclusion. In the case where a student with sufficient content knowledge fails to correctly answer a physics problem, process 1 may have generated an incorrect intuitive model which process 2 did not override. In this dissertation, research is presented on the use of DPTs to develop and evaluate sets of questions intended to (1) disentangle students’ conceptual understanding from their reasoning approaches and (2) intervene to support students’ process 2 engagement on tasks that often prompt an incorrect process 1 response. Two question sequences are described and investigated, one in the context of a pulse on a spring and one in the context of boxes at rest on rough surfaces. The results suggest that the sequences fulfill the two intentions described above: they serve to distinguish errors that stem from overreliance on process 1, and they help students who make those errors to engage process 2 and ultimately reach correct conclusions. This work serves as a model for developing question sequences in other contexts that, in combination, may have more general long-term and far-transfer implications on student performance.