Characterizing and comparing cognitive skills assessed by introductory biology and physics indicate that (a) both course sequences assess primarily lower-order cognitive skills, (b) the distribution of items across cognitive skill levels differs significantly, and (c) there is no strong relationship between student performance and cognitive skill level.

This study investigated the performance of women and men across introductory science courses, stereotype threat endorsement, and the utility of a values-affirmation writing task in reducing achievement gaps. Data analysis revealed no achievement gap, little stereotype threat endorsement, and no impact of the values-affirmation writing task on performance.

We have applied the heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning to interpret inconsistencies in student reasoning approaches to physics problems. This study was motivated by an emerging body of evidence that suggests that student conceptual and reasoning competence demonstrated on one task often fails to be exhibited on another. Indeed, even after instruction specifically designed to address student conceptual and reasoning difficulties identified by rigorous research, many undergraduate physics students fail to build reasoning chains from fundamental principles even though they possess the required knowledge and skills to do so. Instead, they often rely on a variety of intuitive reasoning strategies. In this study, we developed and employed a methodology that allowed for the disentanglement of student conceptual understanding and reasoning approaches through the use of sequences of related questions. We have shown that the heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning can be used to account for, in a mechanistic fashion, the observed inconsistencies in student responses. In particular, we found that students tended to apply their correct ideas in a selective manner that supported a specific and likely anticipated conclusion while neglecting to employ the same ideas to refute an erroneous intuitive conclusion. The observed reasoning patterns were consistent with the heuristic-analytic theory, according to which reasoners develop a "first-impression" mental model and then construct an argument in support of the answer suggested by this model. We discuss implications for instruction and argue that efforts to improve student metacognition, which serves to regulate the interaction between intuitive and analytical reasoning, is likely to lead to improved student reasoning.

No abstract

A growing body of scholarly work indicates that student performance on physics problems stems from many factors, including relevant conceptual understanding. However, in contexts in which significant conceptual difficulties have been documented via research, it can be difficult to pinpoint and isolate such factors because students' written and interview responses rarely reveal the full richness of their conscious and, perhaps more importantly, subconscious reasoning paths. In this investigation, informed by dualprocess theories of reasoning and decision making as well as the theoretical construct of accessibility, we conducted a series of experiments in order to gain greater insight into the factors impacting student performance on the "five-block problem," which has been used in the literature to probe student thinking about buoyancy. In particular, we examined both the impact of problem design (including salient features and cueing) and the impact of targeted instruction focused on density-based arguments for sinking and floating and on neutral buoyancy. The investigation found that instructional modifications designed to remove the strong intuitive appeal of the first-available response led to significantly improved performance, without improving student conceptual understanding of the requisite buoyancy concepts. As such, our findings represent an important first step in identifying systematic strategies for using theories from cognitive science to guide the development and refinement of research-based instructional materials.