When procedures discourage insight: epistemological consequences of prompting novice physics students to construct force diagrams

Kuo, Eric; Hallinen, Nicole R.; Conlin, Luke D.

doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1308037

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research explicitly on teaching problem solving has primarily focused on textbook-type exercises and utilized step-by-step strategies or heuristics. These studies have shown limited success, often getting students to follow specific procedural steps but with little gain in actually solving problems and showing some potential drawbacks (Heller and Reif, 1984;Heller et al, 1992;Huffman, 1997;Heckler, 2010;Kuo et al, 2017). As discussed later, the framework presented here offers guidance for different and potentially more effective approaches to teaching problem solving.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering: Guidance for Teaching and Assessment

Price

Kim

Burkholder

et al. 2021

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering: Guidance for Teaching and Assessment

Price

Kim

Burkholder

et al. 2021

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In replication attempts, null results can be a canary in the coal mine, warning of possible overgeneralization of results and motivating efforts to develop a more nuanced understanding of the underlying mechanisms and necessary conditions. This was the case in a study from Kuo, Hallinen, and Conlin [33,34], which set out to replicate a surprising effect of prompting students to draw a diagram during problem solving.…”

Section: Case Study 3: Null Results Can Reveal the Necessary Condimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kuo, Hallinen, and Conlin [34] attempted to replicate and extend Heckler's study. The participants were undergraduate students in an introductory algebra-based physics course at a large, private university.…”

Section: Case Study 3: Null Results Can Reveal the Necessary Condimentioning

confidence: 99%

How null results can be significant for physics education research

Conlin

Kuo

Hallinen

2019

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Quantitative Methods in PER: A Critical Examination.] A central aim of physics education research is to understand the processes of learning and use that understanding to inform instruction. To this end, researchers often conduct studies to measure the effect of classroom interventions on student outcomes. Many of these intervention studies have provided an empirical foundation of reformed teaching techniques, such as active engagement. However, many times there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the intervention had the intended effect, and these null results often end up in the proverbial file drawer. In this paper, we argue that null results can make significant contributions to physics education research, even if the results are not statistically significant. First, we review social science and biomedical research that documents widespread publication bias against null results, exploring why it occurs and how it can hurt the field. We then present three cases from physics education research to highlight how studies that yield null results can contribute to our understanding of teaching and learning. Finally, we distill from these studies some general principles for learning from null results, proposing that we should evaluate them not on whether they reject the null hypothesis but according to their potential for generating new understanding.

show abstract

“…Focusing on efficiency with familiar routines may also result in learners relying on these routines even in the face of new opportunities for innovation and novel exploration [70], as they did for students who did not leverage the isomorphism between problems on the isomorphic calculation questions. Attempts to help students learn the standard procedures may even cue students to avoid nonstandard methods and, inadvertently, suppress the search for new, more efficient and elegant approaches [71], raising potential barriers to future innovation. Linking mathematical sense making with adaptive expertise in future research could provide additional data to clarify the risks and opportunities associated with traversing different trajectories toward physics expertise.…”

Section: Mathematical Sense Making and Adaptive Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing mathematical sensemaking in physics through calculation-concept crossover

Kuo

Hull

Elby

et al. 2020

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Professional problem-solving practice in physics and engineering relies on mathematical sense making-reasoning that leverages coherence between formal mathematics and conceptual understanding. A key question for physics education is how well current instructional approaches develop students' mathematical sense making. We introduce an assessment paradigm that operationalizes a typically unmeasured dimension of mathematical sense making: use of calculations on qualitative problems and use of conceptual arguments on quantitative problems. Three assessment items embodying this calculationconcept crossover assessment paradigm illustrate how mathematical sense making can positively benefit students' problem solving, leading to more efficient, insightful, and accurate solutions. These three assessment items were used to evaluate the efficacy of an instructional approach focused on developing students' mathematical sense making skills. In a quasi-experimental study, three parallel lecture sections of first-semester, introductory physics were compared: two mathematical sense making sections, one with an experienced instructor and one with a novice instructor, and a traditionally taught section, as a control group. Compared to the control group, mathematical sense making groups used calculation-concept crossover approaches more often and gave more correct answers on the crossover assessment items, but they did not give more correct answers to associated standard problems. In addition, although students' postcourse epistemological views on problem-solving coherence were associated with their crossover use, they did not fully account for the differences in crossover approach use between the mathematical sense making and control groups. These results demonstrate a new assessment paradigm for detecting a typically unmeasured dimension of mathematical sense making and provide evidence that a targeted instructional approach can enhance engagement with mathematical sense making in introductory physics.

show abstract

When procedures discourage insight: epistemological consequences of prompting novice physics students to construct force diagrams

Cited by 12 publications

References 26 publications

A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering: Guidance for Teaching and Assessment

A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering: Guidance for Teaching and Assessment

How null results can be significant for physics education research

Assessing mathematical sensemaking in physics through calculation-concept crossover

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About