Search for: All records

Dual-process theories of reasoning suggest that humans reason using two processes often referred to as process 1 (heuristic) and process 2 (analytic). When presented with a situation requiring any sort of reasoning or decision making, process 1 automatically engages and generates an initial mental model to address the situation. Process 2 may or may not be engaged to assess the initial model as a plausible solution. In a study by Kryjevskaia , a “screening” question regarding a pulse on a spring aimed to identify students with relevant content knowledge who nevertheless seemed to rely on process 1 when answering a subsequent “target” question. The study was offered as evidence that dual-process theories can explain some discrepancies in student responses to related questions. The study described here assesses the same pair of questions for their ability to distinguish between incorrect answers that stem from inadequate conceptual understanding and those that stem from reasoning approaches. We use Frederick’s cognitive reflection test as part of this analysis. Our results largely support a dual-process-theories perspective of student reasoning. Published by the American Physical Society2025 

Perhaps the most commonly cited student idea about forces in the literature is the notion of an impetus force, defined as the “belief that there is a force inside a moving object that keeps it going and causes it to have some speed,” that can then “fade away as the object moves along.” According to the literature, even after physics instruction students use impetus force reasoning to argue that forces are necessary to sustain motion or that motion implies force. For example, many students drew an upward arrow to indicate a force on a coin that was moving upward after being tossed. The coin was halfway between the point of its release and its turnaround point. Interviews with students in the course indicate that the arrow was meant to indicate “the ‘force of the throw,’ the ‘upward original force,’” and so on. Clement interprets these results to mean that students “believe that continuing motion implies the presence of a continuing force in the same direction, as a necessary cause of the motion.”