Author(s):
Need: An emerging body of research has shown that, even after research-based instruction, students who demonstrate correct conceptual understanding and reasoning on one task often fail to use the same knowledge and skills on related tasks. Observed inconsistencies can be accounted for by dual-process theories of reasoning (DPToR), which assert that human cognition relies on two thinking processes. The first, the heuristic process, is fast, intuitive, and automatic, while the second, the analytic process, is slow, effortful, and deliberate. While DPToR are valuable for explaining observed patterns of inconsistent student responses, it is still an open question as to how instructors can help students recognize instances when intuitive ideas impact their reasoning and hinder meaningful analytic processing. Such recognition is imperative for catching and correcting mistakes. There is a significant need for research into curricular interventions that draw on DPToR to improve student reasoning, and to understand the mechanisms by which such interventions work.Guiding questions: The work described in this poster aims to develop curricular materials using DPToR as a guide. The major question being addressed is: How does the effectiveness of instruction designed to support the analytic process compare with instruction aimed at supporting the intuitive process by reinforcing the normative reasoning pathway? We conducted a controlled experiment to compare the effectiveness of two modest instructional sequences at improving student reasoning regarding the terminal speed behavior of objects falling in the presence of air resistance. Both instructional approaches begin by leading students through a sequence of carefully crafted questions such as might be used by an experienced instructor to guide students through the normative reasoning for a challenging question. One instructional approach simply allows students additional chances to practice the normative reasoning. This should strengthen the availability of the normative reasoning, and make it more likely to be called to mind by the intuitive process. The other approach was designed to support the analytic process in correctly evaluating and rejecting the common incorrect response to the question. The experiment allowed us to compare the effectiveness of these two instructional approaches.Outcomes: Both interventions were found to be successful, in that student reasoning improved across both instructional sequences. The improvements were greater, however, for students who had completed the instruction that supported them in analyzing and rejecting the common incorrect response. These results provide one example of research-based curriculum development aligned with DPToR, and support our multi-institutional project’s goals of both developing a framework for curriculum development and providing pragmatic resources for instructors and curriculum developers.Broader Impacts: The results presented in this poster suggest that attending to the development of students’ reasoning skills, and in particular, helping them develop the skills they need to successfully analyze their own thinking, is a critical component for improving student performance. These findings have implications for teachers and curriculum developers across the STEM disciplines. By providing an example of a successful educational intervention rooted in DPToR, we expect to contribute substantively to future efforts aimed at enhancing student reasoning in all STEM disciplines.
Coauthors
Andrew Boudreaux, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA; MacKenzie Stetzer, University of Maine, Bangor, ME; Mila Kryjevskaia, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND; Drew Rosen, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
