Supporting student construction of alternative lines of reasoning
Supporting student construction of alternative lines of reasoning
复制标题
支持学生构建替代推理思路
DOI：
10.1119/perc.2021.pr.mays
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Lindsey, Beth A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mays, Mikayla;Stetzer, MacKenzie R.;Lindsey, Beth A.
即使在大规模的课程改革努力和基于研究的教学材料的实施之后，研究人员也记录了一种现象，即学生在针对相同物理概念的两个问题上表现出不一致的推理模式[1-4]。相当比例的学生正确回答了一个问题，但似乎没有将这些相同的概念应用于类似的问题。物理教育研究人员提出，这种不一致的反应模式可能主要源于人类推理的本质，而不是缺乏概念理解[1，5]。因此，他们已经开始使用双过程推理理论（DPToR）的框架时，检查学生在物理推理。根据DPToR，人类认知可以被建模为由两个过程组成：启发式过程（或过程1）和分析过程（或过程2）[6，7]。过程1产生快速、直观的反应，依赖于先验知识、信念和上下文线索。流程2较慢，要求严格，并且经常负责确定流程1生成的响应是否令人满意。虽然人类推理的路径依赖于许多因素的复杂相互作用，但先前的研究已经利用DP-ToR和相关的认知结构来解释上述不一致的推理模式，并且最近开始为教学策略提供信息[5，8-10]。虽然这项研究说明了潜在的DPToR，以指导研究为基础的教学材料的发展，大多数现有的研究为基础的材料（已被证明，以实质性地提高概念的理解）没有明确利用这些理论来支持学生推理能力的发展。因此，真实的需要制定和测试有针对性的、与DPTOR相一致的干预措施，这些措施可能会被纳入未来的教学材料。这种干预也可以作为探针，以更好地了解可能影响学生推理的具体因素和机制，并可能在教学过程中加以利用。作为这项工作的一部分，我们调查了一个有针对性的DPTOR对齐干预的有效性，旨在帮助学生从事替代线的推理。在构建替代推理（CAR）干预中，学生被要求：（1）对运动学的定性物理任务做出反应，（2）构建推理链以支持两个虚构学生对该任务的回答，以及（3）重新审视原始物理任务。本研究旨在回答以下三个研究问题：1。在多大程度上，我们可以支持过程2，并帮助学生在推翻一个不正确的直觉反应，要求他们产生的推理链，支持正确的答案和不正确的直觉答案？2.学生在目标任务上的表现与认知反思技能有多大的关系？3.这种干预的有效性在多大程度上与相关因素（如认知反思技能）相关？
Even after large-scale course transformation efforts and the implementation of research-based instructional materials, researchers have documented a phenomenon in which students exhibit inconsistent reasoning patterns on two questions targeting the same physics concepts [1–4]. A significant percentage of students answer one question correctly, but do not appear to apply those same concepts on a similar question. Researchers in physics education have proposed that this type of inconsistent response pattern may stem primarily from the nature of human reasoning rather than from a lack of conceptual understanding [1, 5]. As a result, they have begun to use the framework of dual-process theories of reasoning (DPToR) when examining student reasoning in physics. According to DPToR, human cognition can be modeled as consisting of two processes: the heuristic process (or process 1) and the analytic process (or process 2)[6, 7]. Process 1 generates a quick, intuitive response that relies upon prior knowledge, beliefs, and contextual cues. Process 2 is slower, exacting, and is frequently tasked with determining if the response generated by process 1 is satisfactory. Though the path that human reasoning takes is dependent upon a complex interplay of many factors, prior research has leveraged DP-ToR and related cognitive constructs to account for the inconsistent reasoning patterns described above and has recently begun to inform instructional strategies [5, 8–10]. Although this research illustrates the potential of DPToR to guide the development of research-based instructional materials, most existing research-based materials (which have been shown to substantively improve conceptual understanding) do not explicitly leverage such theories to support the development of student reasoning skills. There is thus a real need for the development and testing of targeted, DPToR-aligned interventions that may be incorporated into future instructional materials. Such interventions may also serve as probes to better understand specific factors and mechanisms that can impact student reasoning and may be leveraged during instruction. As part of this effort, we have investigated the effectiveness of a targeted DPToR-aligned intervention aimed at helping students engage with alternative lines of reasoning. In this Constructing Alternative Reasoning (CAR) intervention, students were asked to:(1) respond to a qualitative physics task on kinematics,(2) construct reasoning chains in support of answers to that task given by two fictitious students, and (3) revisit the original physics task. The investigation was designed to answer the following three research questions: 1. To what extent can we support process 2 and assist students in overriding an incorrect intuitive response by asking them to generate reasoning chains in support of the correct answer and the incorrect intuitive answer? 2. To what extent is student performance on the target task related to cognitive reflection skills? 3. To what extent does the effectiveness of this intervention correlate with relevant factors (eg, cognitive reflection skills)?
登录
查看更多内容
首先回答：应用启发式分析推理理论来检查学生在物理背景下的直觉思维。
DOI：
10.1103/physrevstper.10.020109
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
--
作者：
Mila Kryjevskaia;M. R. Stetzer;Nathaniel Grosz
通讯作者：
Nathaniel Grosz
影响因子：
0.9
作者：
Elby, A
通讯作者：
Elby, A
探究学生构建推理链的能力：一种新方法
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
J. Speirs;William N. Ferm Jr.;M. R. Stetzer;Beth A. Lindsey
通讯作者：
Beth A. Lindsey
在学生的认知反思技能和物理问题表现之间建立联系，从而引发强烈的直觉反应
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Cody R. Gette;Mila Kryjevskaia
通讯作者：
Mila Kryjevskaia
检查学生推理方法中的不一致之处
影响因子：
0.9
作者：
Mila Kryjevskaia;M. R. Stetzer
通讯作者：
M. R. Stetzer