Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 13
  • Print publication year: 2009
  • Online publication date: August 2010

16 - Acquiring Conceptual Expertise from Modeling: The Case of Elementary Physics

Summary

In many domains, the real world is modeled with systems of equations. Such a model uses variables to represent domain properties and equations to represent applications of domain principles. Given a set of true domain relationships expressed as equations, one can deduce new equations from them using only the rules of mathematics, and the new equations will also be true domain relationships. The latter step, wherein mathematical implications are derived from the initial model, can often be done mechanically, for example, by mathematical symbol manipulation programs, spreadsheets, calculators, etc.

Given a real-world situation that is amenable to such analysis, experts and novices understand them quite differently. Whereas novices must go through the whole modeling process by writing equations on paper and solving them, experts can generate many conclusions about the same situations without having to commit anything to paper. For the expert, many domain relationships are just “obvious” or can be easily inferred “by inspection.”

There are limits to the experts' abilities. Although experts usually cannot mentally infer quantitative relationships, such as the exact numerical value for an energy or a velocity, they can infer qualitative relationships, such as whether a quantity is zero, increasing or greater than some other quantity. Thus, it is often said that expertise in such domains is characterized by a conceptual or qualitative understanding of real world situations (VanLehn, 1996). It is sometimes said that they have developed domain-specific intuitions (Simon & Simon, 1978).

References
Ashby, G. F., & Maddox, W. T. (2005). Human category learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 149–178.
Bundy, A., Byrd, L., Luger, G., Mellish, C., & Palmer, M. (1979). Solving mechanics problems using meta-level inference. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on AI (pp. 1017–1027). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Chi, M., & VanLehn, K. (2008). Eliminating the gap between the high and low students through meta-cognitive strategy instruction. In Woolf, B. P., Aimeur, E., Nkambou, R., & Lajoie, S. P. (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: 9th International Conference: ITS2008 (pp. 603–613). Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press.
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.
Chi, M. T. H. (in press). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, vol. 1 (pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corbett, A., Wagner, A. Z., Lesgold, S., Ulrich, H., & Stevens, S. M. (2006). The impact of learning of generating vs. selecting descriptions in analyzing algebra example solutions. In Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., & Hickey, D. T. (Eds.), The 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 99–105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Day, D. V., & Lord, R. G. (1992). Expertise and problem categorization: The role of expert processing in organizational sense-making. Journal of Management Studies, 29(1), 35–47.
Kleer, J., & Brown, J. S. (1984). A qualitative physics based on confluences. Artificial Intelligence, 24, 7–83.
Dee-Lucas, D., & Larkin, J. (1991). Equations in scientific proofs: Effects on comprehension. American Education Research Journal, 28(3), 661–682.
di Sessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105–225.
Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Hardiman, P. T., & Mestre, J. P. (1992). Constraining novices to perform expert-like problem analyses: Effects on schema acquisition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 307–331.
Elio, R., & Scharf, P. B. (1990). Modeling novice-to-expert shifts in problem-solving strategy and knowledge organization. Cognitive Science, 14, 579–639.
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts' performance on representative tasks\. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P., & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 223–241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305.
Forbus, K. D. (1985). The role of qualitative dynamics in naive physics. In Hobbes, J. R. & Moore, R. C. (Eds.), Formal theories of the commonsense world (pp. 185–226). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Forbus, K. D., & Kleer, J. (1993). Building problem solvers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics students. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 64–74.
Hardiman, P. T., Dufresne, R. J., & Mestre, J. P. (1989). The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices. Memory & Cognition, 17(5), 627–638.
Heller, J. L., & Reif, F. (1984). Prescribing effective human problem-solving processes: Problem descriptions in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 177–216.
Hestenes, D. (1987). Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 55, 440–454.
Hestenes, D., & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30, 159–166.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.
Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 195–211.
Hinsley, D. A., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1977). From words to equations: Meaning and representation in algebra word problems. In Carpenter, P. & Just, M. A. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jones, R. M., & Fleischman, E. S. (2001). Cascade explains and informs the utility of fading examples to problems. In 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 459–464). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jordan, P., Makatchev, M., Pappuswamy, U., VanLehn, K., & Albacete, P. (2006). A natural language tutorial dialogue system for physics. In Sutcliffe, G. & Goebel, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International FLAIRS Conference. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Klenk, M., & Forbus, K. D. (2007). Cognitive modeling of analogy events in physics problem solving from examples. In McNamara, D. S. & Trafton, J. G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1163–1165). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
Lamberts, K. (1990). A hybrid model of learning to solve physics problems. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 3(2), 151–170.
Larkin, J. (1981). Enriching formal knowledge: A model for learning to solve textbook physics problems. In Anderson, J. R. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larkin, J. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. (Eds.), Mental models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–345.
Larkin, J., Reif, F., Carbonell, J., & Gugliotta, A. (1988). Fermi: A flexible expert reasoner with multi-domain inferencing. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 101–138.
Loftin, B. R., Mueller, S., Way, B., & Lee, B. (1991). An intelligent tutoring system for physics problem solving. In Proceedings of the contributed sessions 1991 conference on intelligent computer-aided training (p. 127).
Mayfield, W. A., Kardash, C. M., & Kivlighan, D. M. (1999). Differences in experienced and novice counselors' knowledge structures about clients: Implications for case conceptualization. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 504–514.
McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naive beliefs about the motion of objects. Science, 210(5), 1139–1141.
McDermott, J., & Larkin, J. H. (1978). Re-representing textbook physics problems. In Proceedings of the second national conference of the Canadian society for computational studies of intelligence. Toronto, Ontario.
Medin, D. L., & Ross, B. H. (1989). The specific character of abstract thought: Categorization, problem solving and induction. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, Vol. 5 (pp. 189–223). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Muggleton, S. (1992). Inductive logic programming. New York: Academic Press.
Murray, T., Schultz, K., Brown, D., & Clement, J. (1990). An analogy-based computer tutor for remediating physics misconceptions. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(2), 79–101.
Novak, G. S., & Araya, A. A. (1980). Research on expert problem solving in physics. In Proceedings of the first national conference on Artificial Intelligence. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Owen, E., & Sweller, J. (1985). What do students learn while solving mathematics problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 272–284.
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1998). Bibliography: Students' alternative frameworks and science education, 5th ed. Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education.
Ploetzner, R., & VanLehn, K. (1997). The acquisition of informal physics knowledge during formal physics training. Cognition and Instruction, 15(2), 169–206.
Priest, A. G., & Lindsay, R. O. (1992). New light on novice-expert differences in physics problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 389–405.
Ranney, M., & Thagard, P. (1988). Explanatory coherence and belief revision in naive physics. In Patel, V. & Groen, G. J. (Eds.), The Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 426–432). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reif, F., & Scott, L. A. (1999). Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 819–831.
Reimann, P., Schult, T. J., & Wichmann, S. (1993). Understanding and using worked-out examples: A computational model. In Strube, G. & Wender, K. F. (Eds.), The cognitive psychology of knowledge (pp. 177–201). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2003). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shafto, P., & Coley, J. D. (2003). Development of categorization and reasoning in natural world: Novices to experts, naive similarity to ecological knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 641–649.
Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 479–541.
Sherin, B. L. (2006). Common sense clarified: The role of intuitive knowledge in physics problem solving. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(6), 535–555.
Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems. In Siegler, R. S. (Ed.), Children's thinking: What develops?Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, M. U. (1992). Expertise and the organization of knowledge: Unexpected differences among genetic counselors, faculty, and students on problem categorization tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 179–205.
Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Ward, M. R. (1983). Development of expertise in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 629–661.
Heuvelen, A., & Zou, X. (2001). Multiple representations of work-energy processes. American Journal of Physics, 69(2), 184–194.
VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. In Spence, J., Darly, J., & Foss, D. J. (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47 (pp. 513–539). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
VanLehn, K. (1998). Analogy events: How examples are used during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 347–388.
VanLehn, K. (1999). Rule learning events in the acquisition of a complex skill: An evaluation of Cascade. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(2), 179–221.
VanLehn, K., & Jones, R. M. (1993a). Better learners use analogical problem solving sparingly. In Utgoff, P. E. (Ed.), Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference (pp. 338–345). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
VanLehn, K. (1993b). Learning by explaining examples to oneself: A computational model. In Chipman, S. & Meyrowitz, A. (Eds.), Cognitive models of complex learning (pp. 25–82). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 1–59.
VanLehn, K., Jordan, P., Rose, C. P., Bhembe, D., Bottner, M., Gaydos, A., et al. (2002). The architecture of Why2-Atlas: A coach for qualitative physics essay writing. In Cerri, S. A., Gouarderes, G., & Paraguacu, F. (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2002, 6th International Conference (pp. 158–167). Berlin: Springer.
VanLehn, K., Lynch, C., Schultz, K., Shapiro, J. A., Shelby, R. H., Taylor, L., et al. (2005). The Andes physics tutoring system: Lessons learned. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 15(3), 147–204.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the Earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.
Weiser, M., & Shertz, J. (1983). Programming problem representation in novice and expert programmers. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 14, 391–396.