Using metacognitive prompts to explore student reasoning trajectories

Em Sowles, Drew J. Rosen, M. R. Stetzer
{"title":"Using metacognitive prompts to explore student reasoning trajectories","authors":"Em Sowles, Drew J. Rosen, M. R. Stetzer","doi":"10.1119/perc.2022.pr.sowles","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous research has shown that students who demonstrate sufficient skills and conceptual understanding to reason productively may perform inconsistently on analogous questions. Such inconsistencies can be explained via dual process theories of reasoning (DPToR). To gain insight into students’ reasoning trajectories, we developed an exploratory sequence of DPToR-aligned metacognitive prompts and administered the sequence immediately after students answered a physics question containing salient distracting features. The metacognitive prompts asked students to: describe their first ideas, reflect on any doubts they had with respect to those ideas, compare their first ideas with their submitted responses, and characterize their reasoning approaches. In this paper, we describe how we use student responses to these prompts along with timing data to investigate students’ reasoning trajectories. Students who self-reported that they revised their thinking before submitting an answer spent significantly longer answering the question than those who did not. In addition, students who retained a correct provisional response reported fewer doubts and the use of a process-first approach, whereas students who retained an incorrect provisional response reported more doubts and the use of an answer-first approach. We anticipate that a more detailed understanding of students’ reasoning trajectories arising from investigations like the one reported here will be an important step in the development of effective, research-based instructional materials that better support student reasoning in physics.","PeriodicalId":253382,"journal":{"name":"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2022.pr.sowles","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous research has shown that students who demonstrate sufficient skills and conceptual understanding to reason productively may perform inconsistently on analogous questions. Such inconsistencies can be explained via dual process theories of reasoning (DPToR). To gain insight into students’ reasoning trajectories, we developed an exploratory sequence of DPToR-aligned metacognitive prompts and administered the sequence immediately after students answered a physics question containing salient distracting features. The metacognitive prompts asked students to: describe their first ideas, reflect on any doubts they had with respect to those ideas, compare their first ideas with their submitted responses, and characterize their reasoning approaches. In this paper, we describe how we use student responses to these prompts along with timing data to investigate students’ reasoning trajectories. Students who self-reported that they revised their thinking before submitting an answer spent significantly longer answering the question than those who did not. In addition, students who retained a correct provisional response reported fewer doubts and the use of a process-first approach, whereas students who retained an incorrect provisional response reported more doubts and the use of an answer-first approach. We anticipate that a more detailed understanding of students’ reasoning trajectories arising from investigations like the one reported here will be an important step in the development of effective, research-based instructional materials that better support student reasoning in physics.
运用元认知提示探索学生推理轨迹
先前的研究表明,那些表现出足够的技能和概念理解能力来进行有效推理的学生,可能在类似的问题上表现得不一致。这种不一致可以通过推理的双过程理论(DPToR)来解释。为了深入了解学生的推理轨迹,我们开发了一套与dptor对齐的元认知提示的探索性序列,并在学生回答了一个包含显著分心特征的物理问题后立即执行该序列。元认知提示要求学生:描述他们的第一个想法,反思他们对这些想法的任何怀疑,将他们的第一个想法与他们提交的回答进行比较,并描述他们的推理方法。在本文中,我们描述了如何使用学生对这些提示的反应以及时间数据来调查学生的推理轨迹。那些自我报告在提交答案前修改了思路的学生比那些没有这样做的学生回答问题的时间要长得多。此外,保留了正确临时答案的学生报告了较少的怀疑和使用过程优先的方法,而保留了错误临时答案的学生报告了更多的怀疑和使用答案优先的方法。我们预计,对学生推理轨迹的更详细的了解将是开发有效的、基于研究的教学材料的重要一步,这些材料将更好地支持学生的物理推理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信