Evidence on the coherence-pieces debate from the force concept inventory
We use force concept inventory (FCI) data to probe the consistency of commonsense physics as a knowledge system. The source of this data is the administration of the FCI to first-year science university students. Data quality was checked using item response theory and studying answer distributions f...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2018 |
| País: | Argentina |
| Recursos: | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| Repositorio: | CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/93653 |
| Acesso em linha: | http://hdl.handle.net/11336/93653 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | EXPLANATIONS IN COMMONSENSE PHYSICS KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM PREDICTIONS IN COMMONSENSE PHYSICS https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5 |
| Resumo: | We use force concept inventory (FCI) data to probe the consistency of commonsense physics as a knowledge system. The source of this data is the administration of the FCI to first-year science university students. Data quality was checked using item response theory and studying answer distributions for each question. We find apparently paradoxical results: depending on how the data is analysed, answers seem highly systematic or almost random-like. These results are compatible with others found in the literature and can be construed as arising either from a coherent knowledge system or from knowledge in pieces. We hypothesise as a possible source of this apparent contradiction that predictions and explanations use different resources: the former would use reflex, low-cost cognitive resources while the latter would involve conceptualisations. We show that the articulation of both resources may be crucial for expert thinking productivity (the ability to apply a theory to novel situations). We sketch some consequences of the proposed structure of commonsense thinking for teaching and further research. |
|---|