Science & Education

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 203–226 | Cite as

Should physicists preach what they practice?

Constructive modeling in doing and learning physics
  • Nancy J. Nersessian
Article

Abstract

Does one need to think like a scientist to learn science? To what extent can examining the cognitive activities of scientists provide insights for developing effective pedagogical practices? The cognition and instruction literature has focused on providing a model of expert knowledge structures. To answer these questions, what is needed is a model of expert reasoning practices. This analysis is a step in that direction. It focuses on a tacit dimension of the thinking practices of expert physicists, “constructive modeling”. Drawing on studies of historical cases and protocol accounts of expert reasoning in scientific problem solving, it is argued that having expertise in physics requires facility with the practice of “constructive modeling” that includes the ability to reason with models viewed generically. Issues pertaining to why and how this practice of experts might be incorporated into teaching are explored.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bhatta, S. & Goel, A.: 1993, “Learning generic mechanisms from experience for analogical reasoning”, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  2. Bobrow, D.G. (ed.): 1985, Qualitative Reasoning About Physical Systems, MIT/Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P.: 1989, ‘Situated cognition and the culture of learning”, Educational Researcher 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
  4. Cartwright, N.: 1989, Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J. & Glaser, R.: 1981, “Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices”, Cognitive Science 5, 121–52.Google Scholar
  6. Chi, M.T.H. & Glaser, R.: 1988, The Nature of Expertise, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  7. Clement, J.: 1989, “Learning via model construction and criticism”, in G. Glover, R. Ronning, and C. Reynolds (eds.), Handbook of Creativity: Assessment, Theory, and Research, Plenum, New York, 341–81.Google Scholar
  8. Craik, K.: 1943, The Nature of Explanation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. De Kleer, J. and Brown, J.S.: 1983, ‘Assumptions and Ambiguities in Mechanistic Mental Models”, in Gentner & Stevens, 155–190.Google Scholar
  10. Driver, R. & Easley, J.: 1978, “Pupils and Paradigms: A Review of Literature Related to Concept Development in Adolescent Science Students”, Studies in Science Education 5, 61–84.Google Scholar
  11. Duschl, R.A.: 1990, Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and Their Development, Teachers College Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Ericsson, K.A. & Smith, J.: 1991, Toward a General Theory of Expertise, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Faraday, M.: 1835–55, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Feynman, R.P., Leighton, R.B. & Sands, M.: 1964, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Gentner, D. and Gentner, D.R.: 1983, “Flowing Waters or Teaming Crowds: Mental Models of Electricity”, in Gentner & Stevens, 99–130.Google Scholar
  16. Gentner, D. and Stevens, A.L.: 1983, Mental Models, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  17. Gilhooly, K.J.: 1986, “Mental Modelling: A Framework for the Study of Thinking”, in J. Bishop, J. Lochhead, and D. Perkins (eds.), Thinking: Progress in Research and Teaching, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersy, 19–32.Google Scholar
  18. Giere, R.N.: 1988, Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Gooding, D.C.: 1980, “Metaphysics vs measurement: the conversion and conservation of force in Faraday's physics”, Annals of Science 37, 1–29.Google Scholar
  20. Gooding, D.C.: 1990, Experiment and the Making of Meaning: Human Agency in Scientific Observation and Experiment, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Gorman, M. & Carlson, B.: 1990, “Interpreting invention as a cognitive process: the case of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and the telephone”, Science, Technology, and Human Values 15, 131–164.Google Scholar
  22. Halloun, I.A. & Hestenes, D.: 1985: “Common sense concepts about motion”, American Journal of Physics 53, 1056–1065.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, J.D.: 1962, Classical Electrodynamics, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson-Laird, P.N.: 1983, Mental Models, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson-Larid, P.N.: 1989, “Mental Models”, in M. Posner (ed.), Foundations of Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 469–500.Google Scholar
  26. Kolodner, J. & Wills, L.: 1993, “Case-based creative design”, in AAAI Spring Symposium on AI and Creativity, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D.P. and Simon, H.A.: 1980, “Models of competence in solving physics problems”, Cognitive Science 11, 65–99.Google Scholar
  28. Maxwell, J.C.: 1890, The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, W.D. Niven (ed.), Cambridge University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Maxwell, J.C.: 1855–6, “On Faraday's lines of force”, in Scientific Papers, vol. 1, 155–229.Google Scholar
  30. Maxwell, J.C.: 1861–2, “On physical lines of force”, in Scientific Papers, vol. 1, 451–513.Google Scholar
  31. Maxwell, J.C.: 1864, “A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field”, in Scientific Papers, vol. 1, 526–97.Google Scholar
  32. McDermott, L.: 1984, “An Overview of Research on Conceptual Understanding in Physics”, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  33. Nersessian, N.J.: 1984, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  34. Nersessian, N.J.: 1985, “Faraday's field concept”, in D.C. Gooding and F.A.J.L. James (eds.), Faraday Rediscovered: Essays on the Life & Work of Michael Faraday, Macmillan, London, 377–406.Google Scholar
  35. Nersessian, N.J.: 1989, “Conceptual change in science and in science education”, Synthese 80, 163–84.Google Scholar
  36. Nersessian, N.J.: 1992, “How Do Scientists Think? Capturing the Dynamics of Conceptual Change in Science”, in R. Giere (ed.), Cognitive Models of Science, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15, U. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 3–44.Google Scholar
  37. Nersessian, N.J.: 1993, “In the theoretician's laboratory: thought experimenting as mental modeling”, PSA 1992, vol. 2, D. Hull, M. Forbes, & K. Okruhlik (eds.), 291–301, PSA, East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
  38. Nersessian, N.J.: in press, “Abstraction via Generic Modeling in Concept Formation in Science”, in N. Cartwright & M.R. Jones (eds.), Idealization in Science, Editions Rodophi, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  39. Nersessian, N.J.: in process, Creativity and Conceptual Change: A Constructivist View, (MIT/Bradford Books).Google Scholar
  40. Nersessian, N.J. & Greeno, J.G.: in process, “Constructive Modeling in Creating Scientific Understanding”, manuscript.Google Scholar
  41. Nersessian, N.J. & Resnick, L.B.: 1989, “Comparing Historical and Intuitive Explanations of Motion: Does ‘Naive’ Physics Have a Structure?”, in Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 11, 412–420, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  42. Panofsky, W. & Phillips, M.: 1962, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  43. Perrig, W. & Kintsch, W.: 1985, “Propositional and Situational Representations of Text”, Journal of Memory and Language 24, 503–518.Google Scholar
  44. Polya, G. (1954), Induction and Analogy in Mathematics, Vol. 1., Princeton University, Princeton.Google Scholar
  45. Ram, A., Wills, L., Domeshek, E., Nersessian, N. & Kolodner, J.: in press, “Understanding the creative mind”, AI Journal.Google Scholar
  46. Simon, D.P. & Simon, D.: 1978, “Individual differences in solving physics problems”, in R.S. Seigler (ed.), Children's Thinking: What Develops?, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  47. Stroulia, E. & Goel, A.: 1992, “Generic Teleological Mechanisms and their Use in Case Adaptation”, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 319–324, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  48. Thagard, P., Gochfeld, D. & Hardy, S.: 1993, “Visual analogical mapping”, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  49. Tweney, R.D. & Gooding, D.C.: in process, “Qualitative Skills in Quantitative Thinking: Faraday as a Mathematical Philosopher”, manuscript.Google Scholar
  50. White, B.Y.: 1993, “Thinker Tools: Causal Models, Conceptual Change, and Science Education”, Cognition and Instruction 10.Google Scholar
  51. Wills, L.M. & Kolodner, J.L.: 1994, “Explaining Serendipitous Recognition in Design”, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  52. Wiser, M.: 1992, “Mental models and computer models of thermal physics”, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy J. Nersessian
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Literature, Communication, & Culture, College of Computing, School of PsychologyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations