Thought experiments are personal and tacit processes of experimentation that scientists perform within their own imagery in formulating new theories or refuting existing theories. However, by viewing learning as a social process, this study aims to show that thought experiments can also be constructed collaboratively and to present a detailed mechanism of how thought experiments occur as a collective activity. The paper presents a study involving 12 students divided into 3 groups. The physics problem-solving activities were used to set the necessary conditions for observing the processes of students in constructing collaborative thought experiments. The results show that while solving physics problems, students design, share, rethink, and evaluate their thought experiments. This indicates that thought experiments can be constructed in a collaborative context even though the thought experiments are mostly individual in nature. In the process of constructing collaborative thought experiments, the students carried out five activities: visualizing imaginary worlds, performing experiments, describing the results, sharing and evaluating experiments, and drawing conclusions. We refer to these activities as the steps of collaborative thought experiments. In the process of evaluating thought experiments, four evaluation sources were then identified: conceptual understanding, past–daily experience, logical reasoning, and conceptual–logical inference. Based on these results, we discuss the importance and implication of collaborative thought experiments to both current and future physics teachers.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Asikainen, M. A., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2014). Probing pre- and in-service physics teachers’ knowledge using the double-slit thought experiment. Science & Education, 23(9), 1811–1833.
Bancong, H., & Song, J. (2018). Do physics textbooks present the ideas of thought experiments?: a case in Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(1), 25–33.
Bancong, H., & Song, J. (2020). Factors triggering thought experiments in small group physics problemsolving activities. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 70(5), 466–480. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.70.466
Bishop, M. A. (1999). Why thought experiments are not arguments. Philosophy of Science, 66(4), 534–541.
Bokulich, A. (2001). Rethinking thought experiments. Perspectives on Science, 9(3), 285–307.
Bokulich, A., & Frappier, M. (2017). On the identity of thought experiments: thought experiments rethought. In M. T. Stuart, Y. Fehige, & J. R. Brown (Eds.), The routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 545–557). London: Routledge.
Brown, J. R. (1991). The laboratory of the mind: thought experiments in the natural sciences. New York: Routledge.
Brown, J. R. (2006). The promise and perils of thought experiments. Interchange, 37(1–2), 63–75.
Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing our toys: cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(1), 12–18.
Buzzoni, M. (2008). Thought experiment in the natural sciences. An operational and reflective-transcendental conception. Würzburg: Königshausen+Neumann.
Buzzoni, M. (2013). On thought experiments and the Kantian a priori in the natural sciences: a reply to Yiftach J H. Fehige. Epistemologia, 36(2), 277–293.
Buzzoni, M. (2019). Thought experiments in philosophy: a Neo-Kantian and experimentalist point of view. Topoi, 38(4), 771–779.
Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem-solving processes: social interactions and individual actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30(1), 26–49.
Clement, J. J. (2009). The role of imagistic simulation in scientific thought experiments. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 686–710.
Cooper, R. (2005). Thought experiments. Metaphilosophy, 36(3), 328–347.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Dohrn, D. (2016). Fiction and thought experiment-a case study. Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía, 35(3), 185–199.
Egan, D. (2016). Literature and thought experiments. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 74(2), 139–150.
Einstein, A. (1905). On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Annalen der Physik, 17, 891–921.
Elgin, C. Z. (2014). Fiction as thought experiment. Perspectives on Science, 22(2), 221–241.
Epstein, L. C. (1995). Thinking physics is gedanken physics. San Francisco: Insight Press.
Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: a journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(5), 1–12.
Fournier, D. M. (1995). Establishing evaluative conclusions: a distinction between general and working logic. New Directions for Evaluation, 68, 15–32.
Galileo, G. (1638/1914). Dialogues concerning two new sciences. (H. Crew, & A. d. Salvio, Trans). New York: MacMillan.
Galili, I. (2009). Thought experiments: determining their meaning. Science & Education, 18(1), 1–23.
Georgiou, A. (2005). Thought experiments in physics problem-solving: on intuition and imagistic simulation (Master’s Thesis). Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Gijlers, H., & Jong, T. d. (2013). Using concept maps to facilitate collaborative simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 340–374.
Gilbert, J. K., & Reiner, M. (2000). Thought experiments in science education: potential and current realization. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 265–283.
Hausmann, R. G., Chi, M. T., & Roy, M. (2004). Learning from collaborative problem solving: an analysis of three hypothesized mechanisms. In K. D. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 547–552). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 627–636.
Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 1–41.
Höggqvist, S. (2009). A model for thought experiments. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39(1), 55–76.
Ichikawa, J., & Jarvis, B. (2009). Thought-experiment intuitions and truth in fiction. Philosophical Studies, 142, 221–246.
Klassen, S. (2006). The science thought experiment: how might it be used profitably in the classroom? Interchange, 37(1–2), 77–96.
Kösem, Ş. D., & Özdemir, Ö. F. (2014). The nature and role of thought experiments in solving conceptual physics problems. Science & Education, 23(4), 865–895.
Kuhn, T. (1977). A function for thought experiments. In T. Khun (Ed.), The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 240–265). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lattery, M. J. (2001). Thought experiments in physics education: a simple and practical example. Science & Education, 10(5), 485–492.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Levrini, O. (2014). The role of history and philosophy in research on teaching and learning of relativity. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 157–181). Dordrecht: Springer.
Mach, E. (1905/1976). On thought experiments. In T. J. McCormack & P. Foulkes (Eds.), In his Knowledge and error (pp. 134–147). Dordrecht: Vienna Circle Collection.
Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N., & Hawkes, P. (1995). Building bridges between cooperative and collaborative learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(4), 35–40.
Matthews, M. R. (1988). Ernst Mach and thought experiments in science education. Research in Science Education, 18, 251–257.
Matthews, M. R. (2014). International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.
Maxwell, J. (1871/2001). Theory of heat. New York: Dover.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.
Miščević, N. (1992). Mental models and thought experiments. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 215–226.
Nersessian, N. J. (1992). In the theoretician’s laboratory: thought experimenting as mental modeling. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1992(2), 291–301.
Newton, I. (1687/1962). Mathematical principles of natural philosophy and his system of the world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norton, J. D. (1991). Thought experiments in Einstein’s work. In T. Horowitz & G. Massey (Eds.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy (pp. 129–148). Savage: Rowman and Littlefield.
Norton, J. D. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you thought? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26(3), 333–366.
Norton, J. D. (2004). On thought experiments: is there more to the argument? Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 1139–1151.
Reiner, M. (1998). Thought experiments and collaborative learning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1043–1058.
Reiner, M., & Burko, L. M. (2003). On the limitations of thought experiments in physics and the consequences for physics education. Science & Education, 2(4), 365–385.
Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489–506.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning: NATO ASI series (128th ed., pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.
Schrödinger, E. (1935). Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics). Naturwissenschaften, 23(48), 807–812.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Evaluation as practical hermeneutics. Evaluation, 3(1), 69–83.
Sorensen, R. (1992). Thought experiments. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sorensen, R. (2016). Thought experiment and imagination. In A. Kind (Ed.), The routledge handbook of philosophy of imagination (pp. 420–436). London: Routledge.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). What do we know about tacit knowledge? Making the tacit become explicit. In R. J. Sternberg & J. A. Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge in professional practice: researcher and practitioner (pp. 231–236). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stuart, M. T. (2016). Norton and the logic of thought experiments. Axiomathes, 26, 451–466.
Velentzas, A., & Halkia, K. (2013). The use of thought experiments in teaching physics to upper secondary-level students: two examples from the theory of relativity. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3026–3049.
Velentzas, A., Halkia, K., & Skordoulis, C. (2007). Thought experiments in the theory of relativity and in quantum mechanics: their presence in textbooks and in popular science books. Science & Education, 16(3–5), 353–370.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and trans.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Witt-Hansen, J. (1976). HC Ørsted, Immanuel Kant and the thought experiment. In Danish Yearbook of Philosophy (Vol. 13, pp. 48-65). Copenhagen, Denmark: Museum Tusculanum Press.
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Seoul National University monitored all procedures, including recruitment of participants, consent form for the participants, data collection, and analysis. This study received IRB approval (No.1811/003-015). Following the guidelines for conducting an ethical study, we used the code for all participants.
Compliance with ethical standards
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Bancong, H., Song, J. Exploring How Students Construct Collaborative Thought Experiments During Physics Problem-Solving Activities. Sci & Educ 29, 617–645 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00129-3