When students try to solve problems by \u201cthinking like a scientist,\u201d what happens?\u00a0\u00a0 Let\u2019s try an experiment (adapted from a suggestion by University of Virginia cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham).<\/p>\n
Materials<\/span>:<\/p>\n You will need a sheet of paper and pencil or pen.<\/p>\n Procedure<\/span>:<\/p>\n Discussion Questions<\/span>:<\/p>\n On each of these, spend 2 minutes max<\/em> to jot down answers.<\/p>\n What Studies of the Brain Predict<\/span>:<\/p>\n The confusion you encountered is similar to what students experience when they try to solve a science problem by reasoning with information that is not well-memorized.<\/p>\n If instructors cannot use “reasoning without memorized algorithms” to solve 2 digits times 2 digits, is it fair to expect our students to use that kind of reasoning to solve problems of any complexity?<\/p>\n No single experiment proves a theory, but any scientific theory on reasoning should be able to explain the results of experiments such as the one above.<\/p>\n In our own scientific specialty, when judging proposed theories, we are taught to set aside our preferences and beliefs and to ask dispassionately:\u00a0 \u201cwhat do the data say?\u201d<\/p>\n Outside of our specialty, we judge theories by asking, \u201cWhat do the experts in that sub-discipline agree the data say?\u201d As chemists, we say \u201cevolution is correct\u201d not because we dig up fossils or sequence species DNA. In science, we accept that \u201cscience\u201d is what the experts in that sub-discipline agree it is.<\/p>\n But science must also allow for change. In 1920, chemists taught the Bohr model as our best explanation for atomic structure. When measurements found some predictions of the Bohr model to be incorrect, experts including Schr\u00f6dinger and Heisenberg proposed an improved model — which other scientists accepted because the model predicted the data observed.<\/p>\n The model for cognition proposed by Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1896-1980) was widely-accepted for a time, but some predictions of Piaget\u2019s model are not in agreement with recently measured limits on reasoning (see post #2 references). In response to this anomalous but verified data, the model accepted by cognitive science for how the brain solves problems has changed.<\/p>\n What experts in cognition are now telling us (in detail in posts #2 and #11) is this:<\/p>\n When trying to solve a problem, if even small amounts of needed information cannot be automatically recalled from long-term memory, the brain is likely to become confused, because working memory has very little space for knowledge that has not been previously moved into, and linked within, long<\/em>-term memory (LTM).<\/p>\n For this reason, in science courses prior to graduate school, a primary focus for students must be learning to recall from LTM <\/em>the core facts and algorithms of a discipline.<\/p>\n If we guide our students based on improved scientific understanding of how the brain works, are they likely to be more successful in STEM courses and careers?<\/p>\n \u00a0# # # # #<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When students try to solve problems by \u201cthinking like a scientist,\u201d what happens?\u00a0\u00a0 Let\u2019s try an experiment (adapted from a suggestion by University of Virginia cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham). Materials: You will need a sheet of paper and pencil or… <\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n