Thinking, Fast and Slow

The persistence of prior misconceptions in science is a well documented and established issue in education. Some examples of well known, hard-to-dislodge misconceptions in science are: the Earth is closer to the Sun in the summertime, the space station stays in orbit because it has escaped the Earth's gravity, bulbs can be lit by attaching only one end, etc. Much of the discussion in education has centered on how to effectively replace the prior misconceptions with a more accurate mental model of what is going on in such a manner that the newer, more correct paradigm has staying power in the student's mind. Many studies show that the student will "learn" the new model for assessment purposes within the course but revert back to prior, incorrect understanding outside of the course or shortly after the coursework is complete. (Mastuscusa et al, 2011)

A recent study in the field of cognitive science sheds light on a possible mechanism for the persistence of the misconception (Girchick et al, 2011). When subjects were asked to assess the relative tilt of lines on a screen, their performance suggested that they interpreted the lines to be more horizontal or vertical than they actually were. Additionally, if the lines' actual orientations were made more confusing, the subjects had a greater bias to interpret them as horizontal or vertical. More confusion apparently leads to oversimplification (or a return to a priori assumptions - in this case that most lines are fundamentally vertical or horizontal in nature). As a recent article in Science News points out, this research is an example of the shift to the so-called Beyesian-based (probabilistic) interpretation of human thought. (Sanders, 2011)

This newer view of the brain as making probabilistic determinations rather than exact calculations is significant. If conclusions are drawn in our mind based on probabilities formulated on our assumptions and everyday experiences, then a logical, well constructed argument may indeed not be enough to dislodge the prior misunderstanding. If thought itself is probability based, then it makes sense that some of the most effective techniques for dislodging prior misconceptions in science are ones that attack the student's misconceptions head-on. For example, teachers are told to draw out and explicitly deal with the various misconceptions in class despite the time this requires. Simply constructing a logic-based argument may be enough for students to recall on an assessment but the original mental schema associated with the phenomena will persist. With our new understanding of probabilistic thinking, it all fits together: students revert back to their prior misconceptions because our brains don't come to conclusions based on logical calculations, instead we are always "winging it" based on our fundamental assumptions about how things work.

Girchick, A., Landy, M., and Simoncelli,E. (2011) Cardinal rules: visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics. Nature Neuroscience (14) 926-932

Sanders, L. (2011). The probabilistic mind: Human brains evolved to deal with doubt. Science News 8 Oct

Mastascusa, E., Synder, W., Hoyt, B. (2011). Effective Instruction for STEM Disciplines from learning theory to college teaching. John Wiley & Sons San Francisco, CA.p.195-203