Assessing student expertise in introductory physics with isomorphic problems. II. Effect of some potential factors on problem solving and transfer

(Some reference links may require a separate subscription.)

1. M. Gick and K. Holyoak, The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer, in Transfer of Learning: Contemporary Research andAapplications, edited by S. M. Cormier and J. D. Hagman (Academic, New York, 1987); ; M. Gick and K. Holyoak, Schema induction and analogical transfer, Cogn. Psychol. 15, 1 (1983); ; K. Holyoak, The pragmatics of analogical transfer, in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, edited by G. Bower (Academic, New York, 1985), Vol. 19; ; K. Holyoak and P. Thagard, Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995).
2. R. Dufresne, J. Mestre, T. Thaden-Koch, W. Gerace, and W. Leonard, Knowledge representation and coordination in the transfer process, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2005), pp. 155–215.
3. J. Lobato, How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa, Educ. Res. 32, 17 (2003); ; J. Lobato, Transfer Strand: Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: History, issues and challenges for future research, J. Learn. Sci. 15, 431 (2006).
4. D. J. Ozimek, P. V. Engelhardt, A. G. Bennett, and N. S. Rebello, Retention and transfer from trigonometry to physics, in Proceedings of the 2004 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by J. Marx, P. Heron, and S. Franklin, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 790 (AIP, Melville, NY, 2005), pp. 173–176.
5. M. Bassok and K. Holyoak, Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 15, 153 (1989).
6. J. D. Bransford and D. Schwartz, Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications, Rev. Res. Educ. 24, 61 (1999).
7. Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition and instruction, edited by D. K. Detterman and R. J. Sternberg (Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1993); ; R. J. Sternberg, Component processes in analogical reasoning, Psychol. Rev. 84, 353 (1977).
8. L. Novick, Analogical transfer, problem similarity and expertise, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 14, 510 (1988) [CAS].
9. A. Brown, Analogical learning and transfer: What develops? in Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, edited by S. Vosniadu and A. Ortony (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1989), pp. 369–412; ; E. M. Kurz and R. D, Tweney, The practice of math and science: From calculations to the clothesline problems, in Rational Models of Cognition, edited by M. Oalesfard and N. Chater (London: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 415–438; ; P. Adey and M. Shayer, An exploration of long-term far-transfer effects following an extended intervention program in the high school science curricula, Cogn. Instruct. 11, 1 (1993); ; D. Genter and C. Toupin, Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy, Cogn. Sci. 10, 277 (1986).
10. G. Hendrickson and W. Schroeder, Transfer training in learning to hit a submerged target, J. Educ. Psychol. 32, 205 (1941).
11. D. Klahr and S. M. Carver, Cognitive objectives in a logo debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning and transfer, Cogn. Psychol. 20, 362 (1988).
12. M. T. H. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cogn. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).
13. P. T. Hardiman, R. Dufresne, and J. P. Mestre, The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among novices and experts, Mem. Cognit. 17, 627 (1989) [CAS].
14. L. C. McDermott, Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: Physics education research–The key to student learning, Am. J. Phys. 69, 1127 (2001) [SPIN]; ; and, An investigation of student understanding of single-slit diffraction and double-slit interference, 67, 146 (1999) [CrossRef][SPIN].
15. E. Kim and S.-J. Pak, Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems, Am. J. Phys. 70, 759 (2002) [SPIN].
16. E. Mazur, Peer Intruction: A User’s Manual, Prentice-Hall Series in Educational Innovation (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
17. C. Singh, Interactive video tutorials for enhancing problem solving, reasoning, and meta-cognitive skills of introductory physics students, in Proceedings of Physics Education Research Conference, Madison, WI, edited by S. Franklin, K. Cummings, and J. Marx AIP Conf. Proc. No. 720, (AIP, Melville, NY, 2004), pp. 177–180.
18. F. Reif, Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes, Am. J. Phys. 63, 17 (1995) [SPIN].
19. G. Hatano and K. Inagaki, Two courses in expertise, in Child Development and Education in Japan, edited by H. Stevenson, J. Azuma, and K. Hakuta (W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1986), pp. 262–272.
20. C. Singh and D. Rosengrant, Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts, Am. J. Phys. 71, 607 (2003) [SPIN][INSPEC].
21. A. A. diSessa and B. Sherin, What changes in conceptual change?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1155 (1998).
22. F. Reif, Teaching problem solving—A scientific approach, Phys. Teach. 19, 310 (1981) [SPIN]; J. H. Larkin and F. Reif, Understanding and teaching problem solving in physics, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 191 (1979).
23. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cogn. Sci. 12, 257 (1988); ; J. Sweller, R. Mawer, and M. Ward, Development of expertise in mathematical problem solving, J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 112, 639 (1983).
24. H. A. Simon, Reason in Human Affairs (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1983); ; A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science 185, 1124 (1974); ; J. Reason, Human Error (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1990).
25. C. Singh, Effect of misconceptions on transfer in problem solving, in Proceedings of the 2007 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by L. Hsu, C. Henderson, L. McCullough, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 951 (AIP, Melville, NY, 2007), pp. 196–199.
26. J. Smith, A. diSessa, and J. Rochelle, Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition, J. Learn. Sci. 3, 115 (1994).
27. H. Ginsberg and S. Opper, Piaget’s Theory of Intellectual Development (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1969); ; R. Gorman, Discovering Piaget: A Guide for Teachers (Merrill, Columbus, 1972).
28. L. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978); ; J. Wertsch, Mind in Action (Oxford University Press, New York, 1998).