Source author record

Eric Kuo

Eric Kuo appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2019arXiv

A new approach for uncovering student resources with multiple-choice questions

The traditional approach to studying student understanding presents a question and uses the student answers to make inferences about their knowledge. However, this method does not capture the range of possible alternative ideas available to students. We use a new approach, asking students to generate a plausible explanation for every choice of a multiple-choice question, to capture a range of explanations that students can generate in answering physics questions. Asking 16 students to provide explanations in this way revealed alternative possibilities for student thinking that would not have been captured if they only provided one solution. The findings show two ways these alternatives can be productive for learning physics: (i) even students who ultimately chose the wrong answer could often generate the correct explanation and (ii) many incorrect explanations contained elements of correct physical reasoning. We discuss the instructional implications of this multiple-choice questioning approach and of student alternative ideas.

preprint2019arXiv

Mathematical Sensemaking as Seeking Coherence between Calculations and Concepts: Instruction and Assessments for Introductory Physics

What kind of problem-solving instruction can help students apply what they have learned to solve the new and unfamiliar problems they will encounter in the future? We propose that mathematical sensemaking, the practice of seeking coherence between formal mathematics and conceptual understanding, is a key target of successful physics problem-solving instruction. However, typical assessments tend to measure understanding in more disjoint ways. To capture coherence-seeking practices in student problem solving, we introduce an assessment framework that highlights opportunities to use these problem-solving approaches more flexibly. Three assessment items embodying this calculation-concept crossover framework illustrate how coherence can drive flexible problem-solving approaches that may be more efficient, insightful, and accurate. These three assessment items were used to evaluate the efficacy of an instructional approach focused on developing mathematical-sensemaking skills. In a quasi-experimental study, three parallel lecture sections of first-semester, introductory physics were compared: two mathematical sensemaking sections, with one having an experienced instructor (MS) and one a novice instructor (MS-nov), and a traditionally-taught section acted as a control group (CTRL). On the three crossover assessment items, mathematical sensemaking students used calculation-concept crossover approaches more and generated more correct solutions than CTRL students. Student surveyed epistemological views toward problem-solving coherence at the end of the course predicted their crossover approach use but did not fully account for the differences in crossover approach use between the MS and CTRL groups. These results illustrate new instructional and assessment frameworks for research on mathematical sensemaking and adaptive problem-solving expertise.

preprint2015arXiv

Seeking instructional specificity: an example from analogical instruction

Broad instructional methods like interactive engagement have been shown to be effective, but such general characterization provides little guidance on the details of how to structure the instructional materials. In this study, we seek instructional specificity by comparing two ways of using an analogy to learn a target physical principle: (i) applying the analogy to the target physical domain on a Case-by-Case basis and (ii) using the analogy to create a General Rule in the target physical domain. In the discussion sections of a large, introductory physics course (N = 231), students who sought a General Rule were better able to discover and apply a correct physics principle than students who analyzed the examples Case-by-Case. The difference persisted at a reduced level after subsequent direct instruction. We argue that students who performed Case-by-Case analyses are more likely to focus on idiosyncratic problem-specific features rather than the deep structural features. This study provides an example of investigating how the specific structure of instructional materials can be consequential for what is learned.

preprint2014arXiv

Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology

Mathematics is a critical part of much scientific research. Physics in particular weaves math extensively into its instruction beginning in high school. Despite much research on the learning of both physics and math, the problem of how to effectively include math in physics in a way that reaches most students remains unsolved. In this paper, we suggest that a fundamental issue has received insufficient exploration: the fact that in science, we don't just use math, we make meaning with it in a different way than mathematicians do. In this reflective essay, we explore math as a language and consider the language of math in physics through the lens of cognitive linguistics. We begin by offering a number of examples that show how the use of math in physics differs from the use of math as typically found in math classes. We then explore basic concepts in cognitive semantics to show how humans make meaning with language in general. The critical elements are the roles of embodied cognition and interpretation in context. Then we show how a theoretical framework commonly used in physics education research, resources, is coherent with and extends the ideas of cognitive semantics by connecting embodiment to phenomenological primitives and contextual interpretation to the dynamics of meaning making with conceptual resources, epistemological resources, and affect. We present these ideas with illustrative case studies of students working on physics problems with math and demonstrate the dynamical nature of student reasoning with math in physics. We conclude with some thoughts about the implications for instruction.

preprint2013arXiv

How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems

Current conceptions of expert problem solving depict physical/conceptual reasoning and formal mathematical reasoning as separate steps: a good problem solver first translates a physical Current conceptions of quantitative problem-solving expertise in physics incorporate conceptual reasoning in two ways: for selecting relevant equations (before manipulating them), and for checking whether a given quantitative solution is reasonable (after manipulating the equations). We make the case that problem-solving expertise should include opportunistically blending conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning even while manipulating equations. We present analysis of interviews with two students, Alex and Pat. Interviewed students were asked to explain a particular equation and solve a problem using that equation. Alex used and described the equation as a computational tool. By contrast, Pat found a shortcut to solve the problem. His shortcut blended mathematical operations with conceptual reasoning about physical processes, reflecting a view - expressed earlier in his explanation of the equation - that equations can express an overarching conceptual meaning. Using case studies of Alex and Pat, we argue that this opportunistic blending of conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning (i) is a part of problem-solving expertise, (ii) can be described in terms of cognitive elements called symbolic forms (Sherin, 2001), and (iii) is a feasible instructional target.