Source author record

Michael M. Hull

Michael M. Hull 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

2works
1topics
3close 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

2 published item(s)

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.

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.