REVIEW 1 cited by
Thinking fast and slow and science education
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In recent years there has been growing evidence that even after teaching designed to address the learning difficulties dictated by literature, many physics learners fail to create the proper reasoning chains that connect the fundamental principles and lead to reasoned predictions. Even though students have the required knowledge and skills, they are often based on a variety of intuitive reasoning that leads them to wrong conclusions. This paper studies students' reasoning on science problems through heuristic - analytical thought processes (System 1 - System 2). System 1 operates automatically and quickly with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control, while System 2 focuses on the demanding mental activities that require it and is slow based on rules.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Conformal Arbitrage: Risk-Controlled Balancing of Competing Objectives in Language Models
Conformal Arbitrage calibrates a score-gap threshold with conformal risk control so that a primary model can act when confident and defer to a guardian otherwise, with the expected guardrail loss bounded by a user-cho...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.