Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring How Students Construct Collaborative Thought Experiments During Physics Problem-Solving Activities

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Thought experiments are personal and tacit processes of experimentation that scientists perform within their own imagery in formulating new theories or refuting existing theories. However, by viewing learning as a social process, this study aims to show that thought experiments can also be constructed collaboratively and to present a detailed mechanism of how thought experiments occur as a collective activity. The paper presents a study involving 12 students divided into 3 groups. The physics problem-solving activities were used to set the necessary conditions for observing the processes of students in constructing collaborative thought experiments. The results show that while solving physics problems, students design, share, rethink, and evaluate their thought experiments. This indicates that thought experiments can be constructed in a collaborative context even though the thought experiments are mostly individual in nature. In the process of constructing collaborative thought experiments, the students carried out five activities: visualizing imaginary worlds, performing experiments, describing the results, sharing and evaluating experiments, and drawing conclusions. We refer to these activities as the steps of collaborative thought experiments. In the process of evaluating thought experiments, four evaluation sources were then identified: conceptual understanding, past–daily experience, logical reasoning, and conceptual–logical inference. Based on these results, we discuss the importance and implication of collaborative thought experiments to both current and future physics teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asikainen, M. A., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2014). Probing pre- and in-service physics teachers’ knowledge using the double-slit thought experiment. Science & Education, 23(9), 1811–1833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bancong, H., & Song, J. (2018). Do physics textbooks present the ideas of thought experiments?: a case in Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(1), 25–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bancong, H., & Song, J. (2020). Factors triggering thought experiments in small group physics problemsolving activities. New Physics: Sae Mulli, 70(5), 466–480. https://doi.org/10.3938/NPSM.70.466

  • Bishop, M. A. (1999). Why thought experiments are not arguments. Philosophy of Science, 66(4), 534–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokulich, A. (2001). Rethinking thought experiments. Perspectives on Science, 9(3), 285–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokulich, A., & Frappier, M. (2017). On the identity of thought experiments: thought experiments rethought. In M. T. Stuart, Y. Fehige, & J. R. Brown (Eds.), The routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 545–557). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. R. (1991). The laboratory of the mind: thought experiments in the natural sciences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. R. (2006). The promise and perils of thought experiments. Interchange, 37(1–2), 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing our toys: cooperative learning versus collaborative learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(1), 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzzoni, M. (2008). Thought experiment in the natural sciences. An operational and reflective-transcendental conception. Würzburg: Königshausen+Neumann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzzoni, M. (2013). On thought experiments and the Kantian a priori in the natural sciences: a reply to Yiftach J H. Fehige. Epistemologia, 36(2), 277–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzzoni, M. (2019). Thought experiments in philosophy: a Neo-Kantian and experimentalist point of view. Topoi, 38(4), 771–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem-solving processes: social interactions and individual actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30(1), 26–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. J. (2009). The role of imagistic simulation in scientific thought experiments. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 686–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. (2005). Thought experiments. Metaphilosophy, 36(3), 328–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dohrn, D. (2016). Fiction and thought experiment-a case study. Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía, 35(3), 185–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan, D. (2016). Literature and thought experiments. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 74(2), 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1905). On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Annalen der Physik, 17, 891–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgin, C. Z. (2014). Fiction as thought experiment. Perspectives on Science, 22(2), 221–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, L. C. (1995). Thinking physics is gedanken physics. San Francisco: Insight Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: a journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(5), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, D. M. (1995). Establishing evaluative conclusions: a distinction between general and working logic. New Directions for Evaluation, 68, 15–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galileo, G. (1638/1914). Dialogues concerning two new sciences. (H. Crew, & A. d. Salvio, Trans). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galili, I. (2009). Thought experiments: determining their meaning. Science & Education, 18(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgiou, A. (2005). Thought experiments in physics problem-solving: on intuition and imagistic simulation (Master’s Thesis). Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

  • Gijlers, H., & Jong, T. d. (2013). Using concept maps to facilitate collaborative simulation-based inquiry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(3), 340–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Reiner, M. (2000). Thought experiments in science education: potential and current realization. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, R. G., Chi, M. T., & Roy, M. (2004). Learning from collaborative problem solving: an analysis of three hypothesized mechanisms. In K. D. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 547–552). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 627–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höggqvist, S. (2009). A model for thought experiments. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39(1), 55–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ichikawa, J., & Jarvis, B. (2009). Thought-experiment intuitions and truth in fiction. Philosophical Studies, 142, 221–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, S. (2006). The science thought experiment: how might it be used profitably in the classroom? Interchange, 37(1–2), 77–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kösem, Ş. D., & Özdemir, Ö. F. (2014). The nature and role of thought experiments in solving conceptual physics problems. Science & Education, 23(4), 865–895.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1977). A function for thought experiments. In T. Khun (Ed.), The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 240–265). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattery, M. J. (2001). Thought experiments in physics education: a simple and practical example. Science & Education, 10(5), 485–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levrini, O. (2014). The role of history and philosophy in research on teaching and learning of relativity. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 157–181). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. (1905/1976). On thought experiments. In T. J. McCormack & P. Foulkes (Eds.), In his Knowledge and error (pp. 134–147). Dordrecht: Vienna Circle Collection.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N., & Hawkes, P. (1995). Building bridges between cooperative and collaborative learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(4), 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1988). Ernst Mach and thought experiments in science education. Research in Science Education, 18, 251–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2014). International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. (1871/2001). Theory of heat. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miščević, N. (1992). Mental models and thought experiments. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 215–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. J. (1992). In the theoretician’s laboratory: thought experimenting as mental modeling. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1992(2), 291–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, I. (1687/1962). Mathematical principles of natural philosophy and his system of the world. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, J. D. (1991). Thought experiments in Einstein’s work. In T. Horowitz & G. Massey (Eds.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy (pp. 129–148). Savage: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, J. D. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you thought? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26(3), 333–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, J. D. (2004). On thought experiments: is there more to the argument? Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 1139–1151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M. (1998). Thought experiments and collaborative learning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1043–1058.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M., & Burko, L. M. (2003). On the limitations of thought experiments in physics and the consequences for physics education. Science & Education, 2(4), 365–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning: NATO ASI series (128th ed., pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrödinger, E. (1935). Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics). Naturwissenschaften, 23(48), 807–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Evaluation as practical hermeneutics. Evaluation, 3(1), 69–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, R. (1992). Thought experiments. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, R. (2016). Thought experiment and imagination. In A. Kind (Ed.), The routledge handbook of philosophy of imagination (pp. 420–436). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1999). What do we know about tacit knowledge? Making the tacit become explicit. In R. J. Sternberg & J. A. Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge in professional practice: researcher and practitioner (pp. 231–236). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, M. T. (2016). Norton and the logic of thought experiments. Axiomathes, 26, 451–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velentzas, A., & Halkia, K. (2013). The use of thought experiments in teaching physics to upper secondary-level students: two examples from the theory of relativity. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3026–3049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velentzas, A., Halkia, K., & Skordoulis, C. (2007). Thought experiments in the theory of relativity and in quantum mechanics: their presence in textbooks and in popular science books. Science & Education, 16(3–5), 353–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and trans.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Witt-Hansen, J. (1976). HC Ørsted, Immanuel Kant and the thought experiment. In Danish Yearbook of Philosophy (Vol. 13, pp. 48-65). Copenhagen, Denmark: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar, Makassar, Indonesia

    Hartono Bancong

  2. Center for Educational Research, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

    Jinwoong Song

Authors
  1. Hartono Bancong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jinwoong Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinwoong Song.

Ethics declarations

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Seoul National University monitored all procedures, including recruitment of participants, consent form for the participants, data collection, and analysis. This study received IRB approval (No.1811/003-015). Following the guidelines for conducting an ethical study, we used the code for all participants.

Compliance with ethical standards

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bancong, H., Song, J. Exploring How Students Construct Collaborative Thought Experiments During Physics Problem-Solving Activities. Sci & Educ 29, 617–645 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00129-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00129-3

Search

Navigation