Using dual-process theories to investigate differences in student reasoning across questions that elicit different types of intuitive responses

Inconsistencies in student reasoning have been documented across a wide variety of physics contexts, and researchers have found that they frequently stem from the nature of human reasoning itself rather than from a lack of relevant knowledge and skills. A growing body of research has leveraged dual-process theories of reasoning (DPToR) as a framework to investigate these reasoning inconsistencies and as a guide for the development of interventions designed to better support reasoning. Much of this work focuses on questions that elicit intuitively appealing, incorrect answers. We have been designing and testing DPToR-aligned interventions that aim to help students productively engage in cognitive reflection and apply the knowledge and skills relevant to the correct solution, which they typically already possess. By administering analogous interventions to support student reasoning on questions in a variety of physics contexts, we seek to better understand how the specific nature of the intuitively appealing, incorrect response and the resources available to rationalize that response can impact how students engage with the intervention. In this talk, we will present intervention results and discuss implications for research-based curriculum development.