- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Overcoming the more measurements, the better intuitive heuristic in physics data evaluation: The role of inhibitory control

Wenting Hong1,2, Tong Li1,2, Li Wang3, Rui Dai4,§, Lei Bao5,6,7,‡, Keke Yu8,†, and Yang Xiao1,2,*

  • 1Guangdong Basic Research Center of Excellence for Structure and Fundamental Interactions of Matter, National Demonstration Center for Experimental Physics Education, School of Physics, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006, China
  • 2Key Laboratory of Atomic and Subatomic Structure and Quantum Control (Ministry of Education), South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006, China
  • 3College of Physics and Electronic Engineering, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610101, China
  • 4School of Physics, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China
  • 5School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
  • 6Research Center for Learning Science, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
  • 7Key Laboratory of Child Development and Learning Science (Ministry of Education), Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
  • 8Philosophy and Social Science Laboratory of Reading and Development in Children and Adolescents (South China Normal University), Ministry of Education, and Center for Studies of Psychological Application, School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510631, China

  • *Contact author: xiaoyang@m.scnu.edu.cn
  • †Contact author: kkyu@m.scnu.edu.cn
  • ‡Contact author: lei.bao@outlook.com
  • §Contact author. dair986@nenu.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020159 – Published 19 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/lw7v-86jq

Abstract

In a data-driven world, the ability to critically assess empirical data is a core aspect of scientific literacy and a major goal of physics education. Yet, students often fall back on heuristics that conflict with statistical reasoning. A common example is the “the more measurements, the better the quality of the data” (MMB) heuristic, which naively equates quantity with quality, ignoring variance. According to conceptual change theory, such heuristics or misconceptions coexist with formal scientific knowledge and are automatically triggered during reasoning, resulting in conflicts and requiring active suppression. Inhibitory control, an executive function that overrides automatic responses, may be the central key to resolving these conflicts; however, its role in procedural domains, such as data literacy, is understudied. This study examines whether and how inhibitory control facilitates students to overcome the MMB heuristic in different representational formats (tabular vs pictorial). Using a modified Stroop paradigm, undergraduate physics students (N=30) evaluated data quality presented in tabular (numerical tables) and pictorial (dot plots) formats across the congruent, incongruent, and neutral stimulus types. Results showed significant accuracy reductions in incongruent trials compared to both neutral and congruent trials across both formats, indicating significant Stroop effects. For the response times, we found a significant Stroop effect (longer response time in the incongruent than congruent trials) in the pictorial format, while a similar but non-significant trend in the tabular format. These findings first indicated the involvement of inhibitory control when the heuristic activation occurred in both formats. However, the pictorial format may evoke stronger or more persistent heuristic conflict, or the potential higher cognitive processing demands in the tabular format may mask the subtle RT-based Stroop effects. These findings extend the conceptual change research by identifying inhibitory control as crucial for resolving heuristic interference in procedural reasoning, and they stress the need to consider how representational formats modulate both heuristic activation and cognitive processing demands when designing instruction in physics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (118)

  1. T. Koltay, Data literacy: In search of a name and identity, J. Doc. 71, 401 (2015).
  2. J. B., Data literacy for educators: Making it count in teacher preparation and practice, Harv. Educ. Rev. 86, 607 (2016).
  3. J. Calzada Prado and M. Á. Marzal, Incorporating data literacy into information literacy programs: Core competencies and contents, Libri Oncol. 63, 123 (2013).
  4. NGSS Lead States, Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013).
  5. The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and The Council of Chief State School Officers, Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (NGA Center & CCSSO, Washington, DC, 2010).
  6. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, General Senior Secondary Physics Curriculum Standards (People’s Education Press, Beijing, 2020).
  7. Ministry of Education Higher Education University Physics Curriculum Teaching Steering Committee, Basic Requirements for University Physics Courses, 2023 ed. (Higher Education Press, Beijing, 2023).
  8. C. Maybee and L. Zilinski, Data informed learning: A next phase data literacy framework for higher education, Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 52, 1 (2015).
  9. A. M. Masnick and B. J. Morris, Investigating the development of data evaluation: The role of data characteristics, Child Dev. 79, 1032 (2008).
  10. D. J. Merritt, Bias, the brain, and student evaluations of teaching, SSRN J. (2007), 10.2139/ssrn.963196.
  11. A. Kirk-Johnson, B. M. Galla, and S. H. Fraundorf, Perceiving effort as poor learning: The misinterpreted-effort hypothesis of how experienced effort and perceived learning relate to study strategy choice, Cognit. Psychol. 115, 101237 (2019).
  12. M. M. Zucchelli, N. Matteucci Armandi Avogli Trotti, A. Pavan, L. Piccardi, and R. Nori, The dual process model: The effect of cognitive load on the ascription of intentionality, Front. Psychol. 16, 1451590 (2025).
  13. D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2011).
  14. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science 185, 1124 (1974).
  15. P. M. Todd and G. Gigerenzer, Précis of simple heuristics that make us smart, Behav. Brain Sci. 23, 727 (2000).
  16. A. F. Heckler, The role of automatic, bottom-up processes: In the ubiquitous patterns of incorrect answers to science questions, Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 55, 227 (2011).
  17. D. Hammer, More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1316 (1996).
  18. A. Schang, M. Dew, E. M. Stump, N. G. Holmes, and G. Passante, New perspectives on student reasoning about measurement uncertainty: More or better data, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020105 (2023).
  19. J. Lin, Y. Xing, Y. Hu, J. Zhang, L. Bao, K. Luo, K. Yu, and Y. Xiao, Inhibitory control involvement in overcoming the position-velocity indiscrimination misconception among college physics majors, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010112 (2023).
  20. D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension, Am. J. Phys. 48, 1020 (1980).
  21. C. Dawson, Towards a conceptual profile: Rethinking conceptual mediation in the light of recent cognitive and neuroscientific findings, Res. Sci. Educ. 44, 389 (2014).
  22. L. Mason and S. Zaccoletti, Inhibition and conceptual learning in science: A review of studies, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 181 (2021).
  23. J. St. B. T. Evans, Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 255 (2008).
  24. D. Kahneman and S. Frederick, Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment, in Heuristics and Biases, edited by T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2002), pp. 49–81.
  25. L.-M. Brault Foisy, P. Potvin, M. Riopel, and S. Masson, Is inhibition involved in overcoming a common physics misconception in mechanics?, Trends Neurosci. Educ. 4, 26 (2015).
  26. A. Diamond, Executive functions, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 135 (2013).
  27. G. Allaire-Duquette, L.-M. Brault Foisy, P. Potvin, M. Riopel, M. Larose, and S. Masson, An fMRI study of scientists with a Ph.D. in physics confronted with naive ideas in science, npj Sci. Learn. 6, 11 (2021).
  28. J. De Vries, M. Byrne, and E. Kehoe, Cognitive dissonance induction in everyday life: An fMRI study, Soc. Neurosci. 10, 268 (2015).
  29. D. Ben-Zvi, Reasoning about variability in comparing distributions, SERJ 3, 42 (2004).
  30. D. Canada, Elementary pre-service teachers’ conceptions of variation in a probability context, SERJ 5, 36 (2006).
  31. J. Garfield and D. Ben-Zvi, How students learn statistics revisited: A current review of research on teaching and learning statistics, Int. Stat. Rev. 75, 372 (2007).
  32. J. R. Stroop, Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions, J. Exp. Psychol. 18, 643 (1935).
  33. C. M. MacLeod, Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review, Psychol. Bull. 109, 163 (1991).
  34. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  35. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
  36. A. Elby, What students’ learning of representations tells us about constructivism, J. Math. Behav. 19, 481 (2000).
  37. F. Lubben and R. Millar, Children’s ideas about the reliability of experimental data, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 18, 955 (1996).
  38. N. A. Obrecht, G. B. Chapman, and R. Gelman, Intuitive t tests: Lay use of statistical information, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14, 1147 (2007).
  39. T. Wan and J. M. Mickelsen, Investigating student ability to draw conclusions from measurement data, presented at PER Conf. 2012, Virtual Conference, 10.1119/perc.2021.pr.Wan.
  40. R. Stavy and D. Tirosh, How Students (Mis-)understand Science and Mathematics: Intuitive Rules (Teachers College Press, New York, 2000).
  41. A. A. diSessa, Knowledge in pieces, in Constructivism in the Computer Age, edited by G. Forman and P. B. Pufall (Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988), pp. 49–70.
  42. P. Van Kampen and O. Gkioka, Undergraduate students’ reasoning about the quality of experimental measurements of covarying secondary data, Eur. J. Phys. 42, 045704 (2021).
  43. R. L. Kung and C. Linder, University students’ ideas about data processing and data comparison in a physics laboratory course, NorDiNa 2, 40 (2012).
  44. A. Buffler, S. Allie, and F. Lubben, The development of first-year physics students’ ideas about measurement in terms of point and set paradigms, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23, 1137 (2001).
  45. M. Séré, R. Journeaux, and C. Larcher, Learning the statistical analysis of measurement errors, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 15, 427 (1993).
  46. S. Pillay, A. Buffler, F. Lubben, and S. Allie, Effectiveness of a GUM-compliant course for teaching measurement in the introductory physics laboratory, Eur. J. Phys. 29, 647 (2008).
  47. K. Kok, B. Priemer, W. Musold, and A. Masnick, Students’ conclusions from measurement data: The more decimal places, the better?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010103 (2019).
  48. S. Allie, A. Buffler, B. Campbell, and F. Lubben, First-year physics students’ perceptions of the quality of experimental measurements, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 447 (1998).
  49. T. Wan, Investigating student reasoning about measurement uncertainty and ability to draw conclusions from measurement data in inquiry-based university physics labs, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 45, 223 (2023).
  50. C. F. J. Pols, P. J. J. M. Dekkers, and M. J. De Vries, What do they know? Investigating students’ ability to analyze experimental data in secondary physics education, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 43, 274 (2021).
  51. A. Susac, A. Bubic, P. Martinjak, M. Planinic, and M. Palmovic, Graphical representations of data improve student understanding of measurement and uncertainty: An eye-tracking study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020125 (2017).
  52. B. Priemer, S. Pfeiler, and T. Ludwig, Firsthand or secondhand data in school labs: It does not make a difference, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 013102 (2020).
  53. J. Day and D. Bonn, Development of the concise data processing assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010114 (2011).
  54. C. Walsh, K. N. Quinn, C. Wieman, and N. G. Holmes, Quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the physics lab inventory of critical thinking (PLIC), Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010135 (2019).
  55. F. Lubben, B. Campbell, A. Buffler, and S. Allie, Point and set reasoning in practical science measurement by entering university freshmen, Sci. Educ. 85, 311 (2001).
  56. R. Duit and D. F. Treagust, Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 671 (2003).
  57. S. Ohlsson, Resubsumption: A possible mechanism for conceptual change and belief revision, Educ. Psychol. 44, 20 (2009).
  58. P. Potvin, Proposition for improving the classical models of conceptual change based on neuroeducational evidence: Conceptual prevalence, Neuroeducation 2, 16 (2013).
  59. J. Solomon, Learning about energy: How pupils think in two domains, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 5, 49 (1983).
  60. P. Potvin and G. Cyr, Toward a durable prevalence of scientific conceptions: Tracking the effects of two interfering misconceptions about buoyancy from preschoolers to science teachers, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 1121 (2017).
  61. S. Lemire-Rodger, J. Lam, J. D. Viviano, W. D. Stevens, R. N. Spreng, and G. R. Turner, Inhibit, switch, and update: A within-subject fMRI investigation of executive control, Neuropsychologia 132, 107134 (2019).
  62. O. Houdé, Inhibition and cognitive development: Object, number, categorization, and reasoning, Cognit. Dev. 15, 63 (2000).
  63. M. Kryjevskaia, P. R. L. Heron, and A. F. Heckler, Intuitive or rational? Students and experts need to be both, Phys. Today 74, No. 8, 28 (2021).
  64. J. C. Speirs, M. R. Stetzer, B. A. Lindsey, and M. Kryjevskaia, Exploring and supporting student reasoning in physics by leveraging dual-process theories of reasoning and decision making, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020137 (2021).
  65. B. A. Lindsey, A. Boudreaux, D. J. Rosen, M. R. Stetzer, and M. Kryjevskaia, Reinforcing mindware or supporting cognitive reflection: Testing two strategies for addressing a persistent learning challenge in the context of air resistance, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020116 (2024).
  66. C. M. MacLeod, The Stroop effect, in Encyclopedia of Color Science and Technology, edited by R. Luo (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2015), pp. 1–6.
  67. J. M. Bugg, L. L. Jacoby, and J. P. Toth, Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task, Mem. Cognit. 36, 1484 (2008).
  68. S. Bugden, G. R. Price, D. A. McLean, and D. Ansari, The role of the left intraparietal sulcus in the relationship between symbolic number processing and children’s arithmetic competence, Dev. Cognit. Neurosci. 2, 448 (2012).
  69. R. Babai, R. Sekal, and R. Stavy, Persistence of the intuitive conception of living things in adolescence, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 19, 20 (2010).
  70. R. Babai and A. Amsterdamer, The persistence of solid and liquid naive conceptions: A reaction time study, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 17, 553 (2008).
  71. P. Potvin, S. Masson, S. Lafortune, and G. Cyr, Persistence of the intuitive conception that heavier objects sink more: A reaction time study with different levels of interference, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 13, 21 (2015).
  72. W. T. Neill, Inhibitory and facilitatory processes in selective attention, J. Exp. Psychol. 3, 444 (1977).
  73. S. P. Tipper, The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects, Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 37, 571 (1985).
  74. L.-M. Brault Foisy, E. Ahr, J. Blanchette Sarrasin, P. Potvin, O. Houdé, S. Masson, and G. Borst, Inhibitory control and the understanding of buoyancy from childhood to adulthood, J. Exp. Child Psychol. 208, 105155 (2021).
  75. Y. Wen, J. Lin, Y. Ming, J. Zhang, X. Wu, L. Bao, K. Yu, and Y. Xiao, Role of inhibition in overcoming interferences of misconception under similar feature saliency: An eye-tracking study of the projectile motion problem, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020121 (2024).
  76. S. Masson, P. Potvin, M. Riopel, and L. B. Foisy, Differences in brain activation between novices and experts in science during a task involving a common misconception in electricity, Mind Brain Educ. 8, 44 (2014).
  77. A. A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin, What changes in conceptual change?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1155 (1998).
  78. P. Potvin et al., Models of conceptual change in science learning: Establishing an exhaustive inventory based on support given by articles published in major journals, Stud. Sci. Educ. 56, 157 (2020).
  79. Y. Zhu, L. Zhang, Y. Leng, R. Pang, and X. Wang, Event-related potential evidence for persistence of an intuitive misconception about electricity, Mind Brain Educ. 13, 80 (2019).
  80. A. Lichtenberger, C. Wagner, S. I. Hofer, E. Stern, and A. Vaterlaus, Validation and structural analysis of the kinematics concept test, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010115 (2017).
  81. P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, and J. Viiri, Force Concept Inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020109 (2010).
  82. A. Paivio, Imagery and Verbal Processes, 1st ed. (Psychology Press, New York, 1979).
  83. J. H. Larkin and H. A. Simon, Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words, Cogn. Sci. 11, 65 (1987).
  84. P. Shah and J. Hoeffner, Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 14, 47 (2002).
  85. A. Paivio, Empirical case for dual coding, in Imagery, Memory and Cognition, edited by edited by R. D. Pearson and J. T. E. Richardson (Psychology Press, London, 1980).
  86. M. Hegarty, The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design, Top. Cognit. Sci. 3, 446 (2011).
  87. J. A. Fugelsang and V. A. Thompson, A dual-process model of belief and evidence interactions in causal reasoning, Mem. Cogn. 31, 800 (2003).
  88. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cogn. Sci. 12, 257 (1988).
  89. N. Lavie and Y. Tsal, Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention, Percept. Psychophys. 56, 183 (1994).
  90. P. Potvin, G. Malenfant-Robichaud, C. Cormier, and S. Masson, Coexistence of misconceptions and scientific conceptions in chemistry professors: A mental chronometry and fMRI study, Front. Educ. 5, 542458 (2020).
  91. T. W. Boyer, S. C. Levine, and J. Huttenlocher, Development of proportional reasoning: Where young children go wrong, Dev. Psychol. 44, 1478 (2008).
  92. N. Lavie and E. Fox, The role of perceptual load in negative priming, J. Exp. Psychol. 26, 1038 (2000).
  93. J. J. Ortells, C. Noguera, D. Álvarez, E. Carmona, and G. Houghton, Individual differences in working memory capacity modulates semantic negative priming from single prime words, Front. Psychol. 7 (2016).
  94. X. Yu, H. Zhang, and Y. Qi, The role of inhibitory control in the development of analogical mapping: Cognitive load matters, Psychol. Dev. Educ. 39, 1 (2023), https://devpsy.bnu.edu.cn/CN/Y2023/V39/I1/1.
  95. P. Van Kampen and O. Gkioka, Undergraduate students’ reasoning about the quality of experimental measurements of covarying secondary data, Eur. J. Phys. 42, 045704 (2021).
  96. M. M. Botvinick, C. S. Carter, T. S. Braver, D. M. Barch, and J. D. Cohen, Conflict monitoring and cognitive control, Psychol. Rev. 108, 624 (2001).
  97. S. P. Tipper, T. A. Bourque, S. H. Anderson, and J. C. Brehaut, Mechanisms of attention: A developmental study, J. Exp. Child Psychol. 48, 353 (1989).
  98. S. Kertzman, I. Reznik, T. Hornik-Lurie, A. Weizman, M. Kotler, and D. Amital, Stroop performance in major depression: Selective attention impairment or psychomotor slowness?, J. Affective disord. 122, 167 (2010).
  99. R. Stavy and R. Babai, Overcoming intuitive interference in mathematics: Insights from behavioral, brain imaging and intervention studies, ZDM Math. Educ. 42, 621 (2010).
  100. B. A. Parris, N. Hasshim, M. Wadsley, M. Augustinova, and L. Ferrand, The loci of Stroop effects: A critical review of methods and evidence for levels of processing contributing to color-word Stroop effects and the implications for the loci of attentional selection, Psychol. Res. 86, 1029 (2022).
  101. L. Ziaka, D. Skoteinou, and A. Protopapas, Task format modulates the relationship between reading ability and Stroop interference, J. Exp. Psychol. 48, 275 (2022).
  102. The R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, version 3.3.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2025).
  103. A. Kuznetsova, P. B. Brockhoff, and R. H. B. Christensen, lmertest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models, J. Stat. Softw. 82 (2017).
  104. D. Pilson and K. L. Decker, Compensation for herbivory in wild sunflower: Response to simulated damage by the head-clipping weevil, Ecology 83, 3097 (2002).
  105. A. Viarouge, H. Lee, and G. Borst, Attention to number requires magnitude-specific inhibition, Cognition 230, 105285 (2023).
  106. M. K. Morphew et al., Metallothionein as a clonable tag for protein localization by electron microscopy of cells, J. Microsc. 260, 20 (2015).
  107. D. Curran-Everett, Explorations in statistics: The log transformation, Adv. Physiol. Educ. 42, 343 (2018).
  108. R. C. Littell, G. A. Milliken, W. W. Stroup, and R. D. Wolfinger, SAS for Mixed Models, 2nd ed. (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, 2006).
  109. R. H. Baayen, D. J. Davidson, and D. M. Bates, Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items, J. Mem. Lang. 59, 390 (2008).
  110. D. Bates, M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker, Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4, J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1 (2015).
  111. R. Gueorguieva and J. H. Krystal, Move over ANOVA: Progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the archives of general psychiatry, Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 61, 310 (2004).
  112. E. Theobald, Students are rarely independent: When, why, and how to use random effects in discipline-based education research, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 17, rm2 (2018).
  113. R. V. Lenth, Estimated Marginal Means aka Least Squares Means, version version 1.8.4, R package (2023), available at https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.
  114. Y. Zhu, L. Zhang, Y. Leng, R. Pang, and X. Wang, Event-related potential evidence for persistence of an intuitive misconception about electricity, Mind Brain Educ. 13, 80 (2019).
  115. M. Limón, On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal, Learn. Instr. 11, 357 (2001).
  116. B. Y. White and J. R. Frederiksen, Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students, Cognit. Instr. 16, 3 (1998).
  117. H. R. Wilkinson et al., Domain-specific inhibitory control training to improve children’s learning of counterintuitive concepts in mathematics and science, J. Cogn. Enhancement 4, 296 (2020).
  118. M. Letang, P. Citron, J. Garbarg-Chenon, O. Houdé, and G. Borst, Bridging the gap between the lab and the classroom: An online citizen scientific research project with teachers aiming at improving inhibitory control of school-age children, Mind Brain Educ. 15, 122 (2021).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020159– Published 19 December, 2025
  • Received 28 April 2025
  • Accepted 5 November 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation