¿Pueden los adolescentes tomar mejores decisiones? La respuesta de la Física La Física como entrenamiento de pensamiento crítico
Barra lateral del artículo
Detalles del artículo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
La revista provee acceso inmediato y gratuito a sus contenidos. La publicación es gratuita y sus contenidos se distribuyen con la licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) . Los derechos de las obras publicadas en esta revista son propiedad del autor y este es libre de distribuir y difundir las mismas fuentes siempre y cuando cite correctamente la fuente de publicación, estos actos no sean con fines comerciales y no se generen obras derivadas.
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Tradicionalmente, aprender Física es una tarea complicada. En el presente estudio queremos conocer si hay relación entre el aprendizaje de la Física de modo mayéutico o socrático y las funciones ejecutivas del cerebro. 69 estudiantes preuniversitarios que aprendieron Física empleando un método fundamentado en el funcionamiento del cerebro fueron comparados con un grupo que aprendió Física empleando la clase magistral, exactamente con el mismo N. Ambos grupos fueron analizados con el test de Stroop para buscar diferencias en las funciones ejecutivas, más concretamente en la inhibición de las respuestas inmediatas e intuitivas. El test-T determina que existe una diferencia significativa entre ambos grupos (p<0.036) en el control de la interferencia o inhibición. Estos resultados podrían indicar que esta metodología fundamentada en el funcionamiento del cerebro mejora el proceso de razonamiento de los estudiantes, puesto que sabemos que la cingulada anterior y el lóbulo frontal funcionan como un tándem en ese proceso. Los resultados del presente estudio sugieren que hay una mejora en la inhibición que está relacionada con la forma de aprender. El método propuesto parece que refuerza las funciones ejecutivas del cerebro y tal vez sería posible emplear dicho método en otras asignaturas.
Citas
Aguirre, J. (1988). Student preconceptions about vector kinematics. The Physics Teacher, 26(4), 212-216. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2342490
Alexander, P. (2019). Individual differences in college-age learners: The importance of relational reasoning for learning and assessment in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 416-428. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12264
Andrews-Hanna, J., Mackiewicz Seghete, K., Claus, E., Burgess, G., Ruzic, L., & Banich, M. (2011). Cognitive Control in Adolescence: Neural Underpinnings and Relation to Self-Report Behaviors. Plos ONE, 6(6), e21598. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021598
Bain, K. (2012). What the best college students do. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Bartley, J.E., Riedel, M.C., Salo, T. et al. Brain activity links performance in science reasoning with conceptual approach. npj Sci. Learn. 4, 20 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0059-8
Heider, F., & Benesh-Weiner, M. (1988). "The notebooks". Psychologie Verlags Union.
Caine, R., & Caine, G. (2003). 12 Brain/mind learning principles in action. The fieldbook for making connections, teaching and the human brain. Corwin Press.
Calhoun, C. F. (2012). Brain-Based Teaching: Does It Really Work? ERIC Number: ED535937
RSEF. (2015). The State of the Teaching of Physics in High School Education. Madrid. Retrieved from https://rsef.es/images/Fisica/INFORME_FISICA_24-09-2018op.pdf
Clement, J. (1982). Students´ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. Am. J. Phys. vol. 50, 66-71.
Damasio, A. (2003). Looking for Spinoza. Heinemann.
Dew, M., Perry, J., Ford, L., Bassichis, W., Erukhimova, T. (2021). Gendered performance differences in introductory physics: A study from a large land-grant university, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010106
Docktor, J. L., Dornfeld, J., Frodermann, E., Heller, K., Hsu, L., Jackson, K. A., . . . Yang, J. (2016). Assessing student written problem solutions: A problem-solving rubric with application to introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 12, Issue 1, 010130.
Dunbar, K. N. (2009). The Biology of Physics: What The Brain Reveals About Our Understanding Of The Physical World. Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 1179, 15-18.
Festinger, L. (1968). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Freeman, G., Wash, P. (2013). You Can Lead Students to the Classroom, and You Can Make Them Think: Ten Brain-Based Strategies for College Teaching and Learning Success. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching. 24. 99-120.
Golden, C. (2005). Stroop word-color interference. Madrid: TEA Ediciones S.A.U.
Hake, R. (1992). Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory. Phys. Teach. vol. 33, 1-7.
Harlow, H., Harlow, M., & Meyer, D. (1950). Learning motivated by a manipulation drive. Journal Of Experimental Psychology, 40(2), 228-234. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056906
Herrán, C. A. (2002). Didactics, pedagogy, methodology, teaching, learning, of Physics. (Spanish Journal of Physics) Revista Española de Física 16 (4), 8-11.
Huguet, P., & Régner, I. (2009). Counter-stereotypic beliefs in math do not protect school girls from stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 45, 1024-1027. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.029
Husnaini, S. J., & Chen, S. (2019). Effects on guided inquiry virtual and physical laboratories on conceptual undestanding, inquiry performance, scientific inquiry self-efficacy, and enjoyment. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010119. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010119
Kahneman, D., & Chamorro, J. (2012). Thinking fast and slow. Debate.
Koenig, K. M., Endrof, R. J., & Braun, G. A. (2007). Effectiveness of different tutorial recitation teaching methods and its implications for TA training. Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol 3, Issue 1, 010104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010104
Körhasan, N. D., & Hidir, M. (2019). How should textbook analogies be used in teaching physics? Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010109
Lawson, R., & McDermott, L. (1987). Student understanding of the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems . Am. J. Phys. vol. 55, 811-817.
Levitin, D. (2006). This is your brain on music. Dutton.
Lillian C, M., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource Letter on Physics Education Research. American Journal of Physics 67, 755 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19122
Maries, A., Karim, N. I., & Singh, C. (2018). Is agreeing with gender stereotype correlated with the performance of female students in introductory physics? PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020119.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020119
Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. (2016). Neural Reprersentations of Physics Concepts. Assotiation for Psychological Science, vol 27 (6), 904-913.
McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton.
National Geographic. (2009). DOCUMENTAL - My musical brain (National Geographic) [Video]. Retrieved 17 March 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHrCZOxMVrw.
Ogilvie, C. A. (2009). Changes in students´s problem-solving strategies in a course that includes context-rich, multifaceted problems. Physical Review Physics Education Research, vol. 5, Issue 2, 020102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020102
Park, H., Leal, F., Abellanoza, C. et al. The formation of source memory under distraction. Behav Brain Funct 10, 40 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-10-40
Petitto, L. A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2009). Educational Neuroscience: New Discoveries from Bilingual Brains, Scientific Brains, and the Educated Mind. Mind, brain and education: the official journal of the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society, 3(4), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01069.x
Pardo, J., Pardo, P., Janer, K., & Raichle, M. (1990). The anterior cingulate cortex mediates processing selection in the Stroop attentional conflict paradigm. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, 87(1), 256-259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.1.256
Posner, M. I. (2009). Bridging Cognitive And Neural Aspects Of Classroom Learning. AIP Conference Proceedings 1179, 39 (2009). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3266747
Redish, E. (1994). Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. American Journal of Physics 62, 796. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17461
Redish, E. (2003, July 15-25). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. Paper presented at Proceedings of the International School of Physics , Varenna, Italy. Retrieved March 17, 2021, from IOS Press: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED493138
Saleh, S. (2011). The Effectiveness of the Brain-Based Teaching Approach in Generating Students’ Learning Motivation Towards the Subject of Physics: A Qualitative Approach. US-China Education Review, 63-72.
Saleh, S. (2012). The effectivness of the brain based teaching approach in enhancing scientific understanding of Newtonian Physics among form four students. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 107-122.
Skinner, F., B. (1957). Verval behavior. Prentice Hall, Inc.
Trowbridge, D., McDermott, L. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. Am. J. Phys. vol. 49, 242-253.
Tüfekçi, S., Demirel, M. The effect of brain based learning on achievement, retention, attitude and learning process. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Volume 1, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1782-1791.Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.316
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
Worden, J., Hinton, C., & Fischer, K. (2011). What Does the Brain Have to Do with Learning?. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 8-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200803
Wulff, P., Hazari, Z., Petersen, S., & Neumann, K. (2018). Engaging young women in physics: An intervention to support young women’s physics identity development. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.14.020113