The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cognition for Interpreting Scientific Concepts: A Study of Acceleration
Abstract
Abstract Interpreting a scientific concept, that is, identifying or generating it properly in any particular instance, is a complex cognitive task. We analyze the underlying knowledge required to achieve such concept interpretation accurately and efficiently. This analysis is used to examine detailed observations of expert scientists and novice students interpreting the physics concept of acceleration. Most experts interpret the concept well in expected ways; however, even some experienced scientists exhibit marked deficiencies in concept interpretation. Novice students, even after using a scientific concept for some months, interpret it incorrectly in many cases. Their poor performance can be traced to concept knowledge that is largely incoherent, consisting of disconnected knowledge elements leading to frequent paradoxes. These knowledge elements are often flawed because of deficient applicability conditions or lack of discriminations. Furthermore, students' definitional or other general knowledge often cannot be properly applied, even if correctly stated. By directly addressing such deficiencies, instruction can substantially improve students' ability to interpret a scientific concept.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ericsson, K. A. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200410001-00022 · Cited by 2,988
EXPERT AND EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE: Evidence of Maximal Adaptation to Task Constraints
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.273 · Cited by 2,139
Ericsson, K. A. (2006) · The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816796.038 · Cited by 1,629
Types and qualities of knowledge
de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2 · Cited by 722
Causal Models: How People Think about the World and Its Alternatives
Sloman, S. (2005) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183115.001.0001 · Cited by 677
Metadata
- Authors
- Reif, F., & Allen, S.
- Venue
- Cognition and Instruction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1992-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-44
- ISSN
- 0737-0008 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-690X
- OpenAlex
- W2015976994
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognition for Interpreting Scientific Concepts: A Study of Acceleration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s1532690xci0901_1
- The paper
- Reif, F., & Allen, S. (1992). Cognition for Interpreting Scientific Concepts: A Study of Acceleration. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0901_1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.