The Features of Intuitive Thinking Emerged During Problem Solving Activities About Thermal Phenomena: When Intuitive Thinking Appears and How it is Related to Logical Thinking

열 현상에 대한 초등학생들의 문제해결 과정에서 나타나는 직관적 사고의 특징 -발현의 맥락 및 논리적 사고와의 관계를 중심으로-

  • Received : 2017.05.12
  • Accepted : 2017.06.27
  • Published : 2017.06.30


The purpose of this study is to investigate the features of elementary students' intuitive thinking emerged during problem solving activities as it related to thermal phenomena, focusing on when intuitive thinking appears and how it is related to logical thinking. For this, we presented a problem related to thermal phenomena to nine 5th-grade students, and examined how students' thinking emerged in the activities. We conducted clinical interviews to investigate the thinking process of students. The results of this study are as follows. First, students made their own solutions and justified it later during the emergence process of intuitive thinking. It was also found that students connected concrete materials and abstract concepts intuitively. They solved the problem by making predictions even when information is insufficient. Second, it was shown that intuitive thinking can emerge through the intended strategies such as drawing a mental image, thinking from a different perspective, and integrating methods. These results, which are related to the students' intuitive thinking has received little attention and will be the basis for helping students in the context of discovery of their problem solving activities.


intuitive thinking;emergence of intuitive thinking;problem solving;thermal phenomena;logical thinking


  1. AAAS. (1989). Science for All American. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  2. Brock, R. (2015). Intuition and insight: two concepts that illuminate the tacit in science education. Studies in Science Education, 51(2), 127-167.
  3. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education: Harvard University Press.
  4. Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152.
  5. Clement, J. (1994). Use of physical intuition and imagistic simulation in expert problem solving. In Tirosh, D. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit knowledge, (pp. 204-244). Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
  6. Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation: Springer Science & Business Media.
  7. Clement, J., Brown, D. E., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: finding 'anchoring conceptions' for grounding instruction on students' intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 554-565.
  8. Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical concepts in physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  10. Einstein, A., & Seelig, C. (1995). Ideas and opinions. New York: Crown Publishers.
  11. Epstein, S. (1998). Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In D. Barbone, M. Hersen, & V. Van Hasselt (Eds.), Advanced personality, (pp. 211-238). New York: Springer Science+ Business Media.
  12. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(2), 390.
  13. Fensham, P., & Marton, F. (1992). What has happened to intuition in science education? Research in Science Education, 22(1), 114-122.
  14. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach(Vol. 5): Springer Science & Business Media.
  15. Georgiou, H., & Sharma, M. D. (2012). University students' understanding of thermal physics in everyday context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(5), 1119-1142.
  16. Greene, B. (1999). The elegant universe: Superstrings, hidden dimensions, and the quest for the ultimate theory. New York: Vintage Books.
  17. Hafner, R., & Stewart, J. (1995). Revising explanatory models to accommodate anomalous genetic phenomena: Problem solving in the "context of discovery". Science Education, 79(2), 111-146.
  18. Han, S-K. (2010). Context of Discovery and Context of Justification. Research in Eastern and Western Philosophies [동서철학연구], 58, 441-463.
  19. Holton, G. J., & Brush, S. G. (2001). Physics, the human adventure: from Copernicus to Einstein and beyond. Rutgers University Press.
  20. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2006). Context of discovery versus context of justification and Thomas Kuhn. Revisiting discovery and justification, 119-131.
  21. Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel prize lecture, 8, 351-401.
  22. Kang, S., & Noh, T. (2014). The nature of science. Seoul: Bookshill.
  23. Kim, Y. C. (2002). The creative problem solving: theories, developments, and classes of creativity [창의적 문제해결: 창의력 이론, 개발과 수업]. Seoul: Kyoyookbook.
  24. Kroning, P. (2005). Auch Genies konnen irren...: Glücksfalle und Fehlurteile der Wissenschaft [오류와 우연의 과학사]. (Lee, Dong-Jun [이동준]) Seoul: Imagobook [이마고]. (Original work published 2003).
  25. Kushnir, T., Gopnik, A., Schulz, L., & Danks, D. (2003). Inferring hidden causes. In R. Alterman, & D. Kirsh (Eds), Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 699-703). Erlbaum. Retrieved from
  26. Larsson, C., & Tibell, L. A. (2015). Challenging Students' Intuitions-the Influence of a Tangible Model of Virus Assembly on Students' Conceptual Reasoning About the Process of Self-Assembly. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 663-690.
  27. Lee, J. (2005). Intuition and Construction in Kant. Philosophical Investigation 17, 285-327.
  28. Marton, F., Fensham, P., & Chaiklin, S. (1994). A Nobel’s eye view of scientific intuition: discussions with the Nobel prize-winners in physics, chemistry and medicine(1970-86). International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 457-473.
  29. Medawar, P. B. (1969). Induction and intuition in scientific thought. London: Routledge.
  30. Ministry of Education. (2009). 2009 revised curriculum -Science-. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
  31. Ministry of Education. (2015). 2015 revised curriculum -Science-. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
  32. Na, J. (2014). The Roles and Features of Everyday Experience in Elementary Dissertation. Seoul National University.
  33. National Institute of Korean Language. (2008). In Standard Korean Language Dictionary [표준국어대사전]. Retrieved May 23, 2017, from
  34. Noh, Y. J. (2004). The way of logical thinking [논리적 사고의 길]. Kwang-ju: Cheonam University Press.
  35. Oh, P. S. (2008). Comparison of Hypotheses-Formation Processes between an Earth Scientist and Undergraduate Students: A Case Study about a Typhoon's Anomalous Path. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 28(6), 649-663.
  36. Park, H. K., & Kwon, J. S. (1991). Current research papers on physics problem solving, Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 11(2), 67-77.
  37. Park, J., & Han, S. (2002). Using deductive reasoning to promote the change of students' conceptions about force and motion. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 593-609.
  38. Piaget, J. (1971). The Child's conception of the world. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
  39. Poincare, H. (1907). The Value of Science. (G. B. Halsted, Trans). New York: The Science Press. (Original work published 1905).
  40. Poincare, H. (1914). Science and method. (F. Maitland, Trans). London, Edinburgh, Dublin, & New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons. (Original work published 1908).
  41. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge, towards a post critical epistemology. London: Routledge.
  42. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London and New York: Routledge.
  43. Raidl, M. H., & Lubart, T. I. (2001). An empirical study of intuition and creativity. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 20(3), 217-230.
  44. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
  45. Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bernstein, M. M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world's most creative people. Boston and New York: A Mariner Book.
  46. Salmon, W. (1967). The foundations of scientific inference. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  47. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab, & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science, (pp.1-103). Massachussetts: Harvard University Press.
  48. Seo, K-H. (2004). An Alternative Approach to Investigating Students’ Thinking: Focusing on the Piaget’s Clinical Interview. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(2), 163-183.
  49. Shepard, R. N. (1978). Externalization of mental images and the act of creation. In B. S. Zandawa, & W. E. Lottman (Eds), Visual learning, thinking, and communication, (pp.133-189). New York: Academic Press.
  50. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1996). Intuitive rules in science and mathematics: the case of 'more of A--more of B'. International Journal of Science Education, 18(6), 653-667.
  51. Stewart, J., & Hafner, R. (1991). Extending the conception of "problem" in problem-solving research. Science Education, 75(1), 105-120.
  52. Tallant, J. (2013). Intuitions in physics. Synthese, 190(15), 2959-2980.
  53. Tallant, J. (2014). Metaphysics, Intuitions and Physics. Ratio, 28(3), 286-301.
  54. Wild, K. W. (1938). Intuition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Yair, Y., & Yair, Y. (2004). "Everything comes to an end": An intuitive rule in physics and mathematics. Science Education, 88(4), 594-609.