ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Cognitive processes of scientific problem-solving while using simulations: an expert-novice comparison.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to utilize simulations to address problems is emphasized in current science standards, but learners often struggle with scientific tasks involving simulations. Understanding the gap between beginner and expert scientific problem solvers in simulation settings is useful for helping students to develop their expertise. However, limited studies have investigated the differences in cognitive processes between specialists and novices when they tackle simulation-based scientific tasks. Therefore, in this study, the think-aloud method was adopted to compare the cognitive mechanisms of 12 science teachers (experts) and 12 middle school students (novices) as they used simulations to solve scientific problems. The results showed that the experts demonstrated greater cognitive engagement than the novices. Specifically, the experts exhibited a more comprehensive understanding of the tasks. The novices typically ran the simulations blindly and rarely recorded the specific details of the scientific phenomena. The experts also engaged in more logical reasoning, in-depth questioning, and rational decision-making, whereas the novices were more inclined to rely on their intuition and gave hasty responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.