Research article | Open Access
Journal of Educational Philosophy and Sociology 2025, Vol 6(2) 124-139

From Analogy to Abstraction: Student-Generated Thought Experiments for Gifted Physics Learners

Article Type
Research article
Publication Date
December 31, 2025
Pages
124-139

Abstract

This study examines thought experiments as a classroom method for gifted learners, asking how student-generated designs can elicit transfer, model critique, and creative scientific reasoning. We adopted a qualitative, exploratory design with three formally identified gifted middle-school students. Semi-structured, open-ended interview prompts—built around canonical physics thought experiments (e.g., Galileo, Einstein, Schrödinger)—served as the data-collection instrument. Each 45–60-minute interview elicited an initial analogy, introduced a targeted counter-example, and required a revision; a subsequent small-group discussion enabled peer critique and co-construction. Using reflexive thematic analysis with iterative coding (open–axial–selective), we traced how learners interpreted and re-framed core ideas from mechanics and quantum theory. Findings show three student-authored thought experiments—“Coin and Ghost Cat” (superposition/observer effect), “Diving into a Pool” (free fall vs. motion in a fluid), and “Cooking and Uncertainty” (measurement–disturbance trade-off). Across cases, students tested conceptual boundaries, surfaced misconceptions, coordinated everyday reasoning with formal principles, and refined their designs following counter-examples. We conclude that a short, structured routine—prime with a canonical case, elicit an analogy, stress it with a counter-example, require revision, and compare designs with a simple rubric—renders thought experiments classroom-feasible. The approach is low-cost and inclusive, supporting higher-order explanation, cross-context transfer, and self-authored inquiry in gifted education.

Keywords: Thought Experiments Gifted Education Physics Education Analogy-Making Scientific Reasoning Qualitative Methods
Cite this article
Bülbül, M. Ş. (2025). From Analogy to Abstraction: Student-Generated Thought Experiments for Gifted Physics Learners. Journal of Educational Philosophy and Sociology, 6(2), 124-139. https://doi.org/10.29329/jeps.2025.1400.2

  • Brown, J. R. (2011). The laboratory of the mind: Thought experiments in the natural sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847794 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Cottingham, J. (Ed.). (1992). The Cambridge companion to Descartes. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521366232 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Einstein, A. (1920). Relativity: The special and the general theory (R. W. Lawson, Trans.). Methuen. (Original work published 1916) [Google Scholar]
  • Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5–15. [Google Scholar]
  • Gendler, T. S. (2004). Thought experiments rethought—and reperceived. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 1152–1163. https://doi.org/10.1086/425239 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. The Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960077 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Mach, E. (1915). The science of mechanics: A critical and historical account of its development (T. J. McCormack, Trans., 3rd ed.). Open Court. (Original work published 1883).. [Google Scholar]
  • Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  • Putnam, H. (1996). The meaning of “meaning”. In A. Pessin & S. Goldberg (Eds.), The Twin Earth chronicles: Twenty years of reflection on Hilary Putnam’s “The meaning of ‘meaning’” (pp. 3–52). M. E. Sharpe. (Essay originally published 1975). [Google Scholar]
  • Rescher, N. (2005). What if? Thought experimentation in philosophy. Transaction Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  • Runcheva T., H. (2013). John Rawls: Justice as fairness behind the veil of ignorance. Iustinianus Primus Law Review, 4(2), 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  • Schrödinger, E. (1935). Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. Naturwissenschaften, 23, 807–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01491891 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Searle, J. R. (1982). The Chinese room revisited. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 345–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00012425 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Sorensen, R. A. (1992). Thought experiments. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  • Winner, E. (2000). Giftedness: Current theory and research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00082 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]