Thought Experiments Can Enhance Science Learning 

Thought experiments — asking students to imagine outcomes — can be just as powerful for learning science as hands-on activities, according to new research from Associate Professor Elizabeth Bonawitz and HGSE postdoctoral fellow Igor Bascandziev. While hands-on experiments have their place, learning also grows when children are given the time and space to imagine, ponder, and mentally work through problems. This kind of “minds-on” engagement, Bonawitz says, is a dimension that deserves more attention in education alongside hands-on exploration.

“Letting children think things through, giving them time to wonder and puzzle, shows how active learning can also happen through mental experimentation, not only hands-on activity,” Bonawitz says. She notes that thought experiments have the potential to make a real impact on learning and create new classroom practices.

In the paper “The Mind Lab: Thought Experiments as a Means to Teaching Science Effectively and Efficiently,” Bonawitz and Bascandziev, along with coauthors Adani Abutto and Caren Walker, share their findings from a study, funded by the Caplan Foundation, that explores 100 school students’ learning physics concepts. 

Students were assigned to one of three groups: one using thought experiments, one using hands-on experiments, and a baseline group that did not receive the training. Over several weeks, children in the experimental groups engaged in multiple training sessions with experimenters, making predictions, explaining reasoning, and actively thinking through scientific problems, but only children in the hands-on experiments group were able to observe the outcomes of the experiments. At the end of the training, all three groups were given a follow-up test to see how much their learning about physical concepts had improved. While both experimental groups outperformed the baseline group, children who learned through thought experiments showed gains equal to those who participated in hands-on experiments.

“It's really exciting to find that there are ways that you can get children to revise their misconceptions about the materials, mass size, things that young elementary school children struggle with in the physics domains without needing to have expensive science-lab equipment that many schools can't afford,” Bonawitz says. “You can do this kind of intervention called a thought experiment and help them discover the principles by imagining from a psychological and cognitive science point of view.”

Until now, little was known about using thought experiments in the classroom. Few studies in education compared thought-experiment–based lessons to hands-on, real-experiment lessons. Historically, education has often lauded hands-on experiments, which can sometimes be expensive, messy, and even distracting.

Thought experiments can have some advantages over real experiments: they require no special equipment, are low-cost, can be used in a variety of learning environments, and are easily scalable. They are also ideal when hands-on experiments are impossible or when the conditions needed for a physical experiment are difficult to create. 

Bonawitz stresses that thought experiments are not meant to replace hands-on activities in classrooms, but to complement them. They can help students focus on underlying scientific principles and reasoning — skills that are critical for deep learning.

“While science standards state what children need to understand, the question is how do you get a richer, abstract development of knowledge that allows you to set the foundation for flexible and far-reaching thinking about other kinds of scientific concepts,” she says. The study confirms that children often learn facts or “rules” (like “you can’t breathe in space” or “a balloon needs air to inflate”) but at the same time deny that air has material weight or takes of space. The reason for this apparent conflict is a lack of coherent understanding about the material properties of small, light, or invisible entities like air. Thought experiments can offer another way for children to recognize these internal contradictions, to build deeper thinking about science concepts.

Bonawitz highlights three key principles for teachers to begin incorporating thought experiments:

• Trust children’s imagination. Give students space to mentally simulate and puzzle through problems. This kind of “minds-on” work — letting them wonder and make connections — can be just as powerful as hands-on activities for building deep, coherent understanding.
• Ask “why” questions. Begin with broad, open-ended prompts that spark curiosity (“Why do you think a balloon gets bigger when you blow into it?”), then guide students toward refining and testing their ideas.
• Model curiosity. Show students it’s okay not to have all the answers. Wonder aloud, admit uncertainty, and work together to investigate. This normalizes questioning and frames the unknown as an exciting part of learning.

A follow-up study will aim to expand on these findings by comparing three teaching approaches: active learning through thought experiments and student-led predictions, traditional direct instruction, and a baseline control group. Researchers will follow students for several years, measuring not only what they learn, but also how their curiosity about science develops.