In this study, we have explored the effectiveness of two instructional approaches in the context of the motion of objects falling at terminal speed in the presence of air resistance. We ground these instructional approaches in dual-process theories of reasoning, which assert that human cognition relies on two thinking processes. Dual-process theories suggest multiple possible avenues by which instruction might impact student reasoning. In this paper, we compare two possible instructional approaches: one designed to reinforce the normative approach (improving the outputs of the intuitive process) and another that guides students to reflect on and analyze their initial ideas (supporting the analytic process). The results suggest that for students who have already demonstrated a minimum level of requisite knowledge, instruction that supports analysis of their likely intuitive mental model leads to greater learning benefits in the short term than instruction that focuses solely on providing practice with the normative mindware. These results have implications for the design of instructional materials and help to demonstrate how dual-process theories can be leveraged to explain the success of existing research-based materials.