Research in Science Education

, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp 613–632 | Cite as

Variations in University Students’ Scientific Reasoning Skills Across Majors, Years, and Types of Institutions

Article

Abstract

This study investigates three aspects—university major, year, and institution type—in relation to student scientific reasoning. Students from three majors (science, engineering, and education), four year levels (years 1 through 4), and two tiers of Chinese universities (tiers 1 and 2) participated in the study. A large-scale written assessment was conducted using the Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR). A series of analysis of variance showed that, although science and engineering majors exhibited higher reasoning skills than education majors and first-tier university attendees higher than second-tier university attendees, student reasoning skills measured by the LCTSR remained nearly constant across the four year levels of higher education, a recurring pattern for all majors and university tiers. Results suggest that current higher education in China has little influence on student scientific reasoning, regardless of what students learn, how long they receive higher education, and what type of institutions they attend. Implications of the study call our attention to the status quo and urge us to rethink meaningful ways that can help students increase key proficiencies needed in scientific practices, such as successful reasoning skills.

Keywords

Scientific reasoning Content learning Lawson classroom test of scientific reasoning Discipline, quantity, and quality of learning 

Supplementary material

11165_2015_9473_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.6 mb)
ESM 1(DOC 1.55 MB)

References

  1. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  2. Allchin, D. (2003). Lawson’s shoehorn, or should the philosophy of science be rated ‘x’? Science & Education, 12(3), 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K. M., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., et al. (2009). Learning and scientific reasoning. Science, 323(5914), 586–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  5. BouJaoude, S., Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick. (2004). Relationships between selective cognitive variables and students’ ability to solve chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandt, S., & Duckor, B. (2013). Increasing unidimensional measurement precision using a multidimensional item response model approach. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(2), 148–161.Google Scholar
  7. Briggs, D., & Wilson, M. (2003). An introduction to multidimensional measurement using Rasch models. Journal of Applied Measurement, 4(1), 87–100.Google Scholar
  8. Carmel, J. H., & Yezierski, E. J. (2013). Are we keeping the promise? Investigation of students’ critical thinking growth. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 71–81.Google Scholar
  9. Case, R. (1992). The mind’s staircase: exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Chang, C.-Y. (2010). Does problem solving = prior knowledge + reasoning skills in earth science? An exploratory study. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2003). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Demetriou, A., Shayer, M., & Efklides, A. (2006). Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: implications and applications for education. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Ding, L. (2014a). Seeking missing pieces in science concept assessments: reevaluating the brief electricity and magnetism assessment through Rasch analysis. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(1), 010105. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.010105
  14. Ding, L. (2014b). Verification of causal influences of reasoning skills and epistemology on physics conceptual learning. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 10(2), 023101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.023101
  15. Dunbar, K., & Klahr, D. (2012). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 701–718). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Einstein, A. (1950). Out of my late years. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  17. Fencl, H. S. (2010). Development of students’ critical-reasoning skills through content-focused activities in a general education course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(5), 56–62.Google Scholar
  18. Greenhoot, A. F., Semb, G., Colombo, J., & Schreiber, T. (2004). Prior beliefs and methodological concepts in scientific reasoning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(2), 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (2005). Dialogue as data: assessing students' scientific reasoning with interactive protocols. In J. J. Minizes, J. Wandersee H, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: a human constructivist view (pp. 95–127). Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (2005). Thinking and reasoning: a reader’s guide. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 1–7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jensen, J. L., & Lawson, A. E. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, D. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 285–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhn, D. (2002). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 371–393). Malden: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhn, D. (2007). Jumping to conclusions—can people be counted on to make sound judgments? Scientific American Mind, 18(1), 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhn, D. (2009). Do students need to be taught how to reason? Educational Research Review, 4(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Connecting scientific reasoning and causal inferences. Journal of Cognition and Development, 5(2), 261–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lavrakas, P. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawson, A. E. (2000). Classroom test of scientific reasoning: multiple choice version. Based on a. E. Lawson, "development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning". Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(1), 11–24. 1978.Google Scholar
  30. Lawson, A. E. (2004). The nature and development of scientific reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 307–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawson, A. E. (2005). What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 716–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lawson, A. E., Alkhoury, S., Benford, R., Clark, B. R., & Falconer, K. A. (2000). What kinds of scientific concepts exist? Concept construction and intellectual development in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 996–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, J. A. (2000). The scientific endeavor: a primer on scientific principles and practice. San Francisco: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  34. Liu, X. (2010). Using and developing measurement instruments in science education: a Rasch modeling approach: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Liu, X., Liang, L., & Liu, E. (2012). Science education research in China: challenges and promises. International Journal of Science Education, 34(13), 1961–1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marusic, M., & Slisko, J. (2012). Influence of three different methods of teaching physics on the gain in students’ development of reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MOE. (1999). Higher education law of the People's Republic of China. Beijing: Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (MOE-PRC).Google Scholar
  38. MOE. (2004). Regulations on academic degrees of the People's Republic of China. Beijing: Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (MOE-PRC).Google Scholar
  39. MOE. (2012a). 2012 National ranking of higher education. Beijing: Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (MOE-PRC).Google Scholar
  40. MOE. (2012b). National evaluation of higher education. Beijing: Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (MOE-PRC).Google Scholar
  41. Moore, J. C., & Rubbo, L. J. (2012). Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010106. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010106
  42. Nickerson, R. S. (2004). Teaching reasoning. In J. P. Leighton & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of reasoning (pp. 410–442). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Nieminen, P., Savinainen, A., & Viiri, J. (2012). Relations between representational consistency, conceptual understanding of the force concept, and scientific reasoning. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010123. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010123
  44. NRC. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: National Research Council, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.Google Scholar
  45. OECD. (2012). PISA 2009 technical report: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Oliva, J. (2003). The structural coherence of students’ conceptions in mechanics and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 25(5), 539–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schunn, C., & Anderson, J. R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 337–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsitsipis, G., Stamovlasis, D., & Papageorgiou, G. (2010). The effect of three cognitive variables on students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and its changes of state. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 987–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zeineddin, A., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2010). Scientific reasoning and epistemological commitments: coordination of theory and evidence among college science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1064–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang, P., & Ding, L. (2013). Large-scale survey of Chinese precollege students’ epistemological beliefs about physics: a progression or a regression? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(1), 1–9. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20(1), 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching and LearningThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Physics Editorial DepartmentPeople’s Education PressBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of Learning and InstructionState University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations