Conditional Reasoning With False Premises Facilitates the Transition Between Familiar and Abstract Reasoning

Markovits, Henry; Lortie‐Forgues, Hugues

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01526.x

Cited by 27 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The specific difficulty that participants found in successfully extracting the structure from specific alternatives is in turn consistent with empirical results showing that understanding abstract uncertainty is very difficult even among well-educated university students (e.g., Venet and Markovits 2001). In fact, this difficulty provides a very plausible explanation for the lack of transfer between concrete reasoning with familiar premises and abstract reasoning (Markovits and Lortie Forgues 2010).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…The procedures used in these two studies are much stronger than the transfer between familiar, concrete reasoning used in Markovits and Lortie Forgues (2010) study, but the results remain identical. Finally, it should be acknowledged that some of the variability in these results might be due to the use of different pre-and post-test problems.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 40%

“…Using Karmiloff-Smith (1995) representational redescription model, they hypothesized that a key component of the transition to abstract conditional reasoning was the ability to construct contrary to fact alternatives, i.e., alternative antecedents to empirically false conditional statements. Consistent with this idea, Markovits and Lortie Forgues (2010) found that adolescents who were given familiar conditional reasoning problems initially showed no benefit to subsequent abstract reasoning, despite a high level of success on the former. Although this study did not specifically examine this, it suggests that analogical transfer between the familiar, concrete conditional reasoning and abstract conditional reasoning should be very limited.…”

mentioning

confidence: 50%

“…Not necessarily. The theoretical approach suggested by Markovits and Lortie Forgues (2010) provides another alternative. They have suggested that a key component to understanding the underlying structure of abstract uncertainty required for making the correct AC and DA inferences requires an active ability to generate alternatives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…However, Markovits and Lortie Forgues (2010) have recently presented evidence that suggests that analogical transfer based on familiar knowledge-based reasoning might not in fact be a useful way to promote abstract reasoning. Using Karmiloff-Smith (1995) representational redescription model, they hypothesized that a key component of the transition to abstract conditional reasoning was the ability to construct contrary to fact alternatives, i.e., alternative antecedents to empirically false conditional statements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Using analogy to improve abstract conditional reasoning in adolescents: not as easy as it looks

Markovits

Doyon

2010

Eur J Psychol Educ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

reasoning refers to the ability to reason logically with premises that do not allow reference to knowledge about the real world. This form of reasoning is complex and difficult, and at the same time, it is critical for understanding science and mathematics. Two studies examined the use of analogy as a method to bridge reasoning with familiar content and abstract reasoning among older adolescents. The results showed that the ability to make an appropriate analogy depends on reasoning ability. Neither of the two procedures used resulted in an improvement in abstract reasoning. However, generating an inappropriate analogy actually decreased abstract reasoning performance among students who showed greater initial levels of reasoning ability. These results highlight the problems associated with using familiar reasoning as a basis for learning abstract reasoning skills.Keywords Reasoning . Abstract . Analogy . Learning Logical reasoning involves the ability to make necessary deductions on the basis of some given premises which are considered to be true. The nature of deductive reasoning is an important question for many domains of study, such as education, philosophy, and cognitive psychology (e.g., Bennett 2003; Evans and Over 2004). The developmental study of reasoning was initially framed by Piaget's seminal studies on formal thinking (e.g., Inhelder and Piaget 1958). According to the Piagetian framework, cognitive development proceeds more or less ineluctably through a sequence of stages, reaching its culmination in the stage of formal reasoning. One of the major characteristics of this stage of thinking is the ability to reason deductively in an abstract way, that is, to reason strictly on the basis of the logical form of an argument while ignoring any information provided by the content of the premises. The ability Eur J Psychol Educ (2011) 26:355-372 to reason abstractly in a logical way is particularly important for understanding the underlying structure of both mathematical reasoning and the physical sciences since these require the ability to make logical deductions about objects with which people often have no experience or direct contact.Unfortunately, one of the clearest conclusions of the many studies that have examined reasoning is that deductive reasoning is difficult even for educated adults (Bucci 1978;Klaczynski and Narashimham 1998;Markovits 1985), and that one of the most remarkable characteristics of reasoning in children and adults is its variability. Many studies have documented the fact that when the specific content of premises varies, the inferences that are drawn change (Cummins 1995;Cummins et al. 1991;Markovits and Vachon 1990;Thompson 1994). These studies suggest that people tend to make inferences in a way that capitalizes on their empirical knowledge about premises, although the nature of such processes remains an open question (e.g., Markovits and Barrouillet 2002;Oaksford and Chater 2001;Overton 1990).Irrespective of the specific model, understanding how people reason with premises ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 40%

mentioning

confidence: 50%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Using analogy to improve abstract conditional reasoning in adolescents: not as easy as it looks

Markovits

Doyon

2010

Eur J Psychol Educ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Development of Reasoning

Ricco

2015

Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter discusses the course of development for deductive and inductive forms of reasoning across childhood and adolescence. Key theories of how best to account for that course are critiqued. The development of deduction is considered primarily with respect to syllogistic and conditional reasoning. Mental logic, metacognitive, and mental models accounts of deduction are contrasted and compared and the potential for rapprochement is identified. The development of inductive reasoning is discussed with respect to three primary types of induction—category‐based induction, causal induction, and inductive processes in scientific thinking. The discussion of the development of reasoning provided in this chapter is situated within a dual systems or dual process account of cognition. According to this account, human cognition consists of two distinct systems (1 and 2) or types of processing, with the primary basis for the distinction being the question of whether processing engages working memory resources. By adopting this framework, it becomes possible to shed light on the processes that underlie deductive and inductive reasoning and to trace how the development of each type of reasoning is related to changes in these underlying processes. Among the key conclusions of the chapter is that while the development of certain aspects of System 1 processing contributes to age‐related changes in performance on reasoning tasks, the most significant changes in both deductive and inductive reasoning result from key developments in System 2 processing.

show abstract

Using Primary Knowledge: an Efficient Way To Motivate Students and Promote the Learning of Formal Reasoning

Lespiau

Tricot

2019

Educ Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to Geary's evolutionary approach, humans are able to easily acquire primary knowledge and, with more efforts, secondary knowledge. The present study investigates how primary knowledge contents can facilitate the learning of formal logical rules i.e. secondary knowledge. Framing formal logical problems in evolutionary salient contexts should increase learners' efficiency, motivation and engagement in learning compared with framing logical problems in secondary knowledge. In two experiments, high school students (n=210) had to train with syllogisms of unknown content (to reduce the use of prior knowledge) and which could be related to primary knowledge (rules about invented food and animals) or secondary knowledge (fictitious mathematics and grammar rules) in order to best pass a final test. The training phase was compulsory or left to learners' choice. In a third experiment, participants (university students, n=227) were confronted with three phases: (i) a priming phase consisting of problems with primary or secondary knowledge contents, then (ii) a training phase consisting of secondary knowledge only and (iii) the final test. Results confirmed the positive influence of primary knowledge in a learning task: participants were more efficient, more motivated, more confident and experienced less cognitive load when confronted with primary knowledge compared to secondary knowledge. In particular, primary knowledge favored the involvement and persistence of learners in the training phase regardless of their personal characteristics unlike secondary knowledge. Finally, presenting primary knowledge first and then secondary knowledge was more efficient both in terms of performance and motivation. The evolutionary approach to knowledge would provide a framework for developing a way to present new content that is cost-efficient in keeping learners motivated, whatever their age or personal characteristics.

show abstract

Conditional Reasoning With False Premises Facilitates the Transition Between Familiar and Abstract Reasoning

Cited by 27 publications

References 29 publications

Using analogy to improve abstract conditional reasoning in adolescents: not as easy as it looks

Using analogy to improve abstract conditional reasoning in adolescents: not as easy as it looks

The Development of Reasoning

Using Primary Knowledge: an Efficient Way To Motivate Students and Promote the Learning of Formal Reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About