Does Concrete Content Help People to Reason Scientifically?

Abstract

In this paper, we explored the scientific literacy of a general sample of the Slovak adult population and examined factors that might help or inhibit scientific reasoning, namely the content of the problems. In doing so, we also verified the assumption that when faced with real-life scientific problems, people do not necessarily apply decontextualized knowledge of methodological principles, but reason from the bottom up, i.e. by predominantly relying on heuristics based on what they already know or believe about the topic. One thousand and twelve adults completed three measures of scientific literacy (science knowledge, scientific reasoning, attitudes to science) and several other related constructs (numeracy, need for cognition, PISA tasks). In general, Slovak participants’ performance on scientific reasoning tasks was fairly low and dependent on the context in which the problems were presented—there was a 63% success rate for a version with concrete problems and a 56% success rate for the decontextualized version. The main contribution of this study is a modification and validation of the scientific reasoning scale using a large sample size, which allows for more thorough testing of all components of scientific literacy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11191-021-00207-0.

With the little help of science understanding: Examining the direct and indirect role of scientific reasoning and trust in science in normative health behaviour during pandemic

“…The first-order scientific reasoning ability was measured using items based on the Scientific reasoning scale (Drummond & Fischhoff, 2017). For the present study, we used six items that were developed by Bašnáková et al (2021). For example, the "causation vs correlation" item was about increasing birth rate: "A researcher wants to find out how to increase natality.…”

Superlatives, clickbaits, appeals to authority, poor grammar, or boldface: Is editorial style related to the credibility of online health messages?

“…However, developing these cognitive advantages is a long-term and demanding process that should be part of the education system. In reality, it seems that the education system does not meet the need for assessment skills and falls short of the requirements of the modern world ( Bašnáková et al, 2021 : 14–15).…”

“…This is not surprising since the two instruments are performance instruments that have right and wrong answers, and internal consistency is generally preferred for evaluating scale-based instruments. Other researchers have reported comparable levels of reliability measures for scientific reasoning in the localized version of this instrument (see Čavojová and Ersoy, 2020;Bašnáková et al, 2021). The analytical thinking instrument consisted of four items.…”

“…We used the Scientific Reasoning Scale ( Drummond and Fischhoff, 2017 ) adapted by Bašnáková et al (2021) . It contains six items (available at https://osf.io/7vjxd/ ); for example, the “causation vs correlation” item was about increasing the birth rate: “ A researcher wants to find out how to increase natality.…”

Thinking magically or thinking scientifically: Cognitive and belief predictors of complementary and alternative medicine use in women with and without cancer diagnosis

“…Scienti c reasoning was measured using items based on the Scienti c reasoning scale (Drummond & Fischhoff, 2017). For the present study, we used six items that were developed by Bašnáková et al (2021). For example, the "causation vs correlation" item was about increasing birth rate: "A researcher wants to nd out how to increase natality.…”