Investigating the nature of formal reasoning in chemistry: Testing Lawson's multiple hypothesis theory

Abstract

Lawson (1992) posited the multiple hypothesis theory to explain the essence of scientific reasoning. According to this theory, the essence of scientific reasoning is "the ability to initiate reasoning with more than one antecedent condition." The present study tests the assumptions of this theory with high school students in general experience areas and in chemistry. The findings are generally in support of the theory's assumptions. This article also contains a theoretical discussion which points out how the theory needs to be extended before it can justifiably "constitute the core of a viable alternative theory of reason- Student scores on Piagetian measures of formal reasoning have consistently shown appreciable correlation with achievements in science and other areas (e.g., Lawson, 1978;Roadrangka, Yeany, & Padilla, 1983). It is still not clear, however, what the essence of this formal reasoning is. Lawson (1992) posited the multiple hypothesis theory as the core of an empirically based view regarding the essence of scientific reasoning. According to this theory, the essence of scientific reasoning is "the ability to initiate reasoning with more than one antecedent condition" (p. 965). This theory therefore predicts that a person with superior formal reasoning powers will tend to use conditional rather than biconditional logic, and furthermore, that the context also plays a role in determining the type of logic used. Lawson (1992) tested the basic assumptions of the multiple hypothesis theory using general logic tasks with college students.The present study was aimed at testing the multiple hypothesis theory by analyzing the responses of high school students not only on general logic tasks, but also on logic tasks based on basic chemical concepts. The Lawson (1992) study identified "the ability to initiate reasoning with more than one antecedent condition" as an important dimension of formal reasoning, and the results from the study suggest that students can exhibit this type of reasoning in "general experience" contexts. The question addressed by the present study was whether students can exhibit this type of reasoning in the context of basic general chemistry. The study also investigated whether those students identified as formal operational exhibit this type of thinking to a greater extent than students identified as concrete thinkers.

Examining Prospective Teachers’ Logical Reasoning Ability: The Longeot’s Test of Cognitive Development

“…Testteki sorular incelendiğinde ağırlıklı olarak olasılık sorularından oluştuğu görülmektedir. Norman (1997) Lawson (1978) tarafından geliştirilen Lawson Mantıksal Düşünme Testi (MDT) Türkçe'ye Yüzüak (2012) tarafından uyarlanmıştır. Test, kütlenin ve hacminin korunumu, orantısal düşünme, değişenlerin kontrolü, olasılıklı, korelasyonel ve hipotetik düşünmeye ilişkin 15 sorudan oluşmaktadır.…”

Logical Reasoning Ability and Student Performance in General Chemistry

“…Since the 1970s, the identification of predictors of academic performance in science courses has been an object of study among science education researchers − . During past years, student performance in science courses has been analyzed on the basis of high school experiences , precalculus grades , mathematics diagnostics , verbal and mathematics components of the SAT , and ACT , mental capacity measured as M-Demand through the Figural Intersection Test , formal operational reasoning measured by using the Test of Logical Thinking and the Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT) test ,, , and disembedding ability measured through the Group Embedded Figures Test , among many others.…”

The Classification of the Reaction Type of Student in the Process of Generating and Evaluating Scientific Hypotheses

“…과학적 현 상에는 다양한 요인이 작용할 수 있으므로 기대되는 결과가 얻어지지 않았다고 해서 그 가 설이 틀렸다고 단정지을 수는 없으므로 가설에 반하는 예측 결과가 관찰되었을 경우에도 가 설이 거짓이라고 결론을 내리기 전에 다른 요인들의 영향에 대하여 고려해 보아야 할 것이 다. 가설의 검증 과정에서 나타날 수 있는 이와 같은 오류들에 대하여 연구한 결과에 의하 면 자신이 가지고 있는 기존의 이론에 기초하여 설정한 가설이 실험이나 관찰에서 얻은 증 거에 기초하여 검증될 때 학생들은 실제로 많은 오류를 범하고 있음이 나타났다 (Kuhn, Amsel, & O'Loughoin, 1988;Norman, 1997;Park et al, 2001).…”

“…가설의 설정 과정과 검증 과정을 분석한 일부 연구 결과들은 가설의 설정과 검증 과정의 단계, 학생들이 주로 나타내는 반응이나 오류의 유형, 탐구 수행 시의 어려움 등에 대한 정 보를 제공해준다 (Norman, 1997;Park et al, 2001;권용주․정진수․박윤복 외, 2003;박종원, 2001…”