Middle School Students’ Approaches to Reasoning about Disconfirming Evidence

Abstract

This study investigated differences in how middle school children reason about disconfirming evidence. Scientists evaluate hypotheses against evidence, rejecting those that are disconfirmed. Although this instant rationality propels empirical science, it works less for theoretical science, where it is often necessary to delay rationality -to tolerate disconfirming evidence in the short run. We used behavioral measures to identify two groups of middle-school children: strict reasoners who prefer instant rationality and quickly dismiss disconfirmed hypotheses, and permissive reasoners who prefer delayed rationality and retain disconfirmed hypotheses for further evaluation. We measured their scientific reasoning performance as well as their cognitive ability and motivational orientation. What distinguished the groups was not overall differences in these variables, but their predictive relation. For strict reasoners, better scientific reasoning was associated with faster processing, whereas for permissive reasoners, better scientific reasoning was associated with more deliberate thinking -slower processing and broader consideration of both disconfirmed and alternate hypotheses. These findings expand our understanding of "normative" scientific reasoning.

Learners’ causal intuitions explain behavior in control of variables tasks.

“…As a result, HOLD and VARY are both equally valid experiments to test the presented causal claims. Thus, contrary to standard interpretations (e.g., Schauble et al, 1991;Toplak et al, 2013;Zimmerman & Klahr, 2018), learners' failure to consistently select VARY in this task (as seen in Tschirgi, 1980 but also Croker & Buchanan, 2011;Varma et al, 2018;Zimmerman & Glaser, 2001) is not necessarily evidence of failed scientific inquiry or prioritization of tangible outcomes over information value.…”

“…This study and its conclusions have remained central to research on the experimentation abilities of self-directed learners. It is considered a standard assessment of CVS, serving as the basis for subsequent empirical research (e.g., Croker & Buchanan, 2011; Moeller et al, 2022; Varma et al, 2018; Zimmerman & Glaser, 2001) and highlighted in recent reviews as the primary example of learners’ failure in formal experimentation (see Toplak et al, 2013; Zimmerman & Klahr, 2018).…”

Rethinking the “gap”: Self‐directed learning in cognitive development and scientific reasoning

“…Despite this fact, subsequent research has expanded on Tschirgi's (1980) conclusion both empirically (e.g., Varma et al, 2018;Zimmerman & Glaser, 2001) and theoretically (Schauble, 1990;Schauble et al, 1991). For example, a recent study by Croker and Buchanan (2011) used a similar design to examine whether children's prior beliefs about the content of the problem (e.g., dental health) would influence their selection of hypothesis tests.…”

An Analysis of Students’ Cognitive Bias in Experimental Activities Following a Lab Manual

“…Most people only focus on a few pieces of information and make decisions using empirical and intuitive reasoning based on a simplified model because they are not able to quickly identify and integrate the vast amount of information before them when making decisions [19]. Therefore, heuristic thinking sometimes hinders rational and logical decision making [18] and is likely to result in abnormal problem solving by cognitive bias [20].In the field of science education, various studies have been conducted on confirming bias in scientific reasoning [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. In the context of scientific reasoning, confirmation bias is considered to mislead explanations, blinded by the evidence that is inconsistent with beliefs, and disable logical and rational explanations based on evidence [29].…”

“…In the field of science education, various studies have been conducted on confirming bias in scientific reasoning [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. In the context of scientific reasoning, confirmation bias is considered to mislead explanations, blinded by the evidence that is inconsistent with beliefs, and disable logical and rational explanations based on evidence [29].…”