Prior beliefs and methodological concepts in scientific reasoning

Greenhoot, Andrea Follmer; Semb, George; Colombo, John; Schreiber, Thomas A.

doi:10.1002/acp.959

Cited by 42 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Under this condition, participants tend to evaluate neutral conclusions as they do believable ones. This is also found in other reasoning situations where beliefs and logic are in opposition (e.g., Klaczynski, Gordon & Fauth, 1997;Ditto, Munro, Apanovitch, Scepansky & Lockhart, 2003;Greenhoot, Semb, Colombo & Schreiber, 2004).…”

Section: Deductive Reasoningsupporting

confidence: 61%

Examination of the Belief Bias Effect Across Two Domains of Reasoning

Martin¹

2008

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The belief bias effect -the finding that prior beliefs influence judgments of logic and evidencehas been a topic of much empirical investigation in both deductive and causal reasoning.However, to date, no research has examined the degree to which such biases are the result of common or distinct mechanisms in these two domains. By using common scales of measurement, I examine the degree to which individuals show common biases in these two domains in two experiments. Surprisingly, although the belief bias effect was observed in both paradigms, biases in one domain were unreliably associated with biases in the other domain. Experiment 2 included 6 measures of individual differences in an attempt to uncover the observation of differential biases in these domains. Dogmatism was found to be the single most predictive measure of belief bias, but only in deductive reasoning. These data are discussed in terms of dual process theories of reasoning.iv

show abstract

Section: Deductive Reasoningsupporting

confidence: 61%

Examination of the Belief Bias Effect Across Two Domains of Reasoning

Martin¹

2008

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scientific reasoning and metacognitive development are often required for effective decision making and problem solving far outside the typical scientific context [6][7][8]. Furthermore, it has been shown that gains in physics content knowledge are strongly correlated to scientific reasoning [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses

Moore

Rubbo

2012

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have found that non-STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) majors taking either a conceptual physics or astronomy course at two regional comprehensive institutions score significantly lower preinstruction on the Lawson's Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR) in comparison to national average STEM majors. Based on LCTSR score, the majority of non-STEM students can be classified as either concrete operational or transitional reasoners in Piaget's theory of cognitive development, whereas in the STEM population formal operational reasoners are far more prevalent. In particular, non-STEM students demonstrate significant difficulty with proportional and hypothetico-deductive reasoning. Prescores on the LCTSR are correlated with normalized learning gains on various concept inventories. The correlation is strongest for content that can be categorized as mostly theoretical, meaning a lack of directly observable exemplars, and weakest for content categorized as mostly descriptive, where directly observable exemplars are abundant. Although the implementation of research-verified, interactive engagement pedagogy can lead to gains in content knowledge, significant gains in theoretical content (such as force and energy) are more difficult with non-STEM students. We also observe no significant gains on the LCTSR without explicit instruction in scientific reasoning patterns. These results further demonstrate that differences in student populations are important when comparing normalized gains on concept inventories, and the achievement of significant gains in scientific reasoning requires a reevaluation of the traditional approach to physics for non-STEM students.

show abstract

“…This article provides a model for wellresearched PSI and related Socratic teaching methods that can be applied to all graduate public health instruction. 19 While more formal control procedures could be used in the experimental evaluation of similar classes, we recommend that, at a minimum, objective measures of knowledge be assessed routinely on a pretest and posttest basis. Doing so provides quasi-experimental evidence of learning attributable to the specific class, and it provides a model to students for the routine use of research methods in the delivery of services.…”

Section: Standards For Teaching Public Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Academics: Teaching Research Methods to Graduate Students in Public Health

Hovell

Adams²,

Semb

2008

Public Health Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(IOM) recommended improved instruction in quantitative methods and research skills in public health. 1 The IOM emphasized the ethical commitment of public health professionals to use quantitative knowledge to reduce suffering and enhance quality of life. A Harvard study found that two-thirds of the alumni ranked quantitative skills as directly applicable to their profession, supporting IOM's position. 2 The IOM report recognized inadequate education and training of the workforce as one of the causes of disarray. 1 The Public Health Faculty/Agency Forum addressed the educational dimensions of IOM's findings, and core competencies were developed for Master of Public Health (MPH) students. 3 Embedded in these competencies were specific objectives: the ability to (1) define, assess, and understand factors that lead to health promotion and disease prevention, (2) understand research designs and methods, (3) make inferences based on data, (4 ) collect and summarize data, (5) develop methods to evaluate programs, (6) evaluate the integrity of data, and (7) present scientific information to professional and lay audiences. The Forum also suggested that faculty review, evaluate, and refine established courses and develop new ones. However, the Forum did not outline teaching strategies to achieve these objectives. 4 Employing improved teaching methods implies stronger evaluations of existing classes from which stronger teaching methods may be derived.Two methods of instruction have been empirically validated: Keller's Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) 5 and Socratic-Type Programming. 5,6 Keller emphasized the following components: (1) identification of specific terminal skills or knowledge, (2) individualized instruction, (3) use of teaching assistants, and (4 ) use of lectures as a way to motivate students, not just to transmit information. PSI has been more effective than conventional instruction in a variety of educational settings and has increased student achievement and consumer satisfaction more than conventional instruction. 7,8 Socratic-Type instruction emphasizes student responses during lecture, rather than presentations by instructors. 6,9,10 PSI calls for active responding in the classroom and the Socratic Method is one means of achieving this response. Moran and Malott summarize the empirical evidence and most reliable teaching technologies to date, from which it is clear that frequent quizzing coupled with Socratic procedures contributes importantly to learning. 11 A recent study of active learning assessed the use of study guide questions for pending lectures, and outcomes were greater for the study guide than for traditional lecturing. 12 Research methods should be taught and evaluated by the very methods being taught. This requires experimental or quasi-experimental methods to model the application of science for teaching evaluations. Connelly and associates called for the development of reliable and valid measurement of specified competencies in public health education. 13 Sarrel found that the us...

show abstract

Prior beliefs and methodological concepts in scientific reasoning

Cited by 42 publications

References 40 publications

Examination of the Belief Bias Effect Across Two Domains of Reasoning

Examination of the Belief Bias Effect Across Two Domains of Reasoning

Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses

On Academics: Teaching Research Methods to Graduate Students in Public Health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About