Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses

Abstract

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.

Efficacy of Multimedia Learning Modules as Preparation for Lecture-Based Tutorials in Electromagnetism

“…In these two semesters, we were utilizing TIP and JiTT pedagogies, which are both research-verified methods that have been shown to produce normalized gains on the CSEM considerably above "traditional" pedagogy. As discussed, successful implementation of new pedagogies requires caution, specifically because research shows that different populations can respond very differently to reformed instruction [13,16,17]. However, we should caution the reader to first consider the limitations of normalized gain, specifically with respect to the relatively small population sizes within the groups under study.…”

“…As we have discussed earlier in this paper, successful implementation of reformed pedagogies requires caution, specifically because research has shown that different populations can respond differently to reformed instruction based on scientific reasoning ability, motivation, major, general academic preparation, and student buy-in to the reformed methods [13,16,17]. In particular, responses across science majors may be possible, with natural science majors (biology, marine science, etc.)…”

“…It should be noted that there are significant criticisms concerning the limitations of normalized gain as a metric. Specifically, Colletta and Phillips and Moore and Rubbo question the independence of gain to pre-score and scientific reasoning ability, respectively [16,30]. Miller et al further highlight the inability of normalized gain to capture information about potential conceptual losses, since the measurement "implicitly assumes that losses are zero" [31].…”

“…However, successful implementation of new pedagogies requires caution, specifically because research shows that different populations can respond very differently to reformed instruction based on scientific reasoning ability, motivation, major, and general academic preparation [13,[16][17][18]. In particular, non-science majors in college level courses may respond differently to science majors to the same instruction.…”

Verification of causal influences of reasoning skills and epistemology on physics conceptual learning

“…Physics education research, as a pioneer in this regard, has put forward several key factors that are postulated to exert significant influences on student learning. Among them are student reasoning skills [2][3][4][5] and epistemological sophistication levels [6,7]-two factors that have recently become the focus of many studies.…”