The acquisition of propositional logic and formal operational schemata during the secondary school years

Lawson, Anton E.; Karplus, Robert; Adi, Helen

doi:10.1002/tea.3660150605

Cited by 92 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This matches the findings of Raven [3] and is similar to Lawsons findings [4] which are reproduced in Table 1 It would seem from the figures in the table that the English sample is closer to the younger American group on the correlation questions and to the older group on the probability question. Could it be that the idea of correlation comes earlier in the USA and probability earlier in the UK?…”

Section: The 'Piagetian' Questionssupporting

confidence: 88%

Non‐linear proportionality in science problems

Gill

1993

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A group of students whose school leaving qualifications showed them to be highly numerate and who were studying science subjects at college were investigated with reference to their understanding of the concept of proportionality. This investigation was based on Piagetian-type questions. As a result the group was identified as having both concrete and formal thinkers. In a course designed to teach students to handle non-linear proportionality both sections improved their score on a post-test on non-linear proportionality items but the formal thinkers made a significantly greater improvement. It is suggested that the presence on such a course of concrete thinkers is explained by the different age profile and educational history of the two subgroups. In a later comparison with college examinations in physics, chemistry and pure mathematics, it was found that the students' Piagetian level correlated highly with success in physics, but considerably less so with mathematics. It is suggested that this indicates that mathematicians think in a different mode to users of mathematics (e.g. scientists) and attention is drawn to earlier theories proposing such a difference.

show abstract

Section: The 'Piagetian' Questionssupporting

confidence: 88%

Non‐linear proportionality in science problems

Gill

1993

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A few previous studies are suggestive of such links. For example, Lawson, Karplus, and Adi (1978) found little or no difference between sixth graders' (mean age 12.9 years) and eighth graders' (mean age 14.3 years) use of proportional and probabilistic reasoning. However, they found huge advances in the use of proportional and probabilistic 46 KWON AND LAWSON BRAIN GROWTH 47 reasoning from 8th to 10th graders (mean age 16.1 years).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Linking Brain Growth with the Development of Scientific Reasoning Ability and Conceptual Change during Adolescence

Kwon

Lawson

2000

J. Res. Sci. Teach.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hypothesis that an early adolescent brain growth plateau and spurt exists and that this plateau and spurt influence students' ability to reason scientifically and to learn theoretical science concepts was tested. In theory, maturation of the prefrontal lobes during early adolescence allows for improvements in students' abilities to inhibit task-irrelevant information and coordinate task-relevant information, which along with both physical and social experience influences scientific reasoning ability and the ability to reject scientific misconceptions and accept scientific conceptions. Two hundred ten students ages 13 -16 years enrolled in four Korean secondary schools were administered tests of four prefrontal lobe activities, a test of scientific reasoning ability, and a test of air pressure concepts derived from kinetic-molecular theory. A series of 14 lessons designed to teach the concepts were then taught. The concepts test was then readministered following instruction. As predicted, among the 13-and 14-year-olds, performance on the prefrontal lobe measures remained similar or regressed. Performance then improved considerably among the 15-and 16-year-olds. Also as expected, the measures of prefrontal lobe activity correlated highly with scientific reasoning ability. In turn, prefrontal lobe activity and scientific reasoning ability predicted concept gains and posttest performance. A principal components analysis showed that the study variables had two main components, which were interpreted as an inhibiting and a representing component. Therefore, theoretical concept acquisition was interpreted as a process involving both the inhibition of task-irrelevant information (i.e., the rejection of intuitively derived misconceptions) and the representation of task-relevant information (i.e, complex hypothetico-deductive arguments and counterintuitive scientific conceptions about nonobservable entities). © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 37: [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] 2000 Theoretical RationaleThe purpose of the present research was to test the theory that the acquisition of theoretical concepts (e.g., air pressure) as a consequence of science instruction depends also on the development of hypothetico-deductive reasoning ability. Furthermore, the development of hypothetico-deductive reasoning depends in part on maturation of the brain's prefrontal lobes. In theory, the acquisition of a theoretical concept such as air pressure depends in part on the development of hypothetico-deductive reasoning ability because this ability is needed to construct arguments used to reject intuitively derived misconceptions (e.g., suction) prior to acquiring theoretically derived scientific concepts (i.e., undergo the necessary conceptual change). As depicted in Figure 1, the development of hypothetico-deductive reasoning ability depends in part on maturation of the brain's prefrontal lobes. Presumably this is so because such maturation results in increases i...

show abstract

“…Meanwhile Tisher (1970) found that 33% of pupil replies to questions demanding explanation were logically inappropriate, while 20% of the responses accepted by teachers were logically incongruent with the process of explaining demanded by the teacher. More recently, Lawson, Karplus and Adi (1978) found very few students able to solve test items involving propositional logic. Clearly there is room for improvement of student explanations.…”

Section: Evidence That Students Have Difficulty With Argumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clarification of propositions in science teaching

Cook

1985

European Journal of Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acquisition of propositional logic and formal operational schemata during the secondary school years

Cited by 92 publications

References 23 publications

Non‐linear proportionality in science problems

Non‐linear proportionality in science problems

Linking Brain Growth with the Development of Scientific Reasoning Ability and Conceptual Change during Adolescence

Clarification of propositions in science teaching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About