Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses

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 comparis...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: J. Christopher Moore*, Louis J. Rubbo†
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: American Physical Society 2012-02-01
Series:Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research
Online Access:http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010106
id doaj-75ff28f69c6e434cbf6e2b7911aab764
record_format Article
spelling doaj-75ff28f69c6e434cbf6e2b7911aab7642020-11-24T20:48:54ZengAmerican Physical SocietyPhysical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research1554-91782012-02-0181Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based coursesJ. Christopher Moore*Louis J. Rubbo†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.http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010106
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author J. Christopher Moore*
Louis J. Rubbo†
spellingShingle J. Christopher Moore*
Louis J. Rubbo†
Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses
Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research
author_facet J. Christopher Moore*
Louis J. Rubbo†
author_sort J. Christopher Moore*
title Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses
title_short Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses
title_full Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses
title_fullStr Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses
title_full_unstemmed Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses
title_sort scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses
publisher American Physical Society
series Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research
issn 1554-9178
publishDate 2012-02-01
description 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.
url http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010106
work_keys_str_mv AT jchristophermoore scientificreasoningabilitiesofnonsciencemajorsinphysicsbasedcourses
AT louisjrubbo scientificreasoningabilitiesofnonsciencemajorsinphysicsbasedcourses
_version_ 1716807544821776384