Does Concrete Content Help People to Reason Scientifically?

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jana Bašnáková, Vladimíra Čavojová, Jakub Šrol
{"title":"Does Concrete Content Help People to Reason Scientifically?","authors":"Jana Bašnáková,&nbsp;Vladimíra Čavojová,&nbsp;Jakub Šrol","doi":"10.1007/s11191-021-00207-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this paper, we explored the scientific literacy of a general sample of the Slovak adult population and examined factors that might help or inhibit scientific reasoning, namely the content of the problems. In doing so, we also verified the assumption that when faced with real-life scientific problems, people do not necessarily apply decontextualized knowledge of methodological principles, but reason from the bottom up, i.e. by predominantly relying on heuristics based on what they already know or believe about the topic. One thousand and twelve adults completed three measures of scientific literacy (science knowledge, scientific reasoning, attitudes to science) and several other related constructs (numeracy, need for cognition, PISA tasks). In general, Slovak participants’ performance on scientific reasoning tasks was fairly low and dependent on the context in which the problems were presented—there was a 63% success rate for a version with concrete problems and a 56% success rate for the decontextualized version. The main contribution of this study is a modification and validation of the scientific reasoning scale using a large sample size, which allows for more thorough testing of all components of scientific literacy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56374,"journal":{"name":"Science & Education","volume":"30 4","pages":"809 - 826"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11191-021-00207-0","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-021-00207-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

In this paper, we explored the scientific literacy of a general sample of the Slovak adult population and examined factors that might help or inhibit scientific reasoning, namely the content of the problems. In doing so, we also verified the assumption that when faced with real-life scientific problems, people do not necessarily apply decontextualized knowledge of methodological principles, but reason from the bottom up, i.e. by predominantly relying on heuristics based on what they already know or believe about the topic. One thousand and twelve adults completed three measures of scientific literacy (science knowledge, scientific reasoning, attitudes to science) and several other related constructs (numeracy, need for cognition, PISA tasks). In general, Slovak participants’ performance on scientific reasoning tasks was fairly low and dependent on the context in which the problems were presented—there was a 63% success rate for a version with concrete problems and a 56% success rate for the decontextualized version. The main contribution of this study is a modification and validation of the scientific reasoning scale using a large sample size, which allows for more thorough testing of all components of scientific literacy.

具体内容能帮助人们进行科学推理吗?
在本文中,我们探讨了斯洛伐克成年人口的一般样本的科学素养,并检查了可能有助于或抑制科学推理的因素,即问题的内容。在这样做的过程中,我们还验证了这样一个假设,即当面对现实生活中的科学问题时,人们不一定会应用非情境化的方法论原则知识,而是自下而上地进行推理,即主要依靠基于他们已经知道或相信的主题的启发式。112名成年人完成了三项科学素养测试(科学知识、科学推理、对科学的态度)和其他一些相关结构(计算能力、认知需求、PISA任务)。总的来说,斯洛伐克参与者在科学推理任务上的表现相当低,并且依赖于问题呈现的背景——有具体问题的版本有63%的成功率,而非情境化版本有56%的成功率。本研究的主要贡献是使用大样本量对科学推理量表进行了修改和验证,从而可以对科学素养的所有组成部分进行更彻底的测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Science & Education
Science & Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science & Education publishes research informed by the history, philosophy and sociology of science and mathematics that seeks to promote better teaching, learning, and curricula in science and mathematics. More particularly Science & Education promotes: The utilization of historical, philosophical and sociological scholarship to clarify and deal with the many intellectual issues facing contemporary science and mathematics education.  Collaboration between the communities of scientists, mathematicians, historians, philosophers, cognitive psychologists, sociologists, science and mathematics educators, and school and college teachers. An understanding of the philosophical, cultural, economic, religious, psychological and ethical dimensions of modern science and the interplay of these factors in the history of science.  The inclusion of appropriate history and philosophy of science and mathematics courses in science and mathematics teacher-education programmes.  The dissemination of accounts of lessons, units of work, and programmes in science and mathematics, at all levels, that have successfully utilized history and philosophy.  Discussion of the philosophy and purposes of science and mathematics education, and their place in, and contribution to, the intellectual and ethical development of individuals and cultures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信