Scientific reasoning abilities of non-science majors in physics-based courses

We have found that non-STEM majors taking either a conceptual physics or astronomy course at two regional comprehensive institutions score significantly lower pre-instruction on the Lawson's Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR) in comparison to national average STEM majors. 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. Pre-scores 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 re-evaluation of the traditional approach to physics for non-STEM students.Comment: 18 pages, 4 figures, 3 table

Commentary: The Use of Case-based Learning and Concept Mapping to Teach Students Clinical Reasoning

Introduction: Teaching students as inexperienced clinicians the process of evaluating athletic injuries and medical conditions is often challenging. Utilizing case-based learning and concept mapping as educational tools can facilitate growth in the clinical and diagnostic decision making process. Discussion: Experienced clinicians regularly employ case pattern recognition and hypothetico-deductive reasoning in clinical settings. Each type of reasoning is prone to anchoring and confirmation bias, devaluing relevant information, and framing effect if not utilized correctly. Classroom instructors and preceptors can use case-based learning and concept mapping to help students as inexperienced clinicians organize their thinking and more effectively apply their knowledge. Implications: The use of case-based learning and concept mapping to teach the process of evaluating athletic injuries and medical conditions can help students as inexperienced clinicians: improve clinical reasoning skills; decrease bias; develop more efficient and effective clinical reasoning; become more confident in what steps come next; value clinical data equally and impartially; and more effectively use hypothetico-deductive reasoning

Transforming Problem-Based Learning through Abductive Reasoning

Background: Hypothetico-deductive reasoning is the current approach for reasoning through care situations within problem-based learning (PBL). While this approach is widely used in both PBL and non-PBL curricula, abductive reasoning is recommended (as an alternative approach) due to its broader method for analyzing and explaining care situations within problem-based learning. Method: A step-by-step process rooted in abductive reasoning is proposed and demonstrated as a new way of examining and explaining care situations within problem-based learning. Results: The proposed strategy emphasizes the creation of hypotheses through phenomena detection, development of a causal model, identification of learning needs, recognition of salience, synthesis and reflection. Conclusion: Since the proposed approach has not been implemented previously, its practical implications require research attention which will contribute to the emerging field of abductive reasoning within nursing education. Résumé : Contexte : Dans l’apprentissage par problèmes (APP), le raisonnement hypothético-déductif est l’approche actuellement utilisée pour raisonner à partir de situations de soins. Or, bien que cette approche soit largement utilisée dans les programmes fondés sur l’APP et ceux qui ne le sont pas, le raisonnement abductif est recommandé (comme autre approche) puisque sa méthode d’analyse et d’explication des situations de soins au sein de l’APP est plus vaste. Méthode : Proposer et démontrer un processus étape par étape ancré dans le raisonnement abductif, comme une nouvelle manière d’analyser et d’expliquer des situations de soins dans le cadre de l’APP. Résultats : La stratégie proposée favorise la formulation d’hypothèses par la détection de phénomènes, la mise en place d’un modèle causal, l’identification des besoins d’apprentissage, la reconnaissance de la prépondérance, la synthèse et la réflexion.. Conclusion : Puisque l’approche proposée n’a pas été mise en place auparavant, ses implications pratiques nécessitent des recherches, qui contribueront au domaine émergent du raisonnement abductif dans le cadre de la formation en sciences infirmières

Experienced physicians benefit from analyzing initial diagnostic hypotheses

Background: Most incorrect diagnoses involve at least one cognitive error, of which premature closure is the most prevalent. While metacognitive strategies can mitigate premature closure in inexperienced learners, these are rarely studied in experienced physicians. Our objective here was to evaluate the effect of analytic information processing on diagnostic performance of nephrologists and nephrology residents. Methods: We asked nine nephrologists and six nephrology residents at the University of Calgary and Glasgow University to diagnose ten nephrology cases. We provided presenting features along with contextual information, after which we asked for an initial diagnosis. We then primed participants to use either hypothetico-deductive reasoning or scheme-inductive reasoning to analyze the remaining case data and generate a final diagnosis. Results: After analyzing initial hypotheses, both nephrologists and residents improved the accuracy of final diagnoses (31.1% vs. 65.6%, p < 0.001, and 40.0% vs. 70.0%, p < 0.001, respectively). We found a significant interaction between experience and analytic processing strategy (p = 0.002): nephrology residents had significantly increased odds of diagnostic success when using scheme-inductive reasoning (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 5.69 [1.59, 20.33], p = 0.007), whereas the performance of experienced nephrologists did not differ between strategies (odds ratio 0.57 [0.23, 1.39], p = 0.2). Discussion: Experienced nephrologists and nephrology residents can improve their performance by analyzing initial diagnostic hypotheses. The explanation of the interaction between experience and the effect of different reasoning strategies is unclear, but may relate to preferences in reasoning strategy, or the changes in knowledge structure with experience

The Role of Argumentation in Hypothetico-Deductive Reasoning During Problem-Based Learning in Medical Education: A Conceptual Framework

One of the important goals of problem-based learning (PBL) in medical education is to enhance medical students’ clinical reasoning—hypothetico-deductive reasoning (HDR) in particular—through small group discussions. However, few studies have focused on explicit strategies for promoting students’ HDR during group discussions in PBL. This paper proposes a novel conceptual framework that integrates Toulmin’s argumentation model (1958) into Barrows’s HDR process (1994). This framework explains the structure of argumentation (a claim, data, and a warrant) contextualized in each phase of HDR during PBL. This paper suggests four instructional strategies—understanding argument structures, questioning, elaborating on structural knowledge, and assessing argumentation—for promoting medical students’ argumentation in relation to HDR processes. Further implications of the proposed framework for other disciplines, such as science, legal, and engineering education, are also discussed

Laboratory as an Instrument in Improving the Scientific Reasoning Skills of Pre-Service Science Teachers with Different Cognitive Styles

In this study, it was aimed to investigate the effects of guided inquiry learning approach-based laboratory applications on the scientific reasoning skills of pre-service science teachers with different cognitive styles. Additionally, the opinions of pre-service science teachers with different cognitive styles about the effects of the application carried out in the study on the improvement of their scientific reasoning skills were also examined. The sample consisted of five pre-service science teachers studying at a state university in the west of Turkey. In the study, the partially mixed sequential dominant status design, which is a mixed-method research design, was used. The scientific reasoning skills of the participants were determined by using the Classroom Test of Formal Reasoning, and their cognitive styles were identified with the Group Embedded Figures Test. The opinions of the participants were taken through focus group interviews held after the application. As a result of the analysis, it was observed that the participants with field-dependent and field-intermediate cognitive styles achieved more targeted outcomes compared to those with field-independent cognitive styles. The potential relationship of this finding to the use of the guided inquiry learning approach and the hypothetico-deductive reasoning cycle during the applications was analyzed in terms of the concept of information processing, and recommendations were made for researchers

Effect of Case Presentation on Physical Therapy Students’ Clinical Reasoning

This mixed-methods study investigated the effects of case method presentation on the clinical reasoning hypotheses generated, strategies implemented, and errors made by physical therapy students working through a musculoskeletal clinical problem. The study was framed by Marton and Säljö’s levels of processing, McCrudden’s et al. goal-focusing model, Cognitive Load Theory, and the Model of Domain Learning. Verbatim transcriptions for each problem-solving session was created and coded. Cohen’s kappa was κ = .75 indicating substantial inter-rater reliability for the finalized coding schemes. Quantitative analysis included mean and standard deviation calculations followed by Mann Whitney-U comparisons which detected several significant differences between groups regarding clinical reasoning hypotheses generated, reasoning strategies implemented, and errors made during the problem-solving sessions. Moderate-to-large effect sizes, ranging from r2 = .64–.78, indicated that differences in clinical reasoning between groups was mostly attributed to the case presentation method. Additionally, a qualitative profile enriched the data set by identifying differences in type of knowledge regulation each group exhibited and timing of treatment considerations. Specifically, participants in the simulated patient group were found to regulate more psychomotor skill knowledge compared to the written case study group who exhibited more regulation of propositional knowledge. This research project has already impacted the educational experiences physical therapy students receive in their professional education program. Future research should include multi-institutional investigations with a larger number of participants allowing for better representation of physical therapy students across professional education programs before generalizing any findings

The impact of two multiple-choice question formats on the problem-solving strategies used by novices and experts

BACKGROUND: Pencil-and-paper examination formats, and specifically the standard, five-option multiple-choice question, have often been questioned as a means for assessing higher-order clinical reasoning or problem solving. This study firstly investigated whether two paper formats with differing number of alternatives (standard five-option and extended-matching questions) can test problem-solving abilities. Secondly, the impact of the alternatives number on psychometrics and problem-solving strategies was examined. METHODS: Think-aloud protocols were collected to determine the problem-solving strategy used by experts and non-experts in answering Gastroenterology questions, across the two pencil-and-paper formats. RESULTS: The two formats demonstrated equal ability in testing problem-solving abilities, while the number of alternatives did not significantly impact psychometrics or problem-solving strategies utilized. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the notion that well-constructed multiple-choice questions can in fact test higher order clinical reasoning. Furthermore, it can be concluded that in testing clinical reasoning, the question stem, or content, remains more important than the number of alternatives