Back
to Digests
Science
Reasoning Ability of Community College Students
A Digest from the
ERIC Clearinghouse for
Community Colleges.
by Tronie Rifkin and John
Harry Georgakakos
Contents
Defining
and Assessing Science Reasoning
College and Sample
Research Design
Results from the College-Wide Sample
Results from the Science-Oriented Sample
Conclusion
References
The development of science
reasoning ability in individuals has been shown to be correlated with a multitude
of variables, some related directly or indirectly to Piaget's cognitive theory
of development (Inhelder and Piaget, 1958). Prior knowledge (Resnick and Gelman,
1985), processing capacity (Finegold and Mass (1985), cognitive styles (Stuessy,
1989), age (Helgeson, 1992), sex (Hernandez, Marek, and Renner, 1984), IQ (Lawson,
1982), culture (Cherian, Kibria, Kariuki, and Mwamwenda, 1988), SES (Acuna, 1983),
majority/minority status (Lawson and Bealer, 1984), as well as a number of individual
aptitude (Owen, 1987), achievement, and personality factors (Cloutier and Goldschmid,
1976) have all been found to influence the development of science reasoning. Many
of these variables are pre-existing attributes students bring with them to the
college campus. However, limited efforts have been made to discover what influences
the development of science reasoning ability once the student enrolls in a course
of study at a two-year institution.
This Digest presents a
1991 study of science reasoning development in students at Riverside
City College. The results of the study point to the importance of science
in the curriculum and of academic involvement in the sciences for the development
of students' science reasoning ability.
DEFINING AND ASSESSING
SCIENCE REASONING
Steussy (1984) presents
a definition of science reasoning which stems from the concepts inherent in Piaget's
formal operations stage. For Steussy,
"Scientific reasoning is
used to denote consistent, logical thought patterns which are employed during
the process of scientific inquiry that enable individuals to propose relationships
between observed phenomena; to design experiments which test hypotheses concerning
the proposed relationships; to determine all possible alternatives and outcomes;
to consider probabilities of occurrences; to predict logical consequences; to
weight evidence, or proof; and to use a number of instances to justify a particular
conclusion" (p. 2).
This definition of science
reasoning ability also parallels the approach taken by American
College Testing (ACT) in the development of the Science Reasoning Test,
the instrument used in this study. The test is one element of a battery of tests
called the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), which measures
selected general education skills typically obtained by students in the first
two-years of college (ACT, 1991). The Science Reasoning Test was determined
appropriate for this study specifically because many of the components found
in Stuessy's (1984) definition of science reasoning mirror the content of the
test. In addition, the test is designed to evaluate the development of science
reasoning ability among students who matriculate through both science and non-science
courses.
COLLEGE AND SAMPLE
This study was conducted
at Riverside City College (RCC), located in southern California. RCC offers comprehensive
lower division, transfer-oriented curricula in the liberal arts and sciences along
with a wide range of certified occupational programs and courses in continuing
and developmental education.
This study reports the
findings from two samples of RCC students. One sample, the college-wide sample,
consisted of student volunteer subjects (N=843) from across the campus who were
enrolled in one of 55 courses. The second sample, the science-oriented group,
was a sub-set of the college-wide sample and made up of students who took at
least one science course (N=494) at RCC.
RESEACH DESIGN
Students participating
in the study were asked to complete the CAAP Science Reasoning Test twice. The
pre-test was administered at the beginning of the 1991 fall semester. The post-test
was administered at the conclusion of the 1991 fall semester.
Regression analyses were
conducted to determine the factors that influence the development of science
reasoning from pre-test to post-test.
RESULTS FROM THE COLLEGE-WIDE
SAMPLE
Analyses of the college-wide
responses from pre- to post-test administration of the CAAP Science Reasoning
Test offer the following results:
1. The science curriculum
at the college serves as a positive influence for the development of students'
science reasoning ability.
2. The positive effect
of taking science courses on a student's science reasoning ability increases
with the number of science units taken.
3. Calculus-based physics
courses strongly influence the development of science reasoning ability.
4. Training in undergraduate
psychology contributes positively to students' science reasoning development,
while training in history appears to have the opposite effect. While reasons
for this are not exactly clear, evidence indicates that the course contents
and methods in psychology are more congruent with science offerings, in particular
life sciences.
RESULTS FROM THE SCIENCE-ORIENTED
SAMPLE
The results for the science-oriented
sample are similar to those for the college-wide sample. New and additional findings
to highlight are:
1. A background in college
humanities courses favorably influences science reasoning ability.
2. Physics courses contribute
most to the development of science-reasoning.
3. The introductory chemistry
course had a negative impact on science reasoning.
CONCLUSION
The present research was
an exploratory study into the nature of science reasoning ability of community
college students. It provides us with an understanding of the positive and negative
influences on the development of science reasoning in community college students.
It also provides a vivid demonstration of the applicability of the theory of student
involvement and the importance of science in the curriculum.
During the past decade
a number of researchers have placed high priority on increasing student involvement
in learning as a means to academic achievement (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Astin,
1987; The Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education,
1984). According to Astin's theory of student involvement, "Students learn by
becoming involved" (1987, p. 133-134). Quite simply put, the greater the amount
of physical and psychological energy a student devotes to an academic experience
the greater will be the dividends paid by that experience in terms of the talent
development of the student. Applied to the development of science reasoning
ability, student involvement implies that a student highly involved in the sciences
will tend to develop energy to devote to studying and other experiences related
to the sciences. The outcome of this involvement is an increase in science reasoning
ability. This study discovered that this is indeed the case. Another conclusion
drawn from this study is that science is a component of the curriculum that
plays an important role in community college students' progress in developing
reasoning ability--a very encouraging premise upon which to develop future curricula.
REFERENCES
- Acuna, J.E. Acculturation,
Social Class and Cognitive Growth. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippines
University, Science Education Center, 1983. (ED 239 751)
- American College Testing.
ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency: 1991-92 Test Supervisor's
Manual for Objective Test Modules--Writing Skills, Mathematics, Reading, Critical
Thinking, Science Reasoning. Iowa City, IA: ACT Publication, 1991.
- Astin, A. W. Achieving
Educational Excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1987.
- Cherian, V.I., Kibria,
G.F., Kariuki, P.W. and Mwamwenda, T.S. "Formal Operational Reasoning in African
University Students." The Journal of Psychology, 1988, 122, (5), 487-498.
- Chickering, A.W. and
Gamson, Z.F. Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education.
Washington, DC: American Association for Higher
Education, 1987. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 282 491)
- Cloutier, R. And Goldschmid,
M.L. "Individual Differences in the Development of Formal Reasoning." Child
Development,1976, 47, 1097-1102.
- Finegold, M. And Mass,
R. "Differences in the Processes of Solving Physics Problems Between Good
Physics Problem Solvers and Poor Physics Problem Solvers. Research in Science
and Technological Education,1985, 3 (1), 59-67.
- Helgeson, S. L. Problem
Solving Research in Middle/Junior High School Science Education. Columbus,
OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics,
and Environmental Education, 1992. (ED 351 208)
- Hernandez, L.D., Marek,
E.A., and Renner, J.W. "Relationships among Gender, Age, and Intellectual
Development." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1984, 1 (4),
365-375.
- Inhelder, B. and Piaget,
J. The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. New
York: Basic Books, 1958.
- Lawson, A.E. "Formal
Reasoning, Achievement, and Intelligence: An Issue of Importance." Science
Education, 1982, 66 (1) 77-83.
- Lawson, A.E. and Bealer,
J.M. "Cultural Diversity and Differences in Formal Reasoning Ability." Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 1984, 21 (7), 735-743.
- Owen, D. "The SAT and
Social Stratification." In J. W. Noll (Ed.), Taking Sides: Clashing Views
on Controversial Educational Issues (4th ed.). Guilford, CT: The
Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.
- Resnick, L. B. and Gelman,
R.Mathematical and Scientific Knowledge: An Overview. Pittsburgh, PA:
Pittsburgh University, Learning Research
and Development Center, 1985. (ED 258 808)
- Study Group on the Conditions
of Excellence in Higher Education. Involvement in Learning: Realizing the
Potential of American Higher Education. Washington, DC: National Institute
of Education, 1984.
- Stuessy, C. Correlates
of Scientific Reasoning in Adolescents: Experience, Locus of Control, Age,
Field Dependence-Independence, Rigidity/Flexibility, IQ ,and Gender. Columbus,
OH: Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State
University, 1984. (ED 244 834)
- Stuessy, C. "Path Analysis:
A Model for the Development of Scientific Reasoning Abilities in Adolescents."
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1984, 26, (1), 41-53.
This digest is drawn from "Impact of Differential College Environments on the
Science Reasoning Ability of Community College Students: A Matriculation Study,"
a dissertation by John Harry Georgakakos, University of California, Riverside,
1995. Detailed information on this study including the research design and statistical
analyses can be obtained from this source.
The ERIC Clearinghouse operates under OERI Contract No. RI-93-00-2003. The opinions
expressed in this digest do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of
OERI and no official endorsement by OERI should be inferred.
Return to the Clearinghouse's
Home Page.
updated
Citations preceded by an
asterisk (*) refer to journal articles or other material unavailable from EDRS.
Journal articles may be acquired through regular library channels, or purchased
from article clearinghouses such as CARL
Uncover at (800) 787-7979. Other material may be available either directly
through the publishing agency, or from out-of-print vendors. ERIC documents
(references with "ED" numbers) may be read on microfiche at approximately 900
libraries worldwide. To identify your local ERIC Resource Collection, connect
to: http://www.ed.gov/BASISDB/EROD/eric/SF.
Most documents may be ordered on microfiche or in paper copy from the
ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) at (800) 443-ERIC. For more information
about our products and services, please contact the ERIC Clearinghouse for Community
Colleges by telephone at (800) 832-8256, or via the Internet at ericcc@ucla.edu.
Please help us keep the
ERIC database current and comprehensive by submitting your written works to
the Clearinghouse for review for inclusion in the ERIC system. Send two copies
of each manuscript to the attention of our Acquisitions
Coordinator.
ERIC Clearinghouse
for Community Colleges
University of California, Los Angeles
3051 Moore Hall
P.O. Box 951521
Los Angeles, CA 90095
Updated 10/10/01
Maintained by ericccus@gseis.ucla.edu