Reasoning patterns of preservice elementary and middle school science teachers (original) (raw)

Abstract

The development of formal reasoning ability has been a subject of extensive research over the past two decades. Studies at the high school and college levels in the United States have indicated that the majority of these students do not function at the formal operational level (Chiappetta, 1976). These findings have been replicated at the high school level in Britain (Lovell, 1961; Shayer, Kuchemann, & Wylam, 1976) and Australia (Dale, 1970). Other studies indicate that science achievement (Sayre & Ball, 1975) and the understanding of science concepts (Cantu & Herron, 1978; Lawson & Renner, 1975) are related to the ability of students to use formal operational logic. As a consequence of this research several writers have emphasized the need to modify objectives, content, and teaching methods according to the level of cognitive development of learners (Chiappetta, 1976; Lawson & Renner, 1975; Shayer, 1978). As well, some writers have urged that the development of formal reasoning ability should be a major priority in science education (DeCarcer, Gabel, & Staver, 1978; Lawson, 1982a; McKinnon & Renner, 1971). Reasoning limitations of preservice science teachers are a cause for concern because effectiveness might be reduced in materials-centered activities in which teachers need to be responsive to diverse situations that arise. Lawson (1982b) has indicated that instruction in formal reasoning can be successful with college students. As a consequence, there is a need to investigate the extent and nature of reasoning limitations

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (22)

  1. Cantu, L. L., & Herron, J . D. (1978). Concrete and formal Piagetian stages and science concept attainment. J . Res. Sci. Teach., 15, 135-143.
  2. Capie, W., Newton, R . , & Tobin, K. (1981, April). Patterns of reasoning: Controlling variables. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Grossinger, NY.
  3. Case, R. (1980). Intellectual development and instruction: A neopiagetian view. In A . E. Lawson (Ed.), The psychology of teaching f o r thinking and creativity, AETS Yearbook VII. Columbus, OH: ERICBMEAC.
  4. Chiappetta, E. L. (1976). A review of Piagetian studies relevant to science instruction at the secondary and college level. Sci. Educ., 60, 253-261.
  5. Dale, L. G. (1970). The growth of systematic thinking: Replication of Piaget's first chemical experiment. Aust. J. Psychol., 2 2 , 277-286.
  6. DeCarcer, I. A., Gabel, D. L., & Staver, J. R. (1978). Implications of Piagetian research for high school science teaching: A review of the literature. Sci. Educ., 6 2 , 571-583.
  7. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic.
  8. Karplus, R. (1980). Teaching for the development of reasoning. In A. E. Lawson (Ed.), The psychology of teaching for thinking and creativity, AETS Yearbook. VII. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.
  9. Karplus, R., Adi, H., & Lawson, A. E. (1980). Intellectual development beyond elementary school. VIII Proportional, probabilistic, and correlational reasoning. Sch. Sci. Math., 8 0 , Karplus, R., Karplus, E., Formisano, M., & Paulsen, A. (1977). A survey of proportional reasoning and control of variables in seven countries. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 1 4 , 41 1-471.
  10. Lawson, A. E. (1982a). The reality of general cognitive operations. Sci. Educ., 6 6 , 229- 241.
  11. Lawson, A. E. (1982b). The relative responsiveness of concrete operational seventh grade and college students to science instruction. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 19, 63-77.
  12. Lawson, A. E., & Renner, J. W. (1974). A quantitative analysis of responses to Piagetian tasks and its implications for curriculum. Sci. Educ., 58, 545-559.
  13. Lawson, A. E., & Renner, J. W. (1975). Relationship of science subject matter and devel- opmental levels of learners. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 12, 347-358.
  14. Lovell, K. (1961). A follow-up study of Inhelder's and Piaget's: The growth of logical thinking. Br. J . Psychol., 5 2 , 143-153.
  15. McKinnon, J. W., & Renner, J. W. (1971). Are colleges concerned with intellectual devel- opment? Am. J. Phys., 39, 1047-1052.
  16. McKenzie, D. L., & Padilla, M. J. (1982, April). Are proportional andprobabilistic reasoning necessary prerequisites to correlational reasoning? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Fontana, WI.
  17. Renner, J. W., & Lawson, A. E. (1975). Intellectual development in preservice elementary school teachers: An evaluation. J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 5 , 89-92.
  18. Sayre, S . , & Ball, D. W. (1975). Piagetian cognitive level and achievement in science, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 12, 165-174.
  19. Shayer, M. (1978). The analysis of science curricula for Piagetian level of demand. Stud. Sci. educ., 5 , 115-30.
  20. Shayer, M., Kuchemann, D. E., & Wylam, H. (1976). The distribution of Piagetian stages of thinking in British middle and secondary school children. Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 4 6 , Tobin, K. G. (1982, September). Reasoning ability of upper primary pupils: Implications f o r teaching and learning science. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Western Australian Science Education Association, Perth.
  21. Tobin, K. G., & Capie, W. (1981). Development and validation of a group test of logical thinking. Educ. Psychol. Meas., 4 1 , 413-424.
  22. Wollman, W. (1977). Controlling variables: Assessing levels of understanding. Sci. Educ., 673-683. 164-1 73.