Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37539256›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Insights from coherence in students' scientific reasoning skills.

N Bhaw, J Kriek, M Lemmer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

N BhawDepartment of Physics, College of Science, Engineering and Technology, University of South Africa, South Africa.
J KriekDepartment of Physics, College of Science, Engineering and Technology, University of South Africa, South Africa.
M LemmerSchool of Physical and Chemical Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improving scientific reasoning enables students to navigate the challenges of learning science. Teachers use Lawson's classroom test of scientific reasoning (LCTSR) to measure scientific reasoning. The LCTSR is a two-tiered assessment that uses content-based questions and explanation statements. Researchers have found that if a student answers a knowledge-based question correctly but selects an incorrect explanation statement, there may be an element of guessing or an established misconception. Misconceptions are beliefs that students hold that are not based on scientific evidence. The present study added a confidence variable to the LCTSR, which measures how confident students regarded their responses in both tiers. Selecting a correct response to a knowledge-based question while providing an incorrect explanation and having a high confidence rating indicates an established misconception. The confidence variable is, therefore, a measure of an established scientific misconception and is the basis of the present study. The present study analyzed the responses of 71 first-year university students enrolled in an introductory physics course. The LCTSR results indicate that students performed the best in the conservation reasoning dimension and the worst in the proportional reasoning dimension. In all scientific reasoning dimensions, more than half the students chose the incorrect explanation for each context question. Students' confidence responses surpassed their performance in three of the 14 LCTSR items. The low frequency of correct answers and the statistically significant correlation between LCTSR items and confidence suggest possible misconceptions in students' scientific reasoning skills.

Indexed as

ConfidenceControl of variablesCorrelation reasoningLawson's classroom test for scientific reasoningProbabilistic reasoningProportional reasoning

Identifiers

PMID37539256
PMCPMC10395030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.