The major findings derived from the informal reasoning exploration phase are summarized in Table 4.77, and will be discussed in the next chapter.
Table 4.77 Summary of the major findings derived from the informal reasoning exploration phase
Section Major Findings
Findings derived from the initial analyses of students’ informal reasoning outcomes (addressing research question (1) and research question (2))
IV.1.1.1 Students’ decision-making modes z About 20% of the participants were found to make intuitive decisions.
z No gender difference was found on the students’ decision-making modes.
IV.1.1.2 Students’ argument-construction for different purposes and usage of different reasoning modes
z It was relatively difficult for the students in this study to construct rebuttal against counter-arguments.
z More than half of the participants in this study had difficulty in proposing rebuttals to against counter-position arguments.
z Students in this study tended to reason from multiple perspectives.
z No gender difference was found on the students’ construction of arguments for different purposes (i.e., supportive argument, counterargument, and rebuttal) and the total number of arguments.
z No gender difference was found on students’ usage of the aforementioned four reasoning modes and the number of their reasoning modes.
z The students significantly proposed more counter-arguments before making personal decisions than they did after making personal decisions.
IV.1.1.3 Students’ evaluative standard formation and justification
z When encountering the socio-scientific issue regarding nuclear power usage, most of the students in this study tended to form their initial position from multiple
perspectives.
z No gender difference was found on the students’ initial perspectives for forming their personal positions in the beginning.
z The evaluative criteria most students used in this study are “personal benefits or the necessities of existence” (26.5%).
z Forty-nine students (72%) perceived their personal decisions as rational ones, while the other 19 students (28%) did not perceive their personal decisions as rational ones.
z No gender difference was found on the students’ self-perceived rationality.
z The category of highest frequency of the students’ responses on “what you further need for making rational decisions?” was “relevant knowledge or information”
(26.5%), followed by “scientific data or report (22.1%).
Findings derived from the follow-up analyses of students’ informal reasoning outcomes (addressing research question (1) and research question (2))
IV.1.2.1 Students’ informal reasoning outcomes between different
decision-making mode groups
z In their argument-construction for different purposes, those who made
evidence-based decisions only generated significantly more rebuttals than their counterparts did.
z Students of different decision-making mode groups (i.e., evidence-based and intuitive decision groups) did not show any significant difference on their usage of the four different reasoning modes as well as the total number of reasoning modes.
182
z No significant difference was found between the evidence-based and intuitive decision makers on how they formed their initial position.
z No significant difference was found between the evidence-based and intuitive decision makers on their self-perceived rationality.
IV.1.2.2 Students’ informal reasoning outcomes between two different evaluative standard formation groups
z The students who formed their position from multiple perspectives in the beginning significantly outperformed their counterparts (i.e., those who formed their position from single perspectives in the beginning) on their rebuttal construction as well as on the total number of reasoning modes they used.
z The more the learners are oriented to form their initial position from multiple perspectives, the more they will tend to perceive their decisions as rational ones.
IV.1.2.3 Students’ informal reasoning outcomes between two different self-perceived rationality groups
z Whether the students perceived their personal decisions as rational ones or not, they did not show any significant difference on their argument construction for different purposes and the total number of reasoning modes they used.
IV.1.2.4 Students’ informal reasoning outcomes between two different reasoning level groups
z The students who made evidence-based decisions significantly possessed higher-level reasoning quality.
z The students of higher-level reasoning quality are more capable of proposing more arguments and more tend to reason from multiple perspectives.
z The more learners are oriented to form their initial position from multiple perspectives, the more they will tend to achieve higher-level reasoning quality.
z No significant difference on their self-perceived rationality was found between the students of higher-level and lower-level reasoning groups.
IV.1.2.5 Correlations between students’
argument construction for different purposes and usage of reasoning modes
z The more the reasoning modes a learner used, the more arguments he/her proposed.
z The more reasoning modes students use, the more they were able to construct rebuttals.
The interplay between students’ SEBs and their informal reasoning outcomes (addressing research question (3)) IV.1.4.1 Students’ SEBs and their
decision-making modes
z No significant difference on SEBs was found between students of different decision-making mode groups.
IV.1.4.2 The relationships between students’ SEBs and their
argument-construction for different purposes (as well as their usage of reasoning modes)
z The more the students were oriented to believe that scientific knowledge as an evolving and changing subject as well as to recognize the role of experiments in the justification of scientific knowledge, the more they were oriented to achieve a higher informal reasoning level.
z The students’ of higher-level reasoning group significantly scored higher than their counterparts on their scores on the “justification” scale.
IV.1.4.3 Students’ SEBs and their initial perspective for forming their initial position toward nuclear power usage
z No significant difference on SEBs was found the students of two different initial perspective groups.
IV.1.4.4 Students’ SEBs and their self-perceived rationality for their decision-making
z Students who consider their decisions as rational ones displayed more sophisticated beliefs on the nature of scientific knowledge and the nature of knowing science than those who consider their decisions as irrational ones.
The interplay between students’ cognitive structure outcomes and their informal reasoning outcomes (addressing research
question (3))
IV.1.5.1 Students’ cognitive structure outcomes and their decision-making modes
z No significant difference on cognitive structure outcomes between students of different decision-making mode groups.
IV.1.5.2 The relationships between students’ cognitive structure outcomes and their argument-construction for different purposes (as well as their usage of reasoning modes)
z The more extended, richer, and more integrated the students’ cognitive structures were, the more they were oriented to achieve a higher informal reasoning level.
z The more frequently an individual learner tended to utilized the information processing mode “comparing” in organizing concepts, the more he/she was oriented to proceed higher-level informal reasoning.
z Students who had richer cognitive structures, were more oriented to utilize multiple reasoning modes.
IV.1.5.3 Students’ cognitive structure outcomes and their initial perspective for forming their initial position toward nuclear power usage
z No significant difference was found between students of different initial perspective groups on the “extent”, “richness”, and “integratedness” of their cognitive structures as well as on their usage of the two information processing modes, “comparing” and
“inferring or explaining”.
IV.1.5.4 Students’ cognitive structure outcomes and their self-perceived rationality for their decision-making
z Students of different self-perceived rationality groups did not show any significant difference on their cognitive structure outcomes.
The ability of students’ SEBs as predictors for their informal reasoning outcomes (addressing research question (4)) IV.1.6.1 The ability of students’ SEBs as
predictors for their rebuttal construction
z The students’ beliefs on the justification of scientific knowledge could significantly and positively predict the amount of rebuttal they constructed, and it explained 9% of students’ rebuttal construction.
IV.1.6.2 The ability of students’ SEBs as the predictors for their usage of reasoning modes
z Students’ SEBs did not significantly predict the amount of reasoning modes they used
The ability of students’ cognitive structure outcomes as predictors for their informal reasoning outcomes (addressing research question (4))
IV.1.7.1 The ability of the extent, the richness and the integratedness of students’
cognitive structure as the predictors for their rebuttal construction
z The richness of the students’ cognitive structure was the significant predictor for their rebuttal construction, and it explained 7% of students’ rebuttal construction (p<0.01).
IV.1.7.2 The ability of the extent, the richness and the integratedness of students’
cognitive structure as the predictors for their usage of reasoning modes
z The richness of cognitive structures significantly predicted the amount of reasoning modes they utilized, and it explained 5% of students’ rebuttal construction (p<0.05).
IV.1.7.3 The ability of students’ usage of different information processing modes as the predictors for their rebuttal construction
z Students’ usage of the information processing mode, “comparing”, significantly predicted their rebuttal construction, and it explained 12% of students’ rebuttal construction.
IV.1.7.4 The ability of students’ usage of different information processing modes as the predictors for their usage of reasoning
z Students’ usage of the information processing mode did not significantly predict the amount of reasoning modes they used.
184 modes
IV.1.7.5 The ability of all the students’
cognitive structure outcomes as the predictors for their for their rebuttal construction
z Only the students’ usage of the information processing mode, “comparing”, could significantly predict their rebuttal construction, and it explained 12% of students’
rebuttal construction.
IV.1.7.6 The ability of all the students’
cognitive structure outcomes as the predictors for their for their usage of reasoning modes
z Only the richness of the students’ cognitive structures was significant predictor for the amount of reasoning modes they used, and it explained 5% of students’ rebuttal construction.
The ability of students’ SEBs and cognitive structure outcomes as predictors for their informal reasoning outcomes (addressing research question (4))
IV.1.8.1 The ability of students’ SEBs and cognitive structure outcomes as the predictors for their rebuttal construction
z Both the students’ usage of the information processing mode, “comparing”, and their beliefs on the justification of scientific knowledge were the significant predictors for their rebuttal construction, and they explained 17% of students’ rebuttal construction.
IV.1.8.2 The ability of students’ SEBs and cognitive structure outcomes as the predictors for their usage of reasoning modes
z The richness of the students’ cognitive structures was the only significant predictor for the amount of their reasoning modes, and it explained 5% of the students’ usage of different reasoning modes.
The findings above can be further summarized as:
1. Most of the participants in this study tended to make evidence-based decisions, reason from multiple perspectives, form their initial position from multiple perspectives, and perceive their personal decisions as rational ones.
2. More than half of the students had difficulty in proposing rebuttals.
3. The students significantly proposed more counter-arguments before making personal decisions than they did after making personal decisions.
4. No gender difference was found on the students’ informal reasoning on nuclear power usage.
5. The evaluative criteria most students used in this study are “personal benefits or the necessities of existence” (26.5%).
6. The category of highest frequency of the students’ responses on “what you further
need for making rational decisions?” was “relevant knowledge or information”
(26.5%), followed by “scientific data or report (22.1%).
7. Those who made evidence-based decisions generated significantly more rebuttals than their counterparts did.
8. The more the learners are oriented to form their initial position from multiple perspectives, the more they will tend to perceive their decisions as rational ones.
9. The students who make evidence-based decisions will significantly possess higher-level reasoning quality.
10. The more the students were oriented to believe that scientific knowledge as an evolving and changing subject as well as to recognize the role of experiments in the justification of scientific knowledge, the more they were oriented to achieve a higher informal reasoning level.
11. Students who consider their decisions as rational ones displayed more sophisticated beliefs on the nature of scientific knowledge and the nature of knowing science than those who consider their decisions as irrational ones.
12. The more extended, richer, and more integrated the students’ cognitive structures were, the more they were oriented to achieve a higher informal reasoning level.
13. The more frequently an individual learner tended to utilized the information processing mode “comparing” in organizing concepts, the more he/she was oriented to proceed higher-level informal reasoning.
14. Students who had richer cognitive structures were more oriented to utilize multiple reasoning modes.
15. The students’ beliefs on the justification of scientific knowledge could
significantly and positively predict the amount of rebuttal they constructed, and it explained 9% of students’ rebuttal construction.
16. Among all the cognitive structure outcome variables, only the students’ usage of
186
the information processing mode, “comparing”, could significantly predict their rebuttal construction, and it explained 12% of students’ rebuttal construction.
17. Among all the cognitive structure outcome variables, only the richness of the students’ cognitive structures was significant predictor for the amount of
reasoning modes they used, and it explained 5% of students’ rebuttal construction.
18. Both the students’ usage of the information processing mode, “comparing”, and their beliefs on the justification of scientific knowledge were the significant predictors for their rebuttal construction, and they explained 17% of students’
rebuttal construction.
19. The richness of the students’ cognitive structures was the only significant predictor for the amount of their reasoning modes, and it explained 5% of the students’ usage of different reasoning modes.
IV.3.2 Summarization of the findings derived from the on-line searching task phase