Theoretical and practical significance of formal reasoning

Piaget's theory has profoundly influenced science education research. Following Piaget, researchers have focused on content-free strategies, developmentally based mechanisms, and structural models of each stage of reasoning. In practice, factors besides those considered in Piaget's theory influence whether or not a theoretically available strategy is used. Piaget's focus has minimized the research attention placed on what could be called “practical” factors in reasoning. Practical factors are factors that influence application of a theoretically available strategy, for example, previous experience with the task content, familiarity with task instructions, or personality style of the student. Piagetian theory has minimized the importance of practical factors and discouraged investigation of (1) the role of factual knowledge in reasoning, (2) the diagnosis of specific, task-based errors in reasoning, (3) the influence of individual aptitudes on reasoning (e.g., field dependence-independence), and (4) the effect of educational interventions designed to change reasoning. This article calls for new emphasis on practical factors in reasoning and suggests why research on practical factors in reasoning will enhance our understanding of how scientific reasoning is acquired and of how science education programs can foster it.     

Dialectic dialogue: reflections on adopting a dialectic stance

ABSTRACT

A multiplicity of perspectives and methods are necessary to investigate the complexities of human development and educational institutions. However, many would-be MM researchers still have questions about how to conceptualize and conduct MM research. Taking a dialectic stance, or mixing research approaches to suit the demands of a research problem, is one way to integrate multiple perspectives from conception to conclusions in a MM research study. In this spirit, we engage in a meta-dialogue focused on our use of the dialectic stance in our dissertations. Using an autoethnographic approach we now call ‘dialectic dialogue’, we analytically and reflectively reexamine our respective research processes to investigate, individually and collaboratively, how taking a dialectic stance influenced the paradigms, methodologies, and methods of our MM dissertations. Three verbal and artistic metaphors for our experience emerged from our discussion: feeling boxed in, getting lucky, and radical commitment. Each metaphor is discussed from our individual and shared perspectives. Our goal is to open our dialogue to a field-wide conversation about the dialectic stance; thus, we conclude with questions for the MM field to consider. This article will be of particular interest to newcomers to the field of MM and their mentors.     

Test stimuli: Representational level with middle class and head start children

Low income and middle income 4- and 5-year old children were shown stimuli in three forms: objects, colored pictures, and black and white line drawings taken from commonly used assessment instruments, and were asked to label the stimuli. Results indicated that both groups of children labeled the objects more successfully than the pictures, although this discrepancy was greater for the low income children. In addition, order of presentation influenced labeling performance. These results suggest that attention be paid to the representational level of materials used with young children in testing and educational settings.