The Relationship Between Scientific Cognition and Scientific Literacy: Implications for Learning Science

Abstract

This paper is a revision of the paper titled Association Between Scientific Cognition and Scientific Literacy: Implications for Learning Science (Hale, Sloss, & Lawson, 2017).  In the context of the current research scientific literacy is synonymous with general scientific knowledge. Scientific cognition is different than scientific literacy; scientific cognition involves multiple components and sub-components. At the very least, scientific cognition involves philosophy of science, research methodology, probabilistic reasoning and logic (deductive and inductive). The primary interests in the study were whether or not scientific cognition and scientific literacy scores would be associated, and whether or not there would be gender differences for total scores for each scale. A bivariate analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis that there would be an association between scientific cognition and scientific literacy. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to test whether or not there was gender differences on scores from the scientific cognition and scientific literacy scale.  The scientific literacy and scientific cognition assessment consisted of mostly questions derived from measuring devices used in the past. The assessments were administered as part of an online survey. The participants were 202 university students. The study was approved by the university's Institutional Review Board. The results indicate a positive relationship / correlation between scientific literacy and scientific cognition, and no gender differences for total scores from the scales. Additional analyses indicate there was gender differences for some of the questions. There was gender differences for one item from the scientific literacy assessment and for two items from the scientific cognition assessment. The research report includes a discussion on limitations of the study, implications for science education and future directions for relevant research.

Science is a large enterprise consisting of multiple components. Science is a systematic approach to knowledge. Proper use of scientific processes lead to rationalism (basing conclusion on intellect, logic and evidence). Science combats dogmatism (adherence to doctrine over rational and enlightened inquiry, or basing conclusion on authority rather than evidence) and provides a better understanding of the world. Scientific processes/ methods are unmistakably the most successful.

processes available for describing, predicting and explaining phenomena in the observable universe.

The general scientific approach to knowledge is based on systematic empiricism (Stanovich, 2007).  Observation itself  is necessary in acquiring scientific knowledge, but unstructured observation of the natural world does not lead to an increased understanding of the world. “Write down every observation you make from the time you get up in the morning to the time you go to bed on a given day. When you finish, you will have a great number of facts, but you will not have a greater understanding of the world” (Stanovich & Stanovich, 2003, p. 12).

Systematic Empiricism is systematic because it is structured in a way that allows us to learn more precisely about the world.  After careful systematic observations, such as those in controlled studies, relationships are supported while others are rejected. Extending these observations, scientists propose general descriptions, predictions, explanations, models and inferential strategies that support observations.  “We could observe end-less pieces of data, adding to the content of science, but our observations would be of limited use without general principles to structure them” (Myers & Hansen, 2002, p. 10)....

Method

Participants

Participants in the study were 202 students from Eastern Kentucky University.  The sample consisted of 160 females and 42 males. Participants received partial course credit in exchange for their participation. Participation was voluntary, and participants could terminate their involvement at any time during the study without penalty. Before participating in the study all participants reported that they had no conditions that would prevent them from being part of the study. All participants completed an online survey that included a scientific cognition and a scientific literacy assessment. The study was approved by the university's Institutional Review Board....

Results

A bivariate analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis that there would be an association between scientific cognition and scientific literacy. The results of the analysis support the hypothesis, r (200)= +.33, p < .01 (two-tailed), r2 = .11.  Independent samples t-tests were conducted to test whether or not there was gender differences on scores from the scientific cognition and scientific literacy scale. The results of the independent samples t-test, for men (M = 9.36, SD = 2.63) and women (M = 9.60, SD = 2.31) using total scores on scientific cognition as the dependent variable was not statistically significant, t (200) = .59, p > .05 (two-tailed), d = .10.  The results of the independent samples t-test, for men (M = 10.52, SD = 1.69) and women (M = 10.31, SD = 1.64) using total scores on scientific literacy as the dependent variable were not statistically significant, t (200) = .76, p > .05 (two-tailed), d = .13....

Discussion

The results show a positive association between scientific cognition and scientific literacy. The association was moderate in strength. The differences between men and women for total scores on scientific cognition and scientific literacy were not significant. The results indicate gender (men vs. women) differences (correct vs. incorrect) for three items from the online survey; one of the items from the scientific literacy assessment and two of the items from the scientific cognition assessment....

References are available upon request  

Full paper -PDF- is available upon request. 

   

 

A Popular Myth About Rational Thinking

It is common for people to use the term logic as if it is synonymous with rational thinking. Rationality consists of scientific cognition and cognitive reflection. Logic is a component of scientific cognition, but logic alone does not mean rationality. Cognitive reflection involves analytical thinking (a component of Type 2 processing) that reflects overriding fast, incorrect thinking responses.

Stanovich asserts that there at least  2 common myths associated with rationality 1. That there is not much more to rational thinking than logical thinking  2. That emotions are inherently irrational

"Dictionary definitions of rationality tend to be rather lame and unspecific (“the state or quality of being in accord with reason”), and some critics who wish to downplay the importance of rationality have promulgated a caricature of rationality that involves restricting its definition to not more than the ability to do the syllogistic reasoning problems that are encountered in Philosophy 101" (Hale, 2018 )

Logicians study the structure of argument in the form of syllogisms. A syllogism is laid out as a list of premises and a conclusion that may or may not follow from premises. A syllogism is valid if conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. When the syllogism is invalid the conclusion can be false even if the premises are true. Syllogistic reasoning is often difficult and response is heavily influenced by wording of syllogism. The validity of syllogism depends on the form, not on the specific terms being used.  Consider the following- is it valid?

"If it rains, Judy takes the train

Judy took the train today.

Therefore it rained."

Baron, 2008- Thinking and Deciding

The above syllogism looks good? However, Judy might also take the train when it snows or might take the train for other reasons; thus, the syllogism is invalid. Syllogisms involve formal logic; they are not a complete theory of thinking, and only a portion of critical thinking / rational thinking. It is reasonable to suggest that one of, if not the biggest myth about rationality is that rationality is synonymous with logic.

     

In my book - In EvidenceWe Trust 2nd Edition -chapter 2 covers rationality as in terms of cognitive science.   

  

Suggested reading:

Emotion influences rationality 

Can rationality be learned?