Causal Theory Error in College Students' Understanding of Science Studies

Autor/inn/en	Seifert, Colleen M.; Harrington, Michael; Michal, Audrey L.; Shah, Priti
Titel	Causal Theory Error in College Students' Understanding of Science Studies
Quelle	In: Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7 (2022), Artikel 4 (22 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Seifert, Colleen M.) Weitere Informationen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	2365-7464
DOI	10.1186/s41235-021-00347-5
Schlagwörter	College Students; Comprehension; Attribution Theory; Logical Thinking; Behavioral Sciences; Intervention; Instructional Effectiveness; Correlation + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Collegestudent; Verstehen; Verständnis; Unterrichtserfolg; Korrelation
Abstract	When reasoning about science studies, people often make causal theory errors by inferring or accepting a causal claim based on correlational evidence. While humans naturally think in terms of causal relationships, reasoning about science findings requires understanding how evidence supports--or fails to support--a causal claim. This study investigated college students' thinking about causal claims presented in brief media reports describing behavioral science findings. How do science students reason about causal claims from correlational evidence? And can their reasoning be improved through instruction clarifying the nature of causal theory error? We examined these questions through a series of written reasoning exercises given to advanced college students over three weeks within a psychology methods course. In a pretest session, students critiqued study quality and support for a causal claim from a brief media report suggesting an association between two variables. Then, they created diagrams depicting possible alternative causal theories. At the beginning of the second session, an instructional intervention introduced students to an extended example of a causal theory error through guided questions about possible alternative causes. Then, they completed the same two tasks with new science reports immediately and again 1 week later. The results show students' reasoning included fewer causal theory errors after the intervention, and this improvement was maintained a week later. Our findings suggest that interventions aimed at addressing reasoning about causal claims in correlational studies are needed even for advanced science students, and that training on considering alternative causal theories may be successful in reducing casual theory error. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01