Browsing by Subject "Reasoning"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-3 of 3
  • Thuneberg, H. M.; Salmi, H. S.; Bogner, F. X. (2018)
    An informal mathematical module integrating Arts (modifying STEM to STEAM) and following an inquiry-based learning approach was applied to a sample of 392 students (aged 12-13 years). The three lesson module dealt with mathematical phenomena providing participants with the commercially available hands-on construction kit, aiming to advance STEAM education. Pupils built original, personal, and individual geometrical structures by using plastic pipes in allowing high levels of creativity as well as of autonomy. Tutors supervised the construction process and intervened only on demand. A pre-/ post-test design monitored the cognitive knowledge and the variables of relative autonomy, visual reasoning, formal operations as well as creativity. Our informal intervention produced newly acquired cognitive knowledge which as a process was shown of being supported by a broad basis of (soft) factors as described above. A path analysis elaborated the role of creativity (measured with two subscale: act and flow) to cognitive learning (post-knowledge), when flow was shown to lead. Pre-knowledge scores were significantly influenced by both creativity subscales: act and flow. However, relative autonomy, visual reasoning and formal operations contributed, too. In consequence, cognitive learning within STEAM modules was shown dependent on external triggers. Conclusions for appropriate educational settings to foster STEAM environments are discussed.
  • Leisti, Tuomas; Häkkinen, Jukka (2018)
    Certain experiments have shown that reasoning may weaken the stability of people's preferences, especially with regard to well-learned perceptual judgment and decision-making tasks, while learning has an opposite, consistency-enhancing effect on preferences. We examined the effects of these factors in a visual multi-attribute decision-making task where reasoning, in contrast, has been found to benefit judgments by making them more stable. The initial assumption in this study was that this benefit would be typical for novel tasks, like the one employed here, and that it would decrease when the task is thoroughly learned. This assumption was examined in three experiments by contrasting it with an alternative assumption that this previously obtained beneficial effect is caused solely by learning, not by reasoning. It was found that learning indeed makes preferences more stable by consolidating the weights of the attributes. Reasoning, however, does not benefit this task when it is completely novel but facilitates learning and stability of the preferences long run, therefore increasing the consistency of the participants in the macrolevel. Copyright (c) 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  • Valtonen, Jussi; Ahn, Woo-kyoung; Cimpian, Andrei (2021)
    People commonly think of the mind and the brain as distinct entities that interact, a view known as dualism. At the same time, the public widely acknowledges that science attributes all mental phenomena to the workings of a material brain, a view at odds with dualism. How do people reconcile these conflicting perspectives? We propose that people distort claims about the brain from the wider culture to fit their dualist belief that minds and brains are distinct, interacting entities: Exposure to cultural discourse about the brain as the physical basis for the mind prompts people to posit that mind–brain interactions are asymmetric, such that the brain is able to affect the mind more than vice versa. We term this hybrid intuitive theory neurodualism. Five studies involving both thought experiments and naturalistic scenarios provided evidence of neurodualism among laypeople and, to some extent, even practicing psychotherapists. For example, lay participants reported that “a change in a person's brain” is accompanied by “a change in the person's mind” more often than vice versa. Similarly, when asked to imagine that “future scientists were able to alter exactly 25% of a person's brain,” participants reported larger corresponding changes in the person's mind than in the opposite direction. Participants also showed a similarly asymmetric pattern favoring the brain over the mind in naturalistic scenarios. By uncovering people's intuitive theories of the mind–brain relation, the results provide insights into societal phenomena such as the allure of neuroscience and common misperceptions of mental health treatments.