A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate training on reasoning.

Abstract

The effects of undergraduate training in the natural sciences, humanities, and social sciences on inductive reasoning requiring the use of statistical and methodological principles and on reasoning about problems in conditional logic were examined. Social science training produced large effects on statistical and methodological reasoning, whereas natural science and humanities training produced smaller, but still marginally significant, effects. Natural science and humanities training produced large effects on ability to reason about problems in conditional logic, whereas social science training did not. The improvement in conditional reasoning among natural science students appears to be due, in large part, to knowledge gained in mathematics courses. The results indicate that inferential rule systems, as taught by various fields, can affect reasoning about a wide range of problems. The findings lend support to a version of the premodern formal discipline hypothesis. Does an undergraduate education improve reasoning about everyday-life problems? Do some forms of undergraduate training enhance certain types of reasoning more than others? These issues have not been addressed in a methodologically rigorous manner (Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith, 1985). We consequently have little knowledge of whether reasoning can be improved by instruction, yet this question has long been regarded as central to theories of cognitive development.