Abstract
The aim of this study is to develop the reasoning style scale. The study was conducted with 300 undergraduates from different departments at Ondokuz Mayis University during the 2016-2017 academic year. Factor analysis was used to validate the structure of the scale. The KMO coefficient (783) and the Barlett test (p <.05) were found to be significant for the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) and Barlett tests. The Cronbach's Alpha correlation coefficient used for the reliability coefficient was found for all of the scale (α = .784). As a result of the analyzes, Reasoning Styles Scale was developed as 5 likert and 4 sub-dimensions, and was found to be valid and reliable. The results of the exploratory factor analysis were applied to a sample of 109 students. Thus, χ2/sd was found to be 1,377; CFI value was found to be ,943; GFI value was found to be, 906; IFI value was found to be, 945; TLI value was found to be ,930; RMSEA was found to be ,059; RMR value was found to be ,061. As a result, a 12-item four-dimensional scale was obtained.
Highlights
Thinking and reasoning are used interchangeably each other
Due to the very small number of substances being loaded into some factors related to the substances of the measuring instrument, the scree plot is shown in Figure 8, which shows the factor structure of the Reasoning Styles Scale
The total variance explained by four factors according to the eigenvalue scale in the developed reasoning style scale is 42%
Summary
Thinking and reasoning are used interchangeably each other. those concepts are distinct from each other in many ways. Reasoning is a more formal concept because it emphasizes the intellectual dimensions of thought It is related more systematic form of thinking. Reasoning in essence is more abstract than thinking in which arguments should be based on premises, warrants so as to predict, defend or argue the assumptions at the core of each propositions. In this respect, thinking can be defined as the automatic and spontaneous reflection process of human intellect based on previous knowledge, memories and experiences. Toulmin’s argument model can be given as a fair example which is stated that most arguments, regardless of the domain, have a structure that consists of six basic invariants: claim, data, modality, rebuttal, warrant and backing
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
