Using reasoning ability as the basis for assigning laboratory partners in nonmajors biology

Abstract

Students in a large one-semester nonmajors college biology course were classified into one of three groups (intuitive—I, transitional—T, reflective—R) based upon a pretest of scientific reasoning ability. Laboratory teams of two students each then were formed, such that all possible combinations of reasoning abilities were represented (i.e., I-I, I-T, I-R, T-T, T-R, R-R). Students worked with their assigned partners during each of the course's 14 laboratory sessions. Gains in reasoning ability, laboratory achievement, and course achievement, as well as changes in students' opinions of their motivation, enjoyment of the laboratory, and their own and their partner's reasoning abilities were assessed at the end of the semester. Significant pre- to posttest gains in reasoning ability by the intuitive and transitional students were found, but these gains were not significantly related to the laboratory partner's reasoning ability. Also, course achievement was not significantly related to the laboratory partner's reasoning ability. Students were perceptive of others' reasoning ability; the more able reasoners were generally viewed as being more motivated, having better ideas, and being better at doing science. Additional results also indicated that course enjoyment and motivation was significantly decreased for the transitional students when they were paired with intuitive students. Apparently, for students in transition (i.e., not at an equilibrium state with regard to reasoning level), it is frustrating to work with a less able reasoner. However, some evidence was found to suggest that reflective students may benefit from working with a less able partner.