Plantear y formular un problema de investigación: un ejercicio de razonamiento / Raise and formulate a research problem: an exercise of reasoning / Apresentar e formular um problema de pesquisa: um exercício de raciocínio

Resumen Introducción: Plantear un problema de investigación requiere aclarar la diferencia entre problema real, problemática, problematización y problema de investigación. A su vez requiere pensar el investigador como fuente del problema y de razonamiento, considerando los tres tipos de razonamiento: deductivo, inductivo y abductivo. Propone cuatro criterios para construir un problema de investigación: 1. Descripción del fenómeno 2. Descripción del desequilibrio 3. Descripción espacio-temporal 4. Descripción de los sujetos de investigación. Finalmente se considera la diferencia entre los paradigmas en la construcción de problemas de investigación.

Abstract Introduction. Raising a research problem requires clarifying the difference between real problem, problem, problematization and research problem. At the same time, it requires thinking of the researcher as the source of the problem and of reasoning, considering the three types of reasoning: deductive, inductive and abductive. It proposes four criteria to build a research problem: 1. Description of the phenomenon 2. Description of the imbalance 3. Description of the time space 4. Description of the research subjects. Finally, the difference between the paradigms in the construction of research problems is considered.

Resumo Introdução: Colocar um problema de pesquisa requer esclarecer a diferença entre problema real, problemático, problematização e problema de pesquisa. Por sua vez, o pesquisador precisa pensar como fonte do problema e do raciocínio, considerando os três tipos de raciocínio: dedutivo, indutivo e abdutivo. Ele propõe quatro critérios para construir um problema de pesquisa: 1. Descrição do fenômeno 2. Descrição do desequilíbrio 3. Descrição espaço-temporal 4. Descrição dos sujeitos da pesquisa. Por fim, considera-se a diferença entre paradigmas na construção de problemas de pesquisa.

Reasoning processes in clinical reasoning: from the perspective of cognitive psychology / 한국의학교육

Clinical reasoning is considered a crucial concept in reaching medical decisions. This paper reviews the reasoning processes involved in clinical reasoning from the perspective of cognitive psychology. To properly use clinical reasoning, one requires not only domain knowledge but also structural knowledge, such as critical thinking skills. In this paper, two types of reasoning process required for critical thinking are discussed: inductive and deductive. Inductive and deductive reasoning processes have different features and are generally appropriate for different types of tasks. Numerous studies have suggested that experts tend to use inductive reasoning while novices tend to use deductive reasoning. However, even experts sometimes use deductive reasoning when facing challenging and unfamiliar problems. In clinical reasoning, expert physicians generally use inductive reasoning with a holistic viewpoint based on a full understanding of content knowledge in most cases. Such a problem-solving process appears as a type of recognition-primed decision making only in experienced physicians' clinical reasoning. However, they also use deductive reasoning when distinct patterns of illness are not recognized. Therefore, medical schools should pursue problem-based learning by providing students with various opportunities to develop the critical thinking skills required for problem solving in a holistic manner.

Do medical students generate sound arguments during small group discussions in problem-based learning?: an analysis of preclinical medical students' argumentation according to a framework of hypothetico-deductive reasoning / 한국의학교육

PURPOSE: Hypothetico-deductive reasoning (HDR) is an essential learning activity and a learning outcome in problem-based learning (PBL). It is important for medical students to engage in the HDR process through argumentation during their small group discussions in PBL. This study aimed to analyze the quality of preclinical medical students' argumentation according to each phase of HDR in PBL. METHODS: Participants were 15 first-year preclinical students divided into two small groups. A set of three 2-hour discussion sessions from each of the two groups during a 1-week-long PBL unit on the cardiovascular system was audio-recorded. The arguments constructed by the students were analyzed using a coding scheme, which included four types of argumentation (Type 0: incomplete, Type 1: claim only, Type 2: claim with data, and Type 3: claim with data and warrant). The mean frequency of each type of argumentation according to each HDR phase across the two small groups was calculated. RESULTS: During small group discussions, Type 1 arguments were generated most often (frequency=120.5, 43%), whereas the least common were Type 3 arguments (frequency=24.5, 8.7%) among the four types of arguments. CONCLUSION: The results of this study revealed that the students predominantly made claims without proper justifications; they often omitted data for supporting their claims or did not provide warrants to connect the claims and data. The findings suggest instructional interventions to enhance the quality of medical students' arguments in PBL, including promoting students' comprehension of the structure of argumentation for HDR processes and questioning.

Componentes de dificultad de tareas de razonamiento deductivo aplicando el modelo LLTM de Fischer / Difficulty components of deductive reasoning tasks by applying Fischer's LLTM model

El razonamiento silogístico es parte importante del razonamiento deductivo. El análisis de las fuentes de error en la resolución de silogismos originó, dentro de la psicología cognitiva, explicaciones como el efecto atmósfera, el sesgo de la figura y la conversión ilícita. En este trabajo se ajustó el modelo LLTM de Fischer para identificar componentes de dificultad de silogismos y estimar sus efectos. Se administraron 46 ítems con un diseño de enlace a tres grupos, con un total de 1074 estudiantes universitarios. Para cada par de premisas se debía escoger un esquema de conclusión y completarlo con los términos extremos o reconocer la falta de conclusión válida. El modelo de Rasch se ajustó sobre un subconjunto de 20 silogismos y se aplicó el modelo LLTM de Fischer. Se identificaron, aumentando la dificultad, cuatro componentes: efecto atmósfera y sesgo de figura (cuando éstos están en dirección contraria a la conclusión o no hay conclusión válida), figura II y figura III. El carácter reversible de la conclusión (modos universal negativo y particular afirmativo) y la falta de conclusión válida fueron componentes facilitadores. La correlación entre las estimaciones de los parámetros de dificultad bajo el modelo de Rasch y el LLTM fue 0,96.

Syllogistic reasoning is an important part of deductive reasoning. In cognitive psychology, the analysis of error sources in solving syllogisms produced explanations such as the atmosphere effect, figure bias and wrong conversion. The Fischer Linear Logistic Test Model (LLTM) was fitted on a set of syllogisms in order to identify their difficulty components and estimate their effects. Forty six items were administered with a link design to three groups of 1074 university students. The task consisted in choosing, for each pair of premises, one conclusion scheme and complete it with the suitable terms, if a valid conclusion existed; otherwise, examinees had to select the option of no valid conclusion. The Rasch model was fitted to a subset of 20 syllogisms on which Fischer's LLTM was applied. Four components were identified that increase syllogistic difficulty: atmosphere effect, figure bias (when they follow the opposite direction of the conclusion or when there is no valid conclusion), figure II and figure III. Two components were found that make the task easier: reversibility of conclusion (universal negative and particular affirmative modes) and lack of valid conclusion. Linear correlation between the estimates of difficulty parameters obtained with Rasch and LLTM models was .96.

Analogías de figuras: Teoría y construcción de ítemes / Figural analogies: Theory and construction of items

Se describen las bases conceptuales y operacionales de los tests de resolución de problemas por analogía estableciendo énfasis en las analogías de figuras. Se expone brevemente la importancia del estudio de dicho constructo hipotético para el abordaje de la capacidad intelectual. Se citan lineamientos teóricos sobre el mismo y se describen las características y mecanismos cognitivos fundamentales implicados en la resolución de matrices de figuras. En cuanto a este último punto, se aborda la comprensión de las relaciones y correlatos entre relaciones figurales tomando el modelo de proporción A:B::C:D propio de la tradición psicométrica desde principios del Siglo XX. Se establecen además vínculos conceptuales con aportes de autores pertenecientes a la vertiente cognitiva de estudio del razonamiento analógico y con escuelas de la Psicología General. Se pretende brindar un marco ideal para la creación de matrices figurales de 2 x 2 que midan el constructo. Con el objetivo de evitar sesgos en la medición, se plantean seis sugerencias básicas puestas al servicio tanto de la confección de estos reactivos, como de su administración. Dichas sugerencias son las siguientes: (1) considerar el doble camino de resolución de la matriz, (2) desarrollar una estrategia unívoca de resolución, (3) tomar en cuenta n estrategias para generar nk ítemes, (4) crear ítemes a ser resueltos únicamente por la vía del razonamiento analógico, (5) consideraciones en cuanto a las opciones de respuesta y (6) consideraciones referidas a la administración.

This paper describes the conceptual and operational bases of analogical problem - solving tests, placing emphasis on figural analogies. The importance of the study of such a hypothetical construct to the understanding of intellectual capacity is briefly outlined. The significance of the construct in relation to mental development and individual maturation from childhood to adulthood is also explained in a concise way. Theoretical considerations about analogical reasoning are quoted and the fundamental characteristics and cognitive mechanisms involved in the resolution of figural matrix items are described. In this respect, the nature of relations and correlations between relations of figures is elucidated taking into account the A:B::C:D proportional model which has been researched by psychometrists since the beginning of the 20th Century. This model suggests the existence of two pairs of relations between elements, where element A is to element B as element C is to a missing element D (Figure 2). Items created on the basis of this structure usually contain given answers, only one of which is correct. On the other hand, linkages are established with contributions from experts defending the cognitive perspective of the study of analogical reasoning, and also with General Psychology schools like Gestalt and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence. Finally, an ideal framework for the creation of 2 x 2 figural matrices that can measure analogical reasoning is intended to be provided. With the purpose of reducing item bias, six essential suggestions for the preparation and administration of items are offered. These suggestions are: (1) the constructor should consider the double resolution pathway of a proportional analogy (horizontal as well as vertical, i.e. A:B::C:D and A:C::B:D). In doing so, the probability of generating non-controlled rules of analogical relation to one of these pathways will be reduced. These accidental rules correspond to resolution logics different from those chosen by the designer, therefore affecting item manipulation and control. (2) Strongly related to the latter, given that each rule or combination of rules creates one different resolution strategy, each proportional analogy item should incorporate only one of these strategies to be applied horizontally as well as vertically. (3) Given that one or more rules may be used for the same item, a few rules are more than enough to prepare a large group of strategies and, therefore, a large item bank. Also, it is possible to take into account n strategies to produce nk items, being k the number of items apparently different from each other that nevertheless share the same resolution strategy. (4) Items that can be solved by applying ways of reasoning different from those of the proportional analogies should not be constructed. For instance, the designer should not allow superficial comparisons among some matching attributes of the item as a problem solving method, since this procedure does not require the consideration of the whole matrix structure (Gestalt's) which should serve as a basis for the analogical reasoning task. Therefore, pairing analogies should be rejected as they allow for this kind of resolution pathways (e.g. matching circle C with circle D2 in the 4th item of Figure 2, without taking into account the other matrix figures). (5) Alternative responses should contain one clearly correct answer to be discovered by using only analogical reasoning; wrong answers should not replace the correct one just because they are more appropriate considering alternative non-pretended ways of reasoning; all alternatives should share similarities and be distributed on a random basis. (6) The bias arising from administration conditions should be taken into account, including the possible verbal contamination during completion of this non-verbal test.

Efecto de la introducción de negaciones sobre la dificultad de los argumentos condicionales simbólicos / Effect of the introduction of negations on the difficulty of symbolic conditional arguments

En este trabajo se estudió la dificultad para evaluar la validez de los argumentos condicionales Modus Ponens (MP), Modus Tollens (MT), Negación del Antecedente (NA) y Afirmación del Consecuente (AC) de contenido simbólico cuando se introducen negaciones explícitas en el antecedente y/o el consecuente de la premisa mayor. No se encontraron diferencias significativas entre los porcentajes de aceptación en MP y AC de acuerdo a la presencia o no de negaciones. En MT el argumento con antecedente y consecuente negado obtuvo un porcentaje de aceptación significativamente menor a los que tienen negado un sólo componente. En NA el argumento con ambas cláusulas negadas tiene un porcentaje de aceptación menor al resto. Se discuten las implicaciones teóricas de estos resultados a partir de su comparación con los patrones propuestos en Schroyens, Schaeken & D'Ydewalle (2001).

This paper studies the difficulty to evaluate the validity of conditional arguments Modus Ponens (MP), Modus Tollens (MT), Denying the Antecedent (NA) and Affirming the Consequent (AC) of symbolic content when explicit negations are introduced into the antecedent and/or the consequent of the main premise. No significant differences were found among the acceptance percentages in MP and AC according to the presence or absence of negations. In MT, the argument with antecedent and consequent denied obtained a significantly lower acceptance percentage than arguments with only one component denied. In NA, the argument with both clauses denied has a lower acceptance percentage than the rest. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed on the basis of their comparison with the patterns proposed in Schroyens, Schaeken & D'Ydewalle (2001).

Aplicación del modelo LLTM de Fischer al análisis de las fuentes de dificultad de ítemes de razonamiento deductivo / Application of the Fischer LLTM model to the analysis of the sources of difficulty of deductive reasoning items

El Modelo Logístico Lineal de Rasgo Latente (LLTM) de Fischer permite descomponer la dificultad de un ítem como suma de los efectos debidos a las fuentes de dificultad predichas por las teorías cognitivas, decidir si éstos son significativos y estimarlos. En el estudio que se informa se diseñaron y elaboraron 24 ítemes de razonamiento deductivo teniendo en cuenta las fuentes de dificultad predichas por las teorías cognitivas y por la experiencia educacional. Se administraron a 251 estudiantes de la Carrera de Psicología de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA). Se describe el procedimiento para seleccionar un subconjunto de los mismos al cual ajuste el modelo LLTM. El objetivo de este trabajo fue verificar la pertinencia de las fuentes de dificultad consideradas y orientar la construcción de nuevos ítemes. Se logró un buen ajuste del modelo de Rasch (p = .89) y del modelo LLTM (p = .11) sobre 12 de ellos. Los valores z de Wald resultaron no significativos para los 12 ítemes mencionados. La correlación de los parámetros de dificultad estimados en ambos modelos fue: r = .99. Se consideraron cinco componentes que resultaron significativos. Éstos fueron, en orden decreciente de dificultad, la presencia de: (a) falacias de afirmación del consecuente y de negación del antecedente, (b) negación afectando a la disyunción o conjunción, (c) contenido abstracto o simbólico, (d) cuantificadores y (e) condicionales. Se verificaron los supuestos de invariancia para los parámetros de los ítemes y de los sujetos. Los resultados de esta etapa exploratoria alientan a seguir construyendo ítemes tomando en cuenta las fuentes de dificultad halladas.

The processes involved in deductive reasoning have been studied by Cognitive Psychology since the seventies. Many hypotheses have been put forward to explain the difficulties in solving simple reasoning problems when considering their logical connectives, content and context of the tasks in which they are presented. These hypotheses have led to the development of different theories of reasoning like those based on the formal inference rules approach (Braine, 1978; Braine & O'Brien, 1991; Braine & Rumain, 1983; Rips, 1994), the Pragmatic Schemas Theory (Cheng & Holyoak, 1985) and the theory of semantic mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983, Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991). The componential models of the Item Response Theory have allowed Psychometry to explain said these processes (Embretson, 1994). Thus, for instance, the Linear Logistic Latent Trait Model (LLTM) (Fischer, 1973, 1997), an extension of the Rasch model, expresses item difficulty as the sum of the effects due to the sources of difficulty predicted by the mentioned cognitive theories, which enables us to decide whether these effects are significant and estimate them. In other words, the Rasch item parameters β1 are linearly decomposed in the form where p is the number of components considered, αl -the basic parameters of the model, expresses the difficulty of each component l, w il is the weight of αl with respect to the difficulty of the item i and c is an arbitrary normalization constant. Formula (1) implies that the application of the LLTM model makes sense only when the Rasch model fits the data. On the other hand, if the proposed components were sufficiently exhaustive to explain the differences between the items, formula (1) would allow us, once the basic parameters αl have been estimated, to recover estimates similar to those obtained directly by the application of the Rasch model, which would imply a high correlation between the parameters estimated under both models. The identification of the difficulty components and the estimate of their effects may be useful to generate items with preset difficulty parameters. This paper describes the process to find a subset of deductive reasoning items to which the LLTM model fits well. A set of 24 deductive reasoning items were designed and created considering the sources of difficulty predicted by cognitive theories and educational practice. The objective is to verify the suitability of such sources and to guide the construction of new items. Each item may consist of one, two or three premises and one conclusion. The individual must decide whether the conclusion is true or false. Nine items are made of concrete content, neutral to avoid any bias due beliefs or opinions, and the remaining ones have abstract or symbolic content. They were administered to a sample of 251 students of Psychology (Universidad de Buenos Aires - Argentina), composed of 24% males and 76% females, whose average age is 22.68 (DS = 6.35). Good fit for the Rasch model (p = .89) and for the LLTM model (p = .11) were obtained for 12 of them. The Wald z-values were not significant for the 12 items mentioned before. The linear correlation between the parameters estimated under both models was r = .99. Five components that turned out to be significant were considered. These components are listed in a decreasing level of difficulty: (a) affirmation of the consequent and negation of antecedent fallacies, (b) negation when affecting disjunction / conjunction, (c) abstract or symbolic content, (d) quantifiers and (e) conditionals. The two assumptions that refer to both, the item and subject parameter invariance, were checked. The results of this exploratory step encourage us to go on constructing new items taking into account the sources of difficulty that were found.

Desenvolvimento adulto e escolaridade: um estudo sobre a resolução de problemas dedutivos / Cognitive adult development and schooling:a study of deductive problem solving

Comparamos o desempenho de 112 universitários e 148 alunos de classes de alfabetização, entre 20 e 39 anos, em problemas dedutivos de três termos. Dez sujeitos submeteram-se a entrevista semi-estruturada. Os resultados indicam: superioridade nas médias dos universitários; diferença não significativa para a variável sexo; média das estudantes de ciências humanas mais baixa; maior freqüência de erros nos mesmos problemas para os dois grupos, evidenciando a influência de variáveis lingüísticas. Nossas conclusões recaem sobre o papel da escolarização no desenvolvimento adulto, a especificidade das áreas de conhecimento e a escolha profissional.

The performance of 112 undergraduate university students and 148 stu-dents from literacy classes (20 to 39 years old) in 15 deductive problemsare compared. 10 subjects were submitted to a semi-structured inter-view. Results show: the averages achieved by the undergraduate univer-sity students were considerably higher than those of the other group; thedifference between average scores was not relevant in relation to sex; theaverage achieved by Liberal Arts female students was lower; problemswhich involved the highest mistake frequency was the same for bothgroups, thus revealing the inf luence of linguistic variables. The concl-sion concerns the role played by schooling in adult development, thespecificity of fields of knowledge and professional choice