The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Who Reasons Well? Two Studies of Informal Reasoning Among Children of Different Grade, Ability, and Knowledge Levels
Abstract
This article presents the results of two experiments addressing the relation of reasoning skill to student grade, ability, and knowledge levels. In the first experiment, three levels of students within each of four grades-5, 7, 9, or 1 1-were designated as intellectually gifted, average, or below average. They were given three tasks involving everyday problems for which they provided solutions and justifications. The second experiment included the measurement of domain knowledge with grade and ability level. Measures of informal reasoning showed a substantial relation between ability level and performance, with knowledge significantly related to performance measures, such as number and type of reasons generated, but not to measures involving soundness or acceptability of arguments, which were explained by ability level. Grade was related only to an increase in personal and broadly defined social reasons; other effects were "washed out" by knowledge. The findings were interpreted in terms of a two-component model of informal reasoning, a knowledgeexperiential component and an informal reasoning skill component based on the acquisition of argumentation-based language structures termed conventions of reasoning. Consideration of the relation of reasoning to learning and to instruction emphasized the importance of teaching informal reasoning skill.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
Kuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094
Education and thinking: The role of knowledge.
Glaser, R. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.2.93 · Cited by 1,272 · cited 3×
“Cognitive researchers interested in instruction (Glaser, 1984; Perkins, 1985; Resnick, 1987) have pointed to the relevance of”
BackgroundResultBelief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence
Schauble, L. (1990) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-0965(90)90048-d · Cited by 420
Cited by
Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20035 · Cited by 1,596
Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research
Sadler, T. D. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20009 · Cited by 1,440
The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10101 · Cited by 502
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20023 · Cited by 466
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20358 · Cited by 399
Metadata
- Authors
- Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F.
- Venue
- Cognition and Instruction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 139-178
- ISSN
- 0737-0008 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-690X
- OpenAlex
- W1975717592
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 4.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Who Reasons Well? Two Studies of Informal Reasoning Among Children of Different Grade, Ability, and Knowledge Levels. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
- The paper
- Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who Reasons Well? Two Studies of Informal Reasoning Among Children of Different Grade, Ability, and Knowledge Levels. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.