What is it about?
This study looks at how middle and high school students think about real-world science issues when they are asked to compare evidence with competing explanations of socially-relevant science phenomena. Rather than assuming all students reason in the same way, the study identified three broad patterns of scientific thinking: Pre-Scientific, Quasi-Scientific, and Scientific. It also showed that students can move between these patterns over time. Many students began in a less scientific profile, but repeated, structured classroom activities helped many of them shift toward more evidence-based ways of thinking. The study shows that scientific thinking develops unevenly, but it can be supported through scaffolded instruction.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
This work is important because it offers a more nuanced picture of science learning than the usual “average student” approach. By using a person-centered lens, the study shows that students do not all start in the same place, do not all change at the same pace, and may need different kinds of support as they learn. That is especially timely in a moment when young people are asked to make sense of complex, socially relevant science issues in an environment shaped by misinformation, competing claims, and technology that can generate plausible- and credible-sounding claims on demand (e.g., Large Language Models). The findings suggest that relatively low-cost, evidence-based scaffolds can help students strengthen their reasoning across diverse classrooms, and they give educators a clearer foundation for differentiated instruction and future adaptive supports.
Perspectives
This publication pushes against the idea that students either “have” scientific thinking or they do not. Some students began from positions that were less aligned with scientific explanations, yet still showed meaningful growth when they were given repeated opportunities to weigh evidence against alternatives. That is a hopeful finding. It suggests that scientific thinking is not fixed and that thoughtful classroom design really matters. It is also encouraging that this work was done in authentic classrooms over time, using tools that are practical for teachers. Hopefully, this study helps both researchers and educators think more carefully about where students are starting from, and how they can be better supported in their movement toward deeper, more evidence-based reasoning.
John Robertson
University of Maryland at College Park
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Profiles of scientific thinking., Journal of Educational Psychology, April 2026, American Psychological Association (APA),
DOI: 10.1037/edu0001011.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
