Williamson, K C and Anderson, A J (2019) Reasoning ability as a predictor of success in a construction surveying course. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 15(1), pp. 42-61. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
Well-established tests that measure reasoning abilities have long been found to be predictive of success in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. Instructors can use these tests for predicting a student’s academic achievement and informing instruction. This study investigated the relationship of scores on the Test of Logical Thinking (TOLT) with multiple achievement measures in a junior level, collegiate construction surveying course. The TOLT was administered to 242 construction science students. The scores were found to be significantly correlated with the points earned on the exams and with the total points earned for the course. Based on these findings, instructors, administrators, and researchers would benefit by using the TOLT for assessing student reasoning abilities. This assessment tool could also assist them in understanding their students’ logical thinking skills, which would encourage the instructor to modify their instructional design strategies to match or enhance their students’ problem-solving ability.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction education research; construction surveying; reasoning ability; test of logical thinking; undergraduate education |
| Index terms: | undergraduate, academic achievement, construction education, reasoning, instructor, surveying, design strategy, science |
| Subjects: | health monitoring assessment and metrics, design methods, curriculum development, practitioner, specialized education, professional education, cognitive psychology, educational resources |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Design Practice, Health and Safety, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here