Logo image
Back
Bridging Reasoning in Mathematics and Science: a Document Analysis of Applying and Reasoning in the TIMSS Assessment Framework and the Case for Utilization of Resources
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Bridging Reasoning in Mathematics and Science: a Document Analysis of Applying and Reasoning in the TIMSS Assessment Framework and the Case for Utilization of Resources

Kyong Mi Choi, Jin Mun and Brian Hand
Educational psychology review, Vol.38(1), 22
12/01/2026
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-025-10115-2
url
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10115-2View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

This study explores the cognitive relationship between mathematics and science reasoning by analyzing the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) assessment frameworks. While mathematics and science share the terminology of applying and reasoning, the extent to which these constructions operate similarly across disciplines remains unclear. Drawing on Bailin’s (2002) notion of reasoning as practice and Hammer et al.’s (2005) concept of utilization, we examine whether procedural knowledge (represented in the applying domains) is hypothesized to mediate the development of reasoning within and across disciplines. Using qualitative document analysis, we compare descriptions of Mathematics Reasoning (MR), Science Reasoning (SR), Mathematics Applying (MA), and Science Applying (SA) in the TIMSS frameworks. The analysis revealed minimal direct alignment between mathematics reasoning and science reasoning; however, it identified structural commonalities and hierarchical relationships among the components of reasoning and applying. These findings suggest a follow-up hypothesis that procedural knowledge (the Applying domain) may mediate the development of domain-specific reasoning, which requires future empirical validation using student performance data. The results point to the potential of procedural knowledge, engaged through applying tasks, to function as a cognitive bridge between domain-specific reasoning processes. However, this remains an exploratory hypothesis grounded in the semantic structure within the TIMSS framework documents and does not directly examine learner-level performance or instructional effects. Thus, the present study should be understood as providing an exploratory contribution that hypothetically proposes a structure for cross-domain reasoning development rather than confirming causal pathways of reasoning growth. This insight contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how reasoning is supported within and across STEM domains, and it offers a conceptual foundation for designing instruction that strengthens reasoning through discipline-specific procedural engagement.
 Education Educational Psychology Child and School Psychology Learning and Instruction Review Article

Details

Metrics

1 Record Views
Logo image