Mixed-methods analysis reveals that mathematical reasoning enhances problem-solving in students, indicating effective instructional strategies.
This study investigates the role of mathematical reasoning in supporting students’ ability to solve interdisciplinary problems across biology and physics, with a particular focus on the cognitive and instructional factors that influence its application and transfer. Grounded in a mixed-methods convergent parallel design, the research involved 240 senior secondary school students and 12 science teachers drawn from stratified urban and rural schools. Data were collected using a researcher-developed Mathematical Reasoning in Science Problem-Solving Test (MRSPST), classroom observations, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA, and multiple regression, while qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. Results showed that students demonstrated significantly higher mathematical reasoning performance in physics than in biology, revealing disciplinary differences in how mathematics is integrated and utilized. Cognitive variables such as reasoning ability and prior math knowledge, along with subject preference, significantly predicted students’ interdisciplinary reasoning performance. Additionally, the study found that instructional strategies had a marked effect on students’ ability to transfer mathematical reasoning across domains, with real-world context integration and model-based inquiry proving significantly more effective than traditional lecture methods. Qualitative findings supported this, highlighting the importance of representational fluency, authentic problem contexts, and student discourse. The study concludes with strong recommendations for integrating interdisciplinary, inquiry-driven pedagogies and for enhancing teacher capacity to facilitate mathematical reasoning across STEM subjects. These insights have implications for curriculum design, instructional practices, and educational policy aimed at advancing meaningful STEM integration in secondary education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sani et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: