The phrase "a reasoning level" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing different tiers or stages of reasoning or cognitive processes in various contexts, such as education, psychology, or logic.
Example: "In our discussion about critical thinking, we need to consider a reasoning level that allows for deeper analysis of the arguments presented."
Alternatives: "a level of reasoning" or "a cognitive level".
This difference can be accounted for by the fact that Instructor 1-AL's students were non biology majors and started at a lower reasoning level.
Instructors 1-AL and 2-AL showed substantial gains in the number of students demonstrating principle-based reasoning, whereas Instructor 3-MAL's students remained stable at a mixed reasoning level.
We found evidence of coconstruction in more than three-quarters of these discussions, which exhibited either an exchange of reasoning (level 2) or an exchange of warrants (level 3).
The effect of group composition on reasoning gains and reasoning transfer scores (and high-level achievement to a lesser extent) was dependent on both the student's initial reasoning level and instructional method.
The researchers provide examples of these factors such as reasoning level, religious perspective, views of science and the nature of science, thinking dispositions, and epistemological beliefs.
Most of the 83 discussions were categorized into the two highest-quality reasoning levels, both of which involve exchanges of reasoning (level 3: 54%; level 2: 24%).
The discussions in the 0/1 quality of reasoning level were distributed over 15 of the 34 clicker questions.
However, students relatively infrequently exchanged reasoning with fully articulated warrants Exchange of Quality Reasoning level 3 claims logically connected to evidence (Table 4).
We encourage faculty to consider the evidence from our paper and think about using the results from diagnostic questions to create more effective classroom activities that target the reasoning level of their own populations of students.
Discussions that involved an exchange of reasoning (levels 2 and 3) devoted a significantly higher percent of the discussion to reasoning and also had significantly more turns of talk, compared with level 0/1 discussions (Table 5).
