Actionable companion · Motivation & engagement

Learning with agency: Secondary School Students’ Reasoning About Science and Personhood

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide, separate from the original research. Proposed actions are not claims or recommendations attributed to the source authors. No independent peer review of this guide is asserted.

Read original paper Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and context

Title and abstract screening; stage labels describe reported settings, not verified numerical ages. Design labels require full-text appraisal. Reported stage(s): Secondary school. Verify the participant population and task before transferring the findings.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the linked source license:

Abstract Scientific advances, particularly in evolutionary biology, genetics, neuroscience and artificial intelligence, present many challenges to religious and popular notions of personhood. This paper reports the first large-scale study on students’ beliefs about the interactions between science and widely held beliefs about personhood. The paper presents findings from a questionnaire survey (n = 530) administered to English secondary school students (age 15–16) in which their beliefs and concepts regarding personhood and the position of science were investigated. The survey was motivated in part by an interview study and a previous, smaller survey which revealed that many students struggle to reconcile their beliefs with what they suppose science to say and also that some have reluctantly dismissed the soul as a ‘nice story’ which is incompatible with scientific facts. The results from this larger-scale survey indicate that a majority of the students believe in some form of soul. Even so, and regardless of whether or not they identified themselves as religious, most students expressed a belief that human persons cannot be fully explained scientifically, a position that some students perceived as a partial rejection of what it means to hold a scientific worldview.

What kind of evidence is this?

Supporting AI learning science · Qualitative / mixed methods

Stage: Secondary school. Screening labels describe reported context and study-design language. They are not a risk-of-bias rating or proof of effectiveness for an age band.

Participant ages · source passage

The paper presents findings from a questionnaire survey (n = 530) administered to English secondary school students (age 15–16) in which their beliefs and concepts regarding personhood and the position of science were investigated.

Study methods · source passage

Averaged across the six topics explored in this study (soul, mind, behaviour and thinking, purpose of life and being special), 15% of the sample found an explicit conflict between what they believe and what they perceive science to say. By the term ‘explicit conflict’, we mean that they have identified a personal position on a topic and have also identified what they perceive as the scientific view is on the topic and these two positions are incompatible. Moreover, our analysis shows that 56% of participants found an explicit conflict on at least one topic (among six topics) between their own beliefs and what they think science says (see Table 6).

Limitations and uncertainty · source passage

Science education is vital in this mission and can potentially bring back nuance to how ‘science’ is characterised for science understanding. However, science education particularly school science in its conventional form, is unlikely to rise up to the challenge given that the complexity of the issues at hand require more than input from science. COVID-19 is not only a scientific problem. It is also a societal problem, appealing to politics and economics among other domains. A cross-curricular approach is needed where students can discuss a range of perspectives on science including how science may compare with other ways of knowing as well as what power and limitations science might possess.

Design the system before the pilot

Use this study to inform a learning mechanism or implementation question. It is not direct evidence that autonomous agents improve learning. Keep the proposed agent behavior separate from what the source actually tested.

Measure engagement separately from achievement. Check whether novelty-driven participation persists and whether it translates to independent performance.
Use common rubrics, blind scoring where feasible and a fresh unaided reasoning task. Document permissible assistance and avoid treating AI-detector scores as proof of misconduct.

A 90-day district pilot

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Have the curriculum lead and a teacher read the methods and limitations. Record the study design, sample, comparator, outcomes and evidence gaps. Define a local question that the study can help inform.
Days 16–30 · Design. Ask learners to attempt a problem unaided, compare an agent hint, explain a revision and verify the final reasoning against a trusted source. Make the permitted use explicit for each assignment. Name an accountable owner and set the baseline, success threshold and budget before implementation.
Days 31–60 · Test. Start with a small voluntary cohort, preserve an accessible non-AI route and require teacher review. Use synthetic or de-identified examples; approve data handling and tool terms through district processes.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Measure unaided transfer and delayed retention, calibration of confidence and the ability to identify an incorrect AI explanation. Record whether help-seeking becomes answer copying. Compare with baseline, document uncertainty and stop or revise if learning worsens, access is unequal or critical errors persist.

The board decision brief

Report the learning problem, evidence quality, participating population, total cost including review time, measured benefit, errors, access differences and remaining uncertainties. Make a dated recommendation to stop, revise or expand. A positive perception survey alone does not establish learning improvement.

Attribution and reuse

Berry Billingsley; Mehdi Nassaji. Secondary School Students’ Reasoning About Science and Personhood. Science & Education (2021-04-13). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00199-x

Companion prepared 2026-10-30. Original authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract is an attributed source extract; the implementation plan is new AI-assisted editorial material, offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license. This guide has not undergone independent peer review.