Making Science Education More Natural – Some Ideas from the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning
Abstract
Zusammenfassung. Dass der Austausch von Argumenten sehr nützlich für die Vermittlung wissenschaftlicher Denkweisen ist, konnte bereits nachgewiesen werden. Die Argumentative Theory of Reasoning kann diesen Nutzen gut erklären. Sie besagt, dass die Hauptfunktion des schlussfolgernden Denkens das Argumentieren ist: Argumente zu produzieren, um andere zu überzeugen, und die Bewertung von Argumenten anderer, um überzeugt zu werden. Diese Theorie erklärt, warum individuelles Argumentieren häufig nur zu einer schlechten Argumentationsleistung führt, während der soziale Austausch von Argumenten zu einer besseren Argumentationsleistung führt. Zusätzlich weist sie darauf hin, dass die beste Art zu lernen wie man gut argumentiert, darin besteht, mit anderen zu diskutieren. In diesem Artikel versuche ich, die Erkenntnisse der anderen Artikel dieses Themenhefts in diesen Rahmen zu integrieren.
Abstract. The benefits of the exchange of arguments for science education are well established. The argumentative theory of reasoning is in a good position to explain these benefits. It claims that the main function of reasoning is to argue: to produce arguments to convince others, and to evaluate others' arguments in order to be convinced when, and only when, warranted. This theory explains why solitary reasoning often leads to poor reasoning performance, while the social exchange of arguments often leads to good reasoning performance. It also suggests that the best way to learn how to reason well is to reason with others. In this article, I attempt to integrate the findings from the other articles of the special issue into this framework.
References
(2001). Quantum dialogue: The making of a revolution . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2002). How children learn the meanings of words . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2016). Identifying general abilities: Identifying general cognitive abilities involved in argument comprehension and evaluation. German Journal of Educational Psychology , 30 (2–3), 79–95.
(2016). Who knows? Explaining impacts on the assessment of our own knowledge and of the knowledge of experts. German Journal of Educational Psychology , 30 (2–3), 97–108.
(1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & Davidson, J.E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge: MIT Press.
(1976). Rationalization in a reasoning task. British Journal of Psychology , 67 , 479–486.
(2016). Developing epistemological understanding in scientific and social domains through argumentation. German Journal of Educational Psychology , 30 (2–3), 109–119.
(1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions . New York: Oxford University Press.
(1991). The skills of arguments . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
(2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents' thinking. Psychological Science , 22 , 545–552.
(2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning , 13 , 90–104.
(2011). Group problem solving . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
(2016). Influence of a dialog setting: How dialogic settings influence evidence use in adolescent students. German Journal of Educational Psychology , 30 (2–3), 121–132.
(in press). Confirmation (or myside) bias. In R. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions ( 2nd ed. ). London: Psychology Press.
(2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development , 26 , 177–191.
(in press). Why don't people produce better arguments? In L. Macchi, M. Bagassi, & R. Viale (Eds.), The language of thought . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2014). Scientists' argumentative reasoning. Topoi , 33 , 513–524.
(2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 34 (2), 57–74.
(1998). Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning , 4 , 231–248.
(2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 33 (3), 345–359.
(1989). Reasoning as it is and could be: An empirical perspective. In D. M. Topping, D. C. Crowell, & V. N. Kobayashi (Eds.), Thinking across cultures: The Third International Conference on Thinking (pp. 175–194). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1980). Social interaction and cognitive development in children . London: Academic Press.
(1992). The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 51 , 416–446.
(1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice ( Vol. 2 ). London: Allyn and Bacon.
(2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science , 323 (5910), 122–124.
(2016). Better to agree or disagree? The role of critical questioning and elaboration in argumentative discourse. German Journal of Educational Psychology , 30 (2–3), 133–149.
(in press). The selective laziness of reasoning. Cognitive Science .
(2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 143 , 1958–1971.
