Stimulating Reflection and Self-correcting Reasoning Through Argument Mapping: Three Approaches.
A large body of research in cognitive science differentiates human reasoning into two types: fast, intuitive, and emotional “System 1” thinking, and slower, more reflective “System 2” reasoning. According to this research, human reasoning is by default fast and intuitive, but that means that it is p...
| Publicado en: | Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy Vol. 37; no. 1; pp. 185 - 200 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Mar2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=128149616&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 128149616 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 01677411 NM2 jtl: Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy issn: 01677411 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Mar2018 vid: 37 iid: 1 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 128149616 10.1007/s11245-016-9408-x ppf: 185 ppct: 15 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 621KB tig: atl: Stimulating Reflection and Self-correcting Reasoning Through Argument Mapping: Three Approaches. aug: au: Hoffmann, Michael H. G. affil: , School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 685 Cherry Street, N.W., DM Smith Building, 30332-0345, Atlanta, GA, USA su: Reasoning Judgment (Logic) Visual analytics Hypothesis Critical thinking sug: subj: Reasoning Judgment (Logic) Visual analytics Hypothesis Critical thinking keyword: Argumentation Cognitive load Cognitive schema Computer-supported argument visualization Education Myside bias Reflective judgement Self-regulated learning ab: A large body of research in cognitive science differentiates human reasoning into two types: fast, intuitive, and emotional “System 1” thinking, and slower, more reflective “System 2” reasoning. According to this research, human reasoning is by default fast and intuitive, but that means that it is prone to error and biases that cloud our judgments and decision making. To improve the quality of reasoning, critical thinking education should develop strategies to slow it down and to become more reflective. The goal of such education should be to enable and motivate students to identify weaknesses, gaps, biases, and limiting perspectives in their own reasoning and to correct them. This contribution discusses how this goal could be achieved with regard to reasoning that involves the construction of arguments; or more precisely: how computer-supported argument visualization (CSAV) tools could be designed that support reflection on the quality of arguments and their improvement. Three types of CSAV approaches are distinguished that focus on reflection and self-correcting reasoning. The first one is to trigger reflection by confronting the user with specific questions that direct attention to critical points. The second approach uses templates that, on the one hand, provide a particular structure to reason about an issue by means of arguments and, on the other, include prompts to enter specific items. And a third approach is realized in specifically designed user guidance (“scripts”) that attempts to trigger reflection and self-correction. These types of approaches are currently realized only in very few CSAV tools. In order to inform the future development of what I call reflection tools, this article discusses the potential and limitations of these types and tools with regard to five explanations of the observation that students hardly ever engage in substantial revisions of what they wrote: a lack of strategies how to do it; cognitive overload; certain epistemic beliefs; myside bias; and over-confidence in the quality of one’s own reasoning. The question is: To what degree can each of the CSAV approaches and tools address these five potential obstacles to reflection and self-correction? pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy is a copyright of Springer, 2018. All Rights Reserved. item: Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2018 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|