Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning.

Abstract

People generally develop some degree of competence in general informal reasoning and argument skills, but how do they go beyond this to attain higher expertise? Ericsson has proposed that high-level expertise in a variety of domains is cultivated through a specific type of practice, referred to as "deliberate practice." Applying this framework yields the empirical hypothesis that high-level expertise in informal reasoning is the outcome of extensive, deliberate practice. This paper reports results from two studies evaluating the hypothesis. University student participants completed 12 weeks of deliberate practice in informal reasoning. Quantity of practice was recorded by computer, and additionally assessed via self-report. The hypothesis was supported: Students in both studies showed a large improvement, and practice, as measured by computer, was related to amount of improvement in informal reasoning. These findings support adopting a deliberate practice approach when attempting to teach or learn expertise in informal reasoning.

Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex Integrated Skill

“…Although children display informal reasoning skills at some level at an early age and continue to develop in this area, relatively few become highly proficient (Felton & Kuhn, 2001;Golder & Coirier, 1996;Pascarelli & Terenzini, 1991;Stein & Miller, 1993). However, there is evidence that students are capable of significant performance gains when instructed in reasoning skills, at least when it is explicit and involves deliberate practice (Kuhn & Udell, 2003;van Gelder, Bissett, & Cumming, 2004). One concern is that argumentation skills may involve underlying capabilities that mature relatively late and thus involve metacognitive and metalinguistic awareness (Kuhn, Katz, & Dean, 2004).…”

Professores como Facilitadores da Argumentação entre Estudantes: Uma Necessidade Emergente

“…A definição mais comum de um argumento implica justaposição de duas afirmações opostas, também conhecido como argumento dialógico (Kuhn, 1991). Melhorar as aptidões de argumentação dos estudantes implica dar apoio ao seu raciocínio acerca de questões quotidianas e científicas para que este raciocínio se torne mais crítico (van Gelder, Bissett, & Cumming, 2004), contextualizado (Sadler & Fowler, 2006), avaliativo (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000), razoável (Berland & Reiser, 2009), e construtivo (Baker, 2003), mencionando apenas algumas das qualidades de pensar em forma de argumento (Kuhn, 1992).…”

A Companion to Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand (Second Edition)

“…over a single semester, twelve-week course, they have consistently recorded significant improvements in critical thinking, as measured by a standardised multiple-choice test, the California Critical Thinking Skills test (van Gelder et al 2004). The software is now used for teaching critical thinking in dozens of universities and hundreds of schools in australia and world-wide.…”

“…van Gelder's early work in philosophy focussed on issues in the foundations of cognitive science. When he turned his attention to critical thinking, he proposed the Quality Practice hypothesis as a model of how critical thinking skills might be improved (van Gelder et al 2004(van Gelder et al , 2005. This hypothesis states that critical thinking skills can only be improved by extensive deliberate practice-a concept based on research in cognitive science on how expertise is acquired in a variety of cognitive domains.…”