Approaches to studying formal and everyday reasoning.

Abstract

Reviews the current literature on different types of reasoning, showing little integration across different studies and very little explicit discussion regarding the nature of reasoning. Moreover, most recent theoretical work on deductive and inductive reasoning does not make any explicit connection to everyday reasoning. Major programmatic approaches to the study of reasoning are classified into three types: the componential approach, the rules/heuristics approach, and the mental models/ search approach. Strengths and shortcomings of each are reviewed. It is concluded that each approach can potentially play an important role in describing one or more aspects of everyday reasoning. In terms of direct extendability to the description, study, and improvement of everyday reasoning, the mental models/search approach is argued to be the most useful, especially when it incorporates a generalized version of the rules/heuristics approach.The study of thinking and reasoning has expanded and intensified in the past two decades. The emergence of the fields of cognitive science and artificial intelligence have reawakened interest in the problem of describing, in a useful and testable way, what makes for "good," "critical," "reflective," and "productive" thinking (Dewey, 1933; Wertheirner, 1945). Programs and studies to assess and improve critical thinking are currently underway in a number of educational contexts (Baron, 1985;

The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction

“…Research in social psychology suggests that theory change is more likely when people process contradictory information deeply than when they do not (see Cooper & Croyle, 1984;Tesser & Shaffer, 1990). However, in practice people frequently fail to process contradictory information deeply; in particular, they attend much more to evidence that supports their beliefs than evidence that contradicts them (e.g., Galotti, 1989).…”

Transitivity judgments, memory for premises, and models of children's reasoning*1

“…Because of Johnson-Laird's success in providing explanations for the errors and biases typically found in everyday reasoning, Galotti (1989) named the mental models approach as the most promising approach to a general theory of human reasoning. Nevertheless, its reliance on mental "tableaus" makes it vulnerable to the epistemological problems inherent in representational theories of mind, such as how the subject knows that a given tableau is an accurate representation of reality (Russell, 1987).…”

An Content Analysis of the Definition of Critical Thinking

“…Scholars from different disciplines often have the same topic of the nature of critical thinking, but the difference is that they employed different perspectives or methods, and they have different conclusions. The most obvious example is APA Delphi panel, composed mostly of philosophers, thought that critical thinking is related to problem solving, decision making, and creative thinking like Halpern (Facione, 1990) Philophers and educators usually recommend students, especially college students follow certain principles and rules to produce thinking that meet prescribed standards while psychologists take a descriptive approach when scientifically studying how people think, sometimes investigating how well people can use the rules of reasoning and documenting their thinking errors in relation to norms (Galotti, 1989). It concluded that philosophers and educators pay more attention to what people will follow when they think and psychologists emphasized on how people think.…”