Advertisement

Topoi

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 121–128 | Cite as

A Role for Reasoning in a Dialogic Approach to Critical Thinking

  • Deanna Kuhn
Article

Abstract

We note the development of the widely employed but loosely defined construct of critical thinking from its earliest instantiations as a measure of individual ability to its current status, marked by efforts to better connect the construct to the socially-situated thinking demands of real life. Inquiry and argument are identified as key dimensions in a process-based account of critical thinking. Argument is identified as a social practice, rather than a strictly individual competency. Yet, new empirical evidence is presented documenting a role for individual reasoning competencies in supporting the effectiveness of argumentive discourse. A successful curriculum is described for employing extended engagement in dialogic argumentation as a pathway to development of individual argumentive skill.

Keywords

Critical thinking Argument Curriculum Assessment 

References

  1. Ahn W, Kalish C, Medin D, Gelman S (1995) The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition 54:299–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arum R, Roksa J (2011) Academically adrift: limited learning on college campuses. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Billig M (1987) Arguing and thinking: a rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrnes J, Dunbar K (2014) The nature and development of critical-analytic thinking. Educ Psychol Rev 26:477–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. College Work Readiness Assessment (CWRA) 2010 Institutional report and appendices. http://www.cae.org/content/procollegework.htm
  6. Crowell A, Kuhn D (2014) Developing dialogic argumentation skills: a three-year intervention study. J Cognit Dev 15:363–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ennis RH (1987) A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In: Baron JB, Sternberg RJ (eds) Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice. W. H. Freeman, New York, pp 9–26Google Scholar
  8. Gilbert M (1997) Coalescent argumentation. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  9. Goedert K, Harsch J, Spellman B (2005) Discounting and conditionalization: dissociable cognitive processes in human causal inference. Psychol Sci 16:590–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goksun T, George N, Hirsh-Pasek K, Golinkoff R (2013) Forces and motion: how young children understand causal events. Child Dev 84:1285–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldstein M, Crowell A, Kuhn D (2009) What constitutes skilled argumentation and how does it develop? Informal Logic 29:379–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graff G (2003) Clueless in academe: how schooling obscures the life of the mind. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  13. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Davidson D, Harman G (eds) The logic of grammar. Dickenson, Encino, pp 64–75Google Scholar
  14. Hersh R (2005) What does college teach? Atl Mon 296:140–143Google Scholar
  15. Kelley H (1973) The processes of causal attribution. Am Psychol 28:107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. King P, Kitchener K (1994) Developing reflective judgment: understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. Koslowski B (1996) Theory and evidence: the development of scientific reasoning. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn D (1991) The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuhn D (1995) Microgenetic study of change: what has it told us? Psychol Sci 6:133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn D (1999) A developmental model of critical thinking. Educ Res 28:16–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn D (2001) How do people know? Psychol Sci 12:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn D, Crowell A (2011) Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychol Sci 22:545–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhn D, Katz J (2009) Are self-explanations always beneficial?. J Exp Child Psychol 103:386–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhn D, Pease M (2006) Do children and adults learn differently? J Cognit Dev 7:279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhn D, Pease M (2008) What needs to develop in the development of inquiry skills? Cognit Instr 26:512–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhn D, Zillmer N, Crowell A, Zavala J (2013) Developing norms of argumentation: metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognit Instr 31:456–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhn D, Hemberger L, Khait V (2016) Argue with me: argument as a path to developing students’ thinking and writing, 2nd edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Larson A, Britt MA, Kurby C (2009) Improving students’ evaluation of informal arguments. J Exp Educ 77:339–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laux J, Goedert K, Markman A (2010) Causal discounting in the presence of a stronger cue is due to bias. Psychon Bull Rev 17:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Macagno F, Paus E, Kuhn D (2015) Argumentation theory in education studies: coding and improving students’ argumentive strategies. Topoi 34:523–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marin L, Halpern D (2011) Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Think Skills Creat 6:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McPeck J (1981) Critical thinking and education. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Mercier H, Sperber D (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behav Brain Sci 34:57–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moshman D (2015) Epistemic cognition and development: the psychology of justification and truth. Psychology Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Oaksford M, Chater N, Hahn U (2008) Human reasoning and argumentation: the probabilistic approach. In: Adler J, Rips L (eds) Reasoning: studies of human inference and its foundations. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Resnick LB, Michaels S, O’Connor C (2010) How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In: Sternberg R, Preiss D (eds) From genes to context: new discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Resnick L, Asterhan C, Clarke S (eds) (2015) Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. American Educational Research Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Rottman B, Hastie R (2014) Reasoning about causal relationships: inferences on causal networks. Psychol Bull 140:109–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryu S, Sandoval WA (2012) Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Sci Educ 96:488–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schworm S, Renkl A (2007) Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. J Educ Psychol 99:285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sternberg R, Roediger H, Halpern D (2006) Critical thinking in psychology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Szenes E, Tilakaratna N, Maton K (2015) The knowledge practices of critical thinking. In: Davies M, Barnett R (eds) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Trilling B, Fadel C (2009) Twentieth century skills: learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Gelder T (2005) Teaching critical thinking: some lessons from cognitive science. Coll Teach 53:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner A (2008) Teaching and testing the skills that matter most. Educ Week 28:12–30Google Scholar
  46. Walton DN (1989) Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation 3:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walton D (2014) Dialog theory for critical argumentation. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams J, Lombrozo T, Rehder R (2013) The hazards of explanation: overgeneralization in the face of exceptions. J Exp Psychol 142:1006–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teachers College Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations