Figure 4.13: Self-rating scale for element 10—Examining similarities and differences.

      The following examples describe what each level of the scale might look like in the classroom.

      • Not Using (0): A teacher does not ask her students to classify or describe similarities and differences to deepen their understanding of concepts taught in class. The teacher does ask students to describe concepts in order to refine their understanding of topics but does not provide opportunities for students to compare these descriptions to descriptions of other concepts.

      • Beginning (1): A teacher asks his students to use a Venn diagram to compare two events they have been discussing in class. However, the teacher fails to describe how to use a Venn diagram and assumes that his students will be able to complete the activity on their own and understand what it means.

      • Developing (2): A teacher instructs her students to use a comparison matrix to compare three characters from a novel they have been reading. After the students have completed their matrices, they discuss what they have found. However, the teacher does not take note if their discussions indicate that their knowledge has developed.

      • Applying (3): A teacher puts his students into groups of three to complete a classification chart. Once all of the students have completed their charts, he asks them to present their chart to the class and explain their reasoning. As the students present, he encourages the rest of the class to ask clarifying questions and listens to make sure the students’ understanding is more complete as a result of the activity.

      • Innovating (4): A teacher asks the class to create a visual analogy illustrating a relationship between organisms. When some students appear to be struggling with the activity, she puts them into a small group and asks them to describe the relationships first and then choose a relationship together that they can illustrate. After they choose a relationship, the teacher asks the students if they can think of something they have observed in their lives that behaves similarly. Once the students have completed the assignment, the teacher asks all of the students to hang their visual analogies on the wall and then the class goes through and identifies which relationship is being depicted in each analogy.

Element 11: Examining Errors in Reasoning

      This element helps deepen students’ understanding of content by having them examine their own reasoning or the overall logic of information presented to them. Research has shown that errors are sometimes present in students’ understanding of content (Brown & Burton, 1978). The best way to correct those errors is for students to re-examine the content for accuracy (Clement, Lockhead, & Mink, 1979; Tennyson & Cocchiarella, 1986). Philosophers have identified the following four types of errors in thinking: (1) faulty logic, (2) attack, (3) weak reference, and (4) misinformation (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991; Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1981).

      There are twelve strategies within this element.

      1. Identifying errors of faulty logic

      2. Identifying errors of attack

      3. Identifying errors of weak reference

      4. Identifying errors of misinformation

      5. Practicing identifying errors in logic

      6. Finding errors in the media

      7. Examining support for claims

      8. Judging reasoning and evidence in an author’s work

      9. Identifying statistical limitations

      10. Using student-friendly prompts

      11. Anticipating student errors

      12. Avoiding unproductive habits of mind

      The following sections will explore each strategy to provide you with guidelines to effectively implement this element. Read through each before creating a plan for your classroom. Teachers may use the strategies individually or in combination. Remember, these are not merely activities to be checked off; they are methods of creating a practice that combines your art with the science of examining errors in reasoning. Reflect on your use of each strategy by filling out the “Strategy Reflection Log” on page 331.

       Identifying Errors of Faulty Logic

      In this strategy, students find and analyze errors of faulty logic. Errors of faulty logic refer to situations in which a conclusion is not supported by sound reasons. Specific types of errors in this category include the following.

      • Contradiction: Presenting conflicting information—for example, saying that downloading music illegally should be punished more harshly while also arguing that internet providers and the government shouldn’t be allowed to collect information about internet users

      • Accident: Failing to recognize that an argument is based on an exception to a rule—for example, if a person argued that Scotland has a warm and sunny climate based on the weather during her one-week vacation there

      • False cause: Confusing a temporal (time) order of events with causality or oversimplifying the reasons behind some event or occurrence—for example, superstitious beliefs such as wearing a certain shirt so that your favorite team will win

      • Begging the question: Making a claim and then arguing for the claim by using statements that are simply the equivalent of the original claim—for example, saying that Namibia is the most beautiful country because it has the prettiest landscape

      • Evading the issue: Changing the topic to avoid addressing the issue—for example, if a student defends himself against accusations of cheating on a test by saying that he always does his homework and never breaks curfew

      • Arguing from ignorance: Arguing that a claim is justified simply because its opposite has not been proven true—for example, claiming that a certain subatomic particle must not exist because we haven’t discovered it yet

      • Composition: Asserting something about a whole that is true of only its parts—for example, creating a stereotype about a whole group of people based on the actions or traits of a few people from that group

      • Division: Making a claim about individual parts based on the fact that it is generally true of the whole—for example, saying that because you dislike sandwiches, you must dislike tomatoes

       Identifying Errors of Attack

      Students find and analyze errors of attack. Errors of attack happen when a person focuses on the context of an argument, rather than the argument itself, in trying to refute the other side. That is, instead of using evidence and sound reasons to argue a point, a person ignores counterevidence and attacks the person who is arguing for the other side. Types of errors in this category include the following.

      • Poisoning the well: Being so completely committed to a position that you