Topoi 37 (1):185-199 (2018)

Authors
Michael H. G. Hoffmann
Georgia Institute of Technology
Abstract
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 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 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?
Keywords Argumentation  Cognitive load  Cognitive schema  Computer-supported argument visualization  Critical thinking  Education  Myside bias  Reflective judgement  Self-regulated learning
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11245-016-9408-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 56,999
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Long-Term Working Memory.K. Anders Ericsson & Walter Kintsch - 1995 - Psychological Review 102 (2):211-245.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Cognitive Effects of Argument Visualization Tools.Michael Hoffmann - 2011 - Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-21, 2011.
Reflective Reasoning in Groups.Christina Slade - 1995 - Informal Logic 17 (2).
The Argument From Silence.Timothy McGrew - 2014 - Acta Analytica 29 (2):215-228.
Computer-Aided Argument Mapping and the Teaching of Critical Thinking (Part 2).Martin Davies - 2012 - Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 27 (3):16-28.
Reflection and Reasoning in Moral Judgment.Joshua D. Greene - 2012 - Cognitive Science 36 (1):163-177.
Learning, Critical Thinking, and Confucius.Hye-Kyung Kim - 2006 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 4:79-84.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-06-22

Total views
38 ( #267,612 of 2,410,452 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #244,706 of 2,410,452 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes