Reasoning 7
Running Head: REASONING COMPARISIONS
Comparing Reasoning Semantics
Jeannie Rebecca Matthews
Lesley University ECOMP 6102
Abstract
Reasoning can be taught to students by using the appropriate approach. While comparing Stiggins and Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, I became more aware of how I could revise my own teaching methods to help facilitate higher order thinking in my own students. Resources and guidelines were found on several websites making it easier than ever to begin implementing these lessons without “reinventing” the wheel.
Reasoning Comparisons
Reasoning is applying what you know to solve a problem. Often times, the semantics used by different people mean different things. My view on solving problems stems from my belief that the word “problem” is just something that needs to be figured out. This “figuring out” process can come from information a person already has, or knowledge of how to get the information needed to address the problem in front of them. Working with deaf students, I am amazed at how little they are taught how to figure things out. With communication barriers, most people find it easier to just give them facts to memorize and regurgitate, or to just give them the solutions to what they might be trying to figure out instead of guiding them through processes that allow them to learn how to reason on their own.
Stiggins breaks reasoning down into six parts but is very clear that “reasoning patterns are rarely used independently of one another” (2005, p. 48.) These six parts include analytical reasoning, synthesizing, comparative reasoning, classifying, inductive and deductive reasoning, and evaluative reasoning. In Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, adaptations were made to the original to address shortcomings found in the original version. This improved version now differentiates between “knowing what” and “knowing how” or the content of thinking and the procedures used in solving problems. (N.D., Designing Effective Projects) Dr. Lorin Anderson and his colleagues state “Meaningful learning provides students with the knowledge and cognitive processes they need for successful problem solving.”(Anderson, 2001) The revised cognitive process dimension of Bloom’s Taxonomy also comprises of six skills which includes remembering, understanding, applying, analysis, evaluation, and creating. By using these as a framework in developing questions and assignments for students, teachers CAN and MUST play a major role in the critical process of developing higher level reasoning skills to better prepare them for success in developing 21st century skills. (2003, enGauge) An excellent list of many examples that can be used in the classroom is presented in PowerPoint form designed by Denise Tarlinton and can be downloaded from her schools website. (see references) Georgia Department of Education has established a program and website devoted to assisting teacher with teaching higher order thinking skills. “The mission of the Georgia Critical Thinking Skills Program is to: provide resources, materials, and processes to Georgia educators for creating an environment that will develop critical, creative, and independent thinkers in a culturally diverse, technologically advanced society.” (2003, Georgia Department of Education)
Analytical Reasoning, according to Stiggins, is taking the whole of a situation or problem and breaking it into individual components. This directly relates with the analysis category in Bloom’s revised Taxonomy. Most of my students do best in this specific area of reasoning because they constantly miss details in class, conversations, and environmental auditory cues. They start this off small in seeing a group of people laughing, looking around and figuring out who the speaker was, if they look embarrassed or not, to see if they made a joke or had an “accident” that was funny. They learn to “read” expressions, gestures, and body language with a sharper eye than the normal population. I am able to use these enhanced traits to their advantage by creating scenarios in which they have to come up with deductive answers from seeing the whole picture. For example, we watched the news channel the other day which was not in closed caption for the weather. Not knowing where they were speaking of, we watched blizzards, hurricanes, and a tornado. They were able to analyze the buildings, scenery, people, landscape and make fairly accurate pictures of the geographic location of the natural disasters occurring. They even went on to generalize what would we do if it happened here, how to prepare, etc.
Synthesizing, as explained by Stiggins, is taking pieces of information and making a more broad, clearer picture of a concept. This is often shown easily when doing thematic units. Learning about the rain forest using all the subject areas brings a deeper understanding of what a rain forest is as opposed to just reading about it one day in a science class. My students have to have things repeated 7 to 9 times more than hearing students in order to internalize something new. They do not get the benefit of hearing the word or concept in other settings unless it is specifically planned as many words have the same sign. For elementary deaf education students, understanding the signs and expressions that go with emotions is difficult. We spend the first year working on all the different emotions, (one week anger, then the next frustration, etc.) to get a total picture of what all the signs and words and feelings mean. We use the inductive method of learning to get the broader picture of what emotions and feelings mean.
Stiggins explains Comparative Reasoning as being able to compare and contrast things. This is a harder reasoning skill than those previously mentioned. In my classroom we compare and contrast EVERYTHING as different and same whether it be colors, shapes, sizes, feelings, numbers verses letters (the sign for the letter W and the number 6, and letter V and number 2 are the same, yet different meanings), etc.. By doing this on a constant basis, the students start looking for ways they can tell me different and same with other settings in the school. They tell me they are different than the other students, and why, and what they can do to be the same or better! The assessment of observing them using comparative reasoning for concrete, abstract, and values/beliefs/attitudes with new things that challenge them outside the classroom, I know they are making progress.
Classifying is to organize things by their similarities. Stiggins goes on to clarify this by using examples that include concrete items (money), to abstract (time), to viewpoints and attitudes (politicians). I feel that a person is not able to really classify without doing the comparative reasoning as well. They go hand in hand and feel that these two categories need to be combined. When we are doing the comparative reasoning, we are always including classifying as well. With sign language they learn to classify past, present, future by specific air space. They also do this with females, males, emotions, and various handshapes. By learning how to do this, they are able to fill in context clues with hand shape and air space much like a student does with inflection in the voice. When they are able to guess words and concepts by using their reasoning of the topic, and putting previous knowledge together with new information, I am able to access that they are developing this reasoning skill.
Induction and Deduction reasoning was not presented very clearly by Stiggins. Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy gives a clearer picture of what it is under the category of creating. In the school systems under the Georgia Department of Education, induction lessons are provided in numerous categories on their website. With continued research, I am sure I would find other sites that promote deduction reasoning lessons, but I was surprised to find how often inductive lessons were included on any category that addressed higher thinking/critical thinking skills. I do not use deductive teaching as much as I should, because of the age of my students and the fact that many days I am only able to see those on my caseload for a day or two a week.
Evaluative Reasoning is when someone is able to judge and defend why they are able to make that judgement using sound, critical thinking skills. This is a combination of using many of the previous mentioned reasoning skills and being able to change their opinions and decisions based on facts they are able to distinguish from fluff or untrue statements. We use this in my class often when my students feel something is “not fair” or when they miss information and try to make hasty judgements without knowing all the facts. It is a slow process, but a rewarding one when I see them start thinking about situations and changing their minds about how they feel at the moment upon getting new information. As I see this happening more and more frequently, I can assess that they are indeed developing good reasoning skills.
It is imperative that we make our students ready to face the challenges the world has to throw at them in the 21st century. “Experts agree that as technology becomes more prevalent in our everyday lives, cognitive skills become increasingly critical. “In effect, because technology
makes the simple tasks easier, it places a greater burden on higher-level skills”
(International ICT Literacy Panel, 2002, p. 6).”(2003, enGauge) Only in diligently guiding and teaching out students critical thinking skills, will we give them the tools needed to meet the challenges they will face.
References
N.A.,( N.D.). Designing Effective Projects: Thinking Skills Frameworks, Bloom's Taxonomy: A New Look at an Old Standby. Retrieved February 12, 2007 from http://www97.intel.com/en/ProjectDesign/ThinkingSkills/ThinkingFrameworks/Bloom_Taxonomy.htm
N.A. (2003). enGauge 21st Century Skills: Helping Students Thrive in the Digital Age. Retrieved February 14, 2007 from http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm
N.A.,(2003). Georgia Department of Education, Georgia Critical Thinking Skills Program.
http://www.glc.k12.ga.us/pandp/critthink/homepg.htm
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: Longman.
Stiggins, R. J. (2005). Student-Involved Assessment FOR Learning (4th ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Tarlington, Denise (2003). Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy PowerPoint Presentation. Retrieved February 12, 2007 from http://www.kurwongbss.eq.edu.au/thinking/Bloom/blooms.htm