Chapter 7, page 156
We have now examined general self-regulation strategies, comprehension strategies, problem solving
strategies, and writing strategies. The writing strategies we have discussed in this section—planning,
revising, and writing for the audience—are broadly applicable to students of all ages. By helping your
students learn to carry out these strategies, you will enable them to become self-regulated writers who can
plan, execute, and revise their writing on their own. In the next section we will turn to our final set of
strategies that can help students become more effective learners and thinkers: strategies for reasoning.
Reasoning Strategies
Reasoning strategies help us decide what ideas about the world are true or false. For example,
economists use reasoning strategies to try to understand the effects of monetary policy on the health of the
economy. Geologists use reasoning strategies to develop and test theories of why earthquakes occur.
Teachers use reasoning strategies to decide whether rewards such as stickers are likely to increase or
decrease their students’ motivation. We will discuss several useful reasoning strategies in this section of the
chapter: generating arguments and counterarguments, fair-mindedness in evaluating evidence, estimating
frequencies and probabilities, considering sample size, considering control or comparison groups, sourcing,
and seeking corroboration.
Much of the research on reasoning strategies has examined the reasoning of adults (undergraduates
as well as other adults). This research indicates that adults are not proficient in using many reasoning
strategies, including the strategies discussed in this section. This strongly suggests that K-12 schools have
not done a good job of preparing students to be good reasoners. In later chapters, you will learn about
instructional methods to improve students’ reasoning. The focus of this section is to discuss common flaws
in reasoning as well as more effective reasoning strategies so that you will gain a good understanding of the
problems that instruction in reasoning needs to address.
Generating arguments and counterarguments. In a number of studies, participants have been
asked questions such as these:
Do you support or oppose increased taxes for funding education? List all the arguments in support of your
position that you can think of. Now list all the arguments against your position that you can think of.How many arguments can you come up with?
While some students are capable of generating many arguments on multiple sides of an issue, other
students generate fewer arguments, and are only capable of generating arguments in support of their own
position. Were you able to think of as many arguments against your position as for your position? If so,
you are unusual. Most adults and adolescents can think of two or three times more arguments for their own
position than against it (Kuhn, 1991). In addition, researchers have consistently found that most people do
not generate very many arguments at all, perhaps two or three arguments for their position and one
argument against (e.g., Kuhn, Shaw, & Felton, 1997; Perkins, Allen, & Hafner, 1983).
Thus, a basic failing of human reasoning is that people generally fail to consider sufficient
arguments, especially arguments for the opposing position. This suggests that one focus of instruction
should be to help students learn to generate more arguments on both sides of questions as they are
considering an issue. However, as we will see as we look at the next strategy—fair-mindedness in
evaluating evidence—it is not enough simply to generate arguments on both sides of a question. Effective
reasoners also evaluate arguments on both sides fairly.
Evaluating evidence fairly. Think about a capital punishment supporter who reads the following
study:
Palmer and Crandall compared murder rates in 10 pairs of neighboring states with different capital
punishment laws. In 8 of the 10 pairs, murder rates were lower in the state with capital punishment. This
research supports the deterrent effect of the death penalty.