an electronic publication of Staff Development - contributions are welcome
Student Reasoning
source: Using Intellectual Standards to Assess Student Reasoning
"Teaching
Tips Collection"student reasoning
by Richard Paul
To assess student reasoning requires that we focus our attention
as teachers on two inter-related dimensions of reasoning. The
first
dimension consists of the elements of reasoning; the second dimension
consists of the universal intellectual standards by which we
measure student ability to use, in a skillful way, each of those
elements of reasoning.
Elements
of Reasoning
Once we progress from thought which is purely associational and
undisciplined, to thinking which is conceptual and inferential,
thinking
which attempts in some intelligible way to figure something out,
in short, to reasoning, then it is helpful to concentrate on what
can be
called "the elements of reasoning". The elements of
reasoning are those essential dimensions of reasoning whenever
and wherever it
occurs. Working together, they shape reasoning and provide a general
logic to the use of reason. We can articulate these elements by
paying close attention to what is implicit in the act of figuring
anything out by the use of reason. These elements, then - purpose,
question
at issue, assumptions, inferences, implications, point of view,
concepts and evidence - constitute a central focus in the assessment
of
student thinking.
Standards of reasoning. When we assess student
reasoning, we want to evaluate, in a reasonable, defensible, objective
way, not just that
students are reasoning, but how well they are reasoning. We will
be assessing not just that they are using the elements of reasoning,
but
the degree to which they are using them well, critically, in accord
with appropriate intellectual standards.
To assess a student response, whether written or oral, in structured
discussion of content or in critical response to reading assignments,
by how clearly or completely it states a position, is to assess
it on the basis of a standard of reasoning. Similarly, assessing
student work
by how logically and consistently it defends its position, by
how flexible and fair the student is in articulating other points
of view, by how
significant and realistic the student's purpose is, by how precisely
and deeply the student articulates the question at issue - each
of these is
an evaluation based on standards of reasoning.
Distinct from such reasoning standards are other standards
that teachers sometimes use to assess student work. To evaluate
a student
response on the basis of how concisely or elegantly it states
a position is to use standards that are inappropriate to assessing
student
reasoning. Similarly unrelated to the assessment of reasoning
is evaluating student work by how humorous, glib, personal or
sincere it is,
by how much it agrees with the teacher's views, by how "well-written"
it is, by how exactly it repeats the teacher's words, by the mere
quantity of information it contains. The danger is that such standards
are often conflated with reasoning standards, often unconsciously,
and students are assessed on grounds other than the degree to
which they are reasoning well.
The basic conditions implicit whenever we gather, conceptualize,
apply, analyze, synthesize, or evaluate information - the elements
of
reasoning - are as follows:
1.Purpose, Goal, or End in View. Whenever we
reason, we reason to some end, to achieve some objective, to satisfy
some desire or
fulfill some need. One source of problems in student reasoning
is traceable to defects at the level of goal, purpose, or end.
If the
goal is unrealistic, for example, or contradictory to other
goals the student has, if it is confused or muddled in some way,
then the
reasoning used to achieve it is problematic.
A teacher's assessment of student reasoning, then, necessarily
involves an assessment of the student's ability to handle the
dimension of purpose in accord with relevant intellectual
standards. It also involves giving feedback to students about
the degree to
which their reasoning meets those standards. Is the student's
purpose - in an essay, a research project, an oral report, a discussion
-
clear? Is the purpose significant or trivial or somewhere
in between? Is the student's purpose, according to the most judicious
evaluation on the teacher's part, realistic? Is it an achievable
purpose? Does the student's overall goal dissolve in the course
of the
project, does it change, or is it consistent throughout?
Does the student have contradictory purposes?
2.Question at Issue, or Problem to be Solved.
Whenever we attempt to reason something out, there is at least
one question at issue, at
least one problem to be solved. One area of concern for assessing
student reasoning, therefore, will be the formulation of the
question to be answered or problem to be solved, whether
with respect to the student's own reasoning or to that of others.
Assessing skills of mastery of this element of reasoning
requires assessing - and giving feedback on - students' ability
to formulate a
problem in a clear and relevant way. It requires giving students
direct commentary on whether the question they are addressing
is an
important one, whether it is answerable, on whether they
understand the requirements for settling the question, for solving
the
problem.
3.Point of View, or Frame of Reference. Whenever
we reason, we must reason within some point of view or frame of
reference. Any
"defect" in that point of view or frame of reference
is a possible source of problems in the reasoning.
A point of view may be too narrow, too parochial, may be
based on false or misleading analogies or metaphors, may contain
contradictions, and so forth. It may be restricted or unfair.
Alternatively, student reasoning involving articulation of their
point of
view may meet the relevant standards to a significant degree:
their point of view may be broad, flexible, fair; it may be clearly
stated
and consistently adhered to.
Feedback to students would involve commentary noting both
when students meet the standards and when they fail to meet them.
Evaluation of students' ability to handle the dimension of
point of view would also appropriately direct students to lines
of reasoning
that would promote a richer facility in reasoning about and
in terms of points of view.
4.The Empirical Dimension of Reasoning. Whenever
we reason, there is some "stuff," some phenomena about
which we are
reasoning. Any "defect," then, in the experiences,
data, evidence, or raw material upon which a person's reasoning
is based is a
possible source of problems.
Students would be assessed and receive feedback on their
ability to give evidence that is gathered and reported clearly,
fairly, and
accurately. Does the student furnish data at all? Is the
data relevant? Is the information adequate for achieving the student's
purpose? Is it applied consistently, or does the student
distort it to fit her own point of view?
5.The Conceptual Dimension of Reasoning. All
reasoning uses some ideas or concepts and not others. These concepts
can include the
theories, principles, axioms and rules implicit in our reasoning.
Any "defect" in the concepts or ideas of the reasoning
is a possible
source of problems in student reasoning.
Feedback to students would note whether their understanding
of theories and rules was deep or merely superficial. Are the
concepts
they use in their reasoning clear ones? Are their ideas relevant
to the issue at hand, are their principles slanted by their point
of
view?
6.Assumptions. All reasoning must begin somewhere,
must take some things for granted. Any "defect" in the
assumptions or
presuppositions with which the reasoning begins is a possible
source of problems for students.
Assessing skills of reasoning involves assessing their ability
to recognize and articulate their assumptions, again according
to the
relevant standards. The student's assumptions may be stated
clearly or unclearly; the assumptions may be justifiable or unjustifiable,
crucial or extraneous, consistent or contradictory.
The feedback students receive from teachers on their ability
to meet the relevant standards will be a large factor in the improvement
of student reasoning.
7.Implications and Consequences. No matter
where we stop our reasoning, it will always have further implications
and consequences.
As reasoning develops, statements will logically be entailed
by it. Any "defect" in the implications or consequences
of our reasoning
is a possible source of problems.
The ability to reason well is measured in part by an ability
to understand and enunciate the implications and consequences
of the
reasoning. Students therefore need help in coming to understand
both the relevant standards of reasoning out implications and
the
degree to which their own reasoning meets those standards.
When they spell out the implications of their reasoning,
have they succeeded in identifying significant and realistic implications,
or
have they confined themselves to unimportant and unrealistic
ones? Have they enunciated the implications of their views clearly
and
precisely enough to permit their thinking to be evaluated
by the validity of those implications.
8.Inferences. Reasoning proceeds by steps in
which we reason as follows: "Because this is so, that also
is so (or probably so)," or
"Since this, therefore that." Any "defect"
in such inferences is a possible problem in our reasoning.
Assessment would evaluate students' ability to make sound
inferences in their reasoning. When is an inference sound? When
it
meets reasonable and relevant standards of inferring. Are
the inferences the student draws clear? Are they justifiable?
Do they draw
deep conclusions or do they stick to the trivial and superficial?
Are the conclusions they draw consistent?