共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 125 毫秒
1.
在总结了国外培养学生非形式推理能力的三种课程模式的基础上吸取了这三种课程的优点,建构出一种新的课程模式,即科技进步和社会发展课程。该课程在内容方面包括社会性科学问题知识和非形式推理知识,在教学方法上以学生对社会性科学问题的论证为主,教师对社会性科学知识的讲授为辅,同时采用论证软件帮助学生练习和巩固非形式推理技巧。该课程旨在使学生关心社会性科学问题,增强学生的社会责任感和使命感,增强社会伦理道德观念,培养和提高学生的非形式推理能力和辩论论证技巧,开发学生的辩证思维和创造力,并自觉地将非形式推理运用于自己的学习、生活和未来的工作中。 相似文献
2.
非形式推理是指个体对有争议的、结构不良的问题提出观点,并利用理由推导出该观点具有合理性的推理过程,是儿童对有争议的问题发表观点或对结构不良问题进行论证过程中的主要推理形式。儿童从三岁左右就已经具有了非形式推理能力,并且随着年龄的增长其非形式推理能力逐渐提高,当前有三种模型对儿童非形式推理的一般过程进行了解释。在今后的研究中建立新的衡量标准,对非形式推理的发生时间、发展特点和培养模式进行更为细致的研究将是研究的出发点,如何用思维倾向与智力的结合来预测个体的非形式推理活动,如何将动态加工模型纳入到双系统作用模型的体系中更好的说明非形式推理的一般过程．将是研究的重点和难点。 相似文献
3.
对近几年高考长句表达试题进行整理分析归类,根据对学生在长句表达试题解答过程中常见的问题进行剖析,引用CER框架指导学生基于问题引导对试题进行论证推理,构建论证模型和规范作答,帮助学生攻克高考短板的同时,提升学生的逻辑推理能力和科学表达能力。 相似文献
4.
李旭燕 《淮阴师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004,26(2):169-172
:逻辑哲学的中心问题是关于逻辑系统内有效的形式论证与系统外的非形式原型的符合问题。逻辑的形式论证来源于日常语言和科学语言中未经形式化的实际论证,即非形式论证,同时它又是对非形式论证的反映和概括。因此,逻辑哲学高度重视形式论证及其对应的非形式原形的相互关系的研究。 相似文献
5.
张安群 《中国小学语文教学论坛》2023,(4):72-74
“发展逻辑思维”是《普通高中语文课程标准（2017年版2020年修订）》提出的课程目标之一，但不少学生在论述文写作中往往不擅长运用逻辑规则进行判断、推理，而习惯于用列举事实代替议论，或停留于语言形式的模仿阶段。紧扣推理与论证的辩证关系，旨在通过考场写作实例逐步深入地引导学生有意识地进行逻辑推理，提升论证能力。 相似文献
6.
论证思维是思想政治学科思维方式的重要表现,也是形成本学科核心素养的工具和通道。学生经历依托争议性议题,自主思考提出论点;探究进阶性问题,搜集论据展开推理;经历多元性评价,反驳质疑自我辩护这个学习论证的“三部曲”,既能自主建构知识,又能在论证过程中提升科学论证能力,发展学科核心素养,实现深度学习 相似文献
7.
8.
9.
10.
非形式推理是人们工作和生活中最为常见的推理形式,但是它未被教育所重视。在中学生物学教学中,借鉴国外非形式推理课程和社会性科学议题课程的理念、技术和方法,将有助于培养学生非形式推理能力。 相似文献
11.
Ying‐Tien Wu 《International Journal of Science Education》2013,35(9):1163-1187
Recently, the significance of learners’ informal reasoning on socio‐scientific issues has received increasing attention among science educators. To gain deeper insights into this important issue, an integrated analytic framework was developed in this study. With this framework, 71 Grade 10 students’ informal reasoning about nuclear energy usage was explored qualitatively and quantitatively. It was found that the students in this study tended to process reasoning from multiple perspectives, and most of them were prone to make evidence‐based decisions. However, less than 40% of the participants were able to construct rebuttals against counter‐arguments. It was also revealed that students’ abundant usage of supportive arguments did not guarantee for their counter‐argument construction as well as rebuttal construction, but their usage of counter‐arguments might act as precursors to their construction of rebuttals. In addition, learners’ usage of multiple reasoning modes might help them propose more arguments and, in particular, generate more counter‐arguments, which may act as precursors to their rebuttal construction. This study also showed evidence that students’ scientific knowledge that might be mainly acquired from school science instruction could be viewed as important foundation for better informal reasoning and decision‐making on socio‐scientific issues. 相似文献
12.
道格拉斯·沃顿 《中山大学学报论丛》2011,4(1)
本文旨在为构建一种以论证型式为基础的方法,用以帮助非形式逻辑的学生分析自然语言对话的文本,并识别出其中所出现的常见论证类型.他们在这一过程中时常会错误地辨识论证类型,而本文将表明所发展的这种方法对于学习非形式逻辑的学生们是非常有帮助的.另外,对于那些可用于构建一种有用的论证识别方法的理论资源,本文对其最新发展动态进行了考察,并且也概览了当前人工智能领域中所发展的自动论证挖掘工具. 相似文献
13.
After decades of research into formal or logical fallacies of reasoning, psychologists have only recently begun to examine the informal reasoning fallacies that are routinely present in critical discussions, debates, and other forms of argumentation. The present study considers several possible influences on an ability to identify and analyze these fallacies. College students completed measures of deductive reasoning, personal epistemology, and knowledge of specific argumentation norms and analyzed arguments containing fallacies such as argument from ignorance, begging the question, and slippery slope. Results indicated that effective analysis of informal fallacies was associated with some aspects of deductive reasoning—especially an ability to overcome belief bias—and with higher-order epistemic beliefs, as well as a commitment to argumentation norms for critical discussion. Results are discussed in terms of argumentation research and implications for pedagogical treatments of the fallacies are noted. 相似文献
14.
Ying-Tien Wu 《Research in Science Education》2013,43(5):1873-1890
This study aims to provide insights into the role of learners’ knowledge structures about a socio-scientific issue (SSI) in their informal reasoning on the issue. A total of 42 non-science major university students’ knowledge structures and informal reasoning were assessed with multidimensional analyses. With both qualitative and quantitative analyses, this study revealed that those students with more extended and better-organized knowledge structures, as well as those who more frequently used higher-order information processing modes, were more oriented towards achieving a higher-level informal reasoning quality. The regression analyses further showed that the “richness” of the students’ knowledge structures explained 25 % of the variation in their rebuttal construction, an important indicator of reasoning quality, indicating the significance of the role of students’ sophisticated knowledge structure in SSI reasoning. Besides, this study also provides some initial evidence for the significant role of the “core” concept within one’s knowledge structure in one’s SSI reasoning. The findings in this study suggest that, in SSI-based instruction, science instructors should try to identify students’ core concepts within their prior knowledge regarding the SSI, and then they should try to guide students to construct and structure relevant concepts or ideas regarding the SSI based on their core concepts. Thus, students could obtain extended and well-organized knowledge structures, which would then help them achieve better learning transfer in dealing with SSIs. 相似文献
15.
崔清田 《毕节师范高等专科学校学报》2012,(3):34-40
名与辩的讨论始于春秋,盛于战国,衰落于秦统一六国。运用归纳列举的方法,分析儒家、名家和墨家名与辩的思想。孔子的＂正名＂说开启并推动了先秦时期的名实关系大讨论,其开创意义不容忽视;公孙龙的＂白马非马＂和＂唯谓＂之说,已经使名实问题的讨论从服务于政治需求的＂正名＂说中分离出来,走向了＂专决于名＂的抽象研究,其学术思想,不失为中国思想史上的一朵奇葩;荀子重＂辩＂,但荀子的辩并不是争胜的论辩,而是教化礼义的谈说之术;墨子倡导并研究＂谈辩＂,后期墨家形成了墨家独到之辩学,对＂辩＂进行了首次界定及功用的全面概括。名学与辩学具有表述和论证方法方面的内容。对此了解,既有助于我们对传统文化中重智一面的继承与弘扬,也对今日生活中论说、交际与求知的成功有积极的借鉴意义。 相似文献
16.
名与辩的讨论始于春秋,盛于战国,衰落于秦统一六国。运用归纳列举的方法,分析儒家、名家和墨家名与辩的思想。孔子的"正名"说开启并推动了先秦时期的名实关系大讨论,其开创意义不容忽视;公孙龙的"白马非马"和"唯谓"之说,已经使名实问题的讨论从服务于政治需求的"正名"说中分离出来,走向了"专决于名"的抽象研究,其学术思想,不失为中国思想史上的一朵奇葩;荀子重"辩",但荀子的辩并不是争胜的论辩,而是教化礼义的谈说之术;墨子倡导并研究"谈辩",后期墨家形成了墨家独到之辩学,对"辩"进行了首次界定及功用的全面概括。名学与辩学具有表述和论证方法方面的内容。对此了解,既有助于我们对传统文化中重智一面的继承与弘扬,也对今日生活中论说、交际与求知的成功有积极的借鉴意义。 相似文献
17.
This study investigated the relationship among 68 high school students’ scientific epistemological beliefs (SEBs), cognitive structures regarding nuclear power usage, and their informal reasoning regarding this issue. Moreover, the ability of students’ SEBs as well as their cognitive structures for predicting their informal reasoning regarding this issue was also examined. The participants’ SEBs were assessed with a quantitative instrument; their cognitive structures were assessed through tape‐recorded interviews and were further analyzed with the ‘flow map method’; their reasoning regarding nuclear power usage was assessed with an open‐ended questionnaire; and, then, their responses were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. It was revealed that students’ beliefs about the justification of scientific knowledge (an aspect of the beliefs on the nature of knowing science) were significantly correlated with their reasoning quality; the extent and the richness of students’ cognitive structures as well as their usage of the information processing mode, ‘comparing,’ were positively correlated with their reasoning quality. A series of regression analyses further confirmed that students’ use of the information processing mode, ‘comparing,’ was the most significant factor for predicting reasoning quality, while their beliefs regarding the justification of scientific knowledge was the other important predictor. 相似文献
18.
Building on research emphasizing the importance of task in reading performance, the present study examines students’ conceptions or definitions of five common academic task assignments (i.e., argument, essay, opinion, summary and research tasks). Results showed that while students have robust schema for some task assignments (e.g., argument, research report), citing a large variety of task elements in defining each of these assignment, other task assignments are only superficially conceptualized by learners (e.g., opinion, essay). While prior work has demonstrated the important role of task assignment in students’ text processing and performance, this is among the first studies to associate emergent differences not only with the tasks assigned but also with students’ task conceptions. Given the emphasis placed on argument tasks in supporting deeper level processing, we were especially interested in students’ conceptions of argument tasks vis-à-vis summary tasks. Students’ conceptions of these and other task assignments were compared using Cochran’s Q, a non-parametric alternative to the repeated measures ANOVA. Finally, linear regression found students’ conceptions of an argument task to be associated with performance on an argument writing task assignment. For instance, students considering argument construction to require citation use was associated with their inclusion of citations in their written responses. This study is among the first to examine students’ own conceptions of common task assignments and to link task conceptions with performance. Implications for instruction are discussed. 相似文献
19.
Stein Dankert Kolstø 《International Journal of Science Education》2013,35(14):1689-1716
This paper reports a qualitative study on students’ informal reasoning on a controversial socio‐scientific issue. Twenty‐two students from four science classes in Norway were interviewed about the local construction of new power lines and the possible increased risk of childhood leukaemia. The focus in the study is on what arguments the students employ when asked about their decision‐making and the interplay between knowledge and personal values. Five different types of main arguments are identified: the relative risk argument, the precautionary argument, the uncertainty argument, the small risk argument, and the pros and cons argument. These arguments are presented through case studies, and crucial information and values are identified for each argument. The students made use of a range of both scientific and non‐scientific knowledge. The findings are discussed in relation to possible consequences for teaching models aimed at increasing students’ ability to make thoughtful decisions on socio‐scientific issues. 相似文献