for the reproducible “Metaphors” to introduce students to this strategy.
Sentence-Stem Analogies
Students can use sentence stems to create comparisons that describe specific relationships between two items or concepts. Analogies always take this form: “Item 1 is to item 2 as item 3 is to item 4.” The teacher might also present students with the first two terms of an analogy and ask them to fill in the second two terms, for example: “A coach is to an athlete as ______ is to ______.” Visit go.SolutionTree.com/instruction for the reproducible “Sentence-Stem Analogies” to introduce students to this strategy.
Visual Analogies
The teacher asks students to use visual organizers to help them make analogies. The students create an analogy and specify the type of relationship the analogy is expressing. Many students are visual learners and working with content in a visual can help reinforce the meaning. Visit go.SolutionTree.com/instruction for the reproducible “Visual Analogies” to introduce students to this strategy.
Monitoring Element 10
Specific student responses and behaviors allow the teacher to determine whether this element is being implemented effectively and producing the desired effects.
• Students understand the similarities and differences between the elements being compared.
• Students ask questions about the similarities and differences between the elements being compared.
• Students can explain how the activities deepened their knowledge.
Use this list to monitor student responses to element 10.
To monitor your own use of this element, use the scale in figure 4.13 in combination with the reproducible “Tracking Teacher Actions: Examining Similarities and Differences” (page 90). As with other proficiency scales, level 3 or higher is the goal.
Figure 4.13: Self-rating scale for element 10—Examining similarities and differences.
The following examples describe what each level of the scale might look like in the classroom.
• Not Using (0): A teacher does not ask her students to classify or describe similarities and differences to deepen their understanding of concepts taught in class. The teacher does ask students to describe concepts in order to refine their understanding of topics but does not provide opportunities for students to compare these descriptions to descriptions of other concepts.
• Beginning (1): A teacher asks his students to use a Venn diagram to compare two events they have been discussing in class. However, the teacher fails to describe how to use a Venn diagram and assumes that his students will be able to complete the activity on their own and understand what it means.
• Developing (2): A teacher instructs her students to use a comparison matrix to compare three characters from a novel they have been reading. After the students have completed their matrices, they discuss what they have found. However, the teacher does not take note if their discussions indicate that their knowledge has developed.
• Applying (3): A teacher puts his students into groups of three to complete a classification chart. Once all of the students have completed their charts, he asks them to present their chart to the class and explain their reasoning. As the students present, he encourages the rest of the class to ask clarifying questions and listens to make sure the students’ understanding is more complete as a result of the activity.
• Innovating (4): A teacher asks the class to create a visual analogy illustrating a relationship between organisms. When some students appear to be struggling with the activity, she puts them into a small group and asks them to describe the relationships first and then choose a relationship together that they can illustrate. After they choose a relationship, the teacher asks the students if they can think of something they have observed in their lives that behaves similarly. Once the students have completed the assignment, the teacher asks all of the students to hang their visual analogies on the wall and then the class goes through and identifies which relationship is being depicted in each analogy.
Element 11: Examining Errors in Reasoning
This element helps deepen students’ understanding of content by having them examine their own reasoning or the overall logic of information presented to them. Research has shown that errors are sometimes present in students’ understanding of content (Brown & Burton, 1978). The best way to correct those errors is for students to re-examine the content for accuracy (Clement, Lockhead, & Mink, 1979; Tennyson & Cocchiarella, 1986). Philosophers have identified the following four types of errors in thinking: (1) faulty logic, (2) attack, (3) weak reference, and (4) misinformation (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Johnson-Laird & Byrne, 1991; Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1981).
There are twelve strategies within this element.
1. Identifying errors of faulty logic
2. Identifying errors of attack
3. Identifying errors of weak reference
4. Identifying errors of misinformation
5. Practicing identifying errors in logic
6. Finding errors in the media
7. Examining support for claims
8. Judging reasoning and evidence in an author’s work
9. Identifying statistical limitations
10. Using student-friendly prompts
11. Anticipating student errors
12. Avoiding unproductive habits of mind
The following sections will explore each strategy to provide you with guidelines to effectively implement this element. Read through each before creating a plan for your classroom. Teachers may use the strategies individually or in combination. Remember, these are not merely activities to be checked off; they are methods of creating a practice that combines your art with the science of examining errors in reasoning. Reflect on your use of each strategy by filling out the “Strategy Reflection Log” on page 331.
Identifying Errors of Faulty Logic
In this strategy, students find and analyze errors of faulty logic. Errors of faulty logic refer to situations in which a conclusion is not supported by sound reasons. Specific types of errors in this category include the following.
• Contradiction: Presenting conflicting information—for example, saying that downloading music illegally should be punished more harshly while also arguing that internet providers and the government shouldn’t be allowed to collect information about internet users
• Accident: Failing to recognize that an argument is based on an exception to a rule—for example, if a person argued that Scotland has a warm and sunny climate based on the weather during her one-week vacation there
• False cause: Confusing a temporal (time) order of events with
