• Home   /  
  • Archive by category "1"

Critical Thinking Reasoning

1. Bell P. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2004. Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom.

2. Osborne J. Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science. 2010;328:463–466.[PubMed]

3. Toulmin S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1958. The Uses of Argument.

4. Sadler TD. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2004;41:513–536.

5. Herrenkohl LR, Guerra MR. Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction. 1998;16:431–473.

6. Zeidler DL, Sadler TD, Simmons ML, Howes, EV . Wiley InterScience; 2005. Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. pp. 357–377.

7. Sadler TD, Zeidler DL. Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2009;46:909–921.

8. AAAS . New York: Oxford University Press; 1990. Science for All Americans.

9. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1996. National Science Education Standards.

10. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.

11. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Arlington, VA; 2007. Adolescence and Young Adulthood Science Standards.

12. Miller G. Bioethics. Students learn how, not what, to think about difficult issues. Science. 2008;322:186–187.

13. Chowning JT. How to have a successful science and ethics discussion. The Science Teacher. 2005;72:46–50.

14. Chowning JT. Commentary: Why science and society issues belong in science class. The Science Teacher. 2009;76:8.

15. Chowning JT. Socratic seminars in science class. The Science Teacher. 2009;76:36–41.[PMC free article][PubMed]

16. U.S. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. DHEW Publication No (OS) 1978;78–0012

17. Beauchamp T, Childress JF. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics.

18. Chowning JT, Griswold JC. Seattle, WA: NWABR; 2010. Bioethics 101.

19. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.

20. Pratt CC, Mcguigan WM, Katzev AR. Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology. American Journal of Evaluation. 2000;21:341–349.

21. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. 1932;140:1–55.

22. Howard GS, Ralph KM, Gulanick NA, Maxwell SE, Nance DW, et al. Internal invalidity in pretest-posttest self-report evaluation and a re-evaluation of retrospective pretests. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1979;3:1–23.

23. Bray JH, Maxwell SE, Howard GS. Methods of analysis with response shift bias. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1984;44:781–804.

24. Hoogstraten J. The retrospective pre-test in an educational training context. Journal of Experimental Education. 1982;50:200–204.

25. Hill LG, Betz DL. Revising the retrospective pretest. American Journal of Evaluation. 2005;26:501–517.

26. Klatt J, Taylor-Powell E. Presentation to the 2005 Joint CES/AEA Conference, Toronto; 2005. Synthesis of literature relative to the retrospective pretest design.

27. Moore D, Tananis CA. Measuring change in a short-term educational program using a retrospective pretest design. American Journal of Evaluation. 2009;21:341–349.

Rationale’s interface has been designed to provide a path for critical thinking. From gathering research, to weighing up evidence to formulating a judgement, Rationale will assist you.

Take a look at these 6 critical thinking steps with examples to demonstrate the path to better outcomes.


We have no difficulty in locating information. The key is that the information is selected and structured appropriately. With Rationale’s grouping maps you can drag information from the web onto your workspace via the scratchpad and include colour, hyperlinks and images. The structured, pyramid like maps provide a guide for students to structure the information in such a way that reveals the connections between the main topic and its various themes or categories.


Many people provide opinions but rarely provide supporting reasons for their view. Rationale’s reasoning maps encourage people to support their responses and to consider different opinions. It uses colour conventions to display reasoning – green for reasons, red for objections and orange for rebuttals. It also includes indicator or connecting words so that the relationship between statements is clearly understood.



A test of a solid argument is how good the evidence is that underpins the claims. Rationale’s basis boxes provide a means to identify the basis upon which a statement is given. The icons provide a visual guide as to the range of research utilised and the strength of the evidence that is provided.


We often talk about analysing arguments. This can mean a few things including looking at the logical structure of the argument to ensure it is valid or well formed and also identifying assumptions or co premises. For those who require higher levels of analysis, Rationale provides the analysis map format to show the relationships between main premises and co premises.


Once arguments for and against an issue have been logically structured, they need to be evaluated. Rationale provides a visual guide for the evaluation of claims and evidence – the stronger the colour, the stronger the argument while icons designate acceptable or rejected claims. While learning this process of evaluating arguments, the colour and icons provide immediate undertanding and communication of the conclusion.


Presenting ideas orally or in writing is crucial and is often the distinguishing feature between good results and average ones. Rationale has essay and letter writing templates to build skills and confidence. Templates provide instruction and generation of prose. When exported, there is a structured essay plan with detailed instructions to assist understanding of clear and systematic prose.


One thought on “Critical Thinking Reasoning

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *