background preloader

Claim Evidence Reasoning

Claim Evidence Reasoning
By far, the biggest shift in my teaching from year 1 to year 7 has been how much emphasis I now place on evaluating evidence and making evidence-based claims. I blame inquiry. Not inquiry in the generalized, overloaded, science teaching approach sense. Just the word. "Inquiry." Even now, when I hear the word "inquiry" I still think mainly of asking questions and designing experiments. We were very busy and very engaged and learned very little. There are a few structures I've been using to help shift the focus on the class to analysis and argument. Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (pdf and pdf) is a framework for writing scientific explanations. As part of their lab handout they get a prompt that looks like this: As the year goes on I remove most of the scaffolds until ultimately the students just get a prompt or question. I've been happy with it. I like frameworks a lot. The key to implementation is that the structure of the class really has to be designed around C-E-R.

Related:  Claim, Evidence, ReasoningClaim, Evidence, Reasoning; CERThinking, Teaching and LearningCritical thinking

Designing Science Inquiry: Claim + Evidence + Reasoning = Explanation In an interview with students, MIT's Kerry Emmanuel stated, "At the end of the day, it's just raw curiosity. I think almost everybody that gets seriously into science is driven by curiosity." Curiosity -- the desire to explain how the world works -- drives the questions we ask and the investigations we conduct. Scientific Writing Scaffolds As a department we've been working on different writing scaffolds. We use Constructing Meaning as a school which I think is mostly good. We've tried all kinds of different writing frames with varying degrees of success. Ten Takeaway Tips for Teaching Critical Thinking Suggestions from educators at KIPP King Collegiate High School on how to help develop and assess critical-thinking skills in your students. Ideally, teaching kids how to think critically becomes an integral part of your approach, no matter what subject you teach. But if you're just getting started, here are some concrete ways you can begin leveraging your students' critical-thinking skills in the classroom and beyond.

The Battle for Your Mind: Brainwashing Techniques Authoritarian followers Mind Control Subliminals By Dick Sutphen Summary of Contents The Birth of Conversion The Three Brain Phases How Revivalist Preachers Work Voice Roll Technique Six Conversion Techniques 1. keeping agreements 2.physical and mental fatigue 3. increase the tension 4. Uncertainty. 5. Jargon 6. No humor Stockholm SyndromeDecognition Process Step One is ALERTNESS REDUCTION Step Two is PROGRAMED CONFUSION Step Three is THOUGHT STOPPINGTrue Believers & Mass Movements Persuasion Techniques YES SET TRUISMS SUGGESTION Imbedded Commands INTERSPERSAL TECHNIQUE Visualisation SHOCK AND CONFUSIONSubliminal Programming Mass Misuse Vibrato Extra Low Frequencies The Neurophone Claim, Evidence, Reasoning: Tools to Introduce CER in PD and Instruction I have been digging into Joseph Krajcik and Katherine McNeill’s book- Supporting Grade 5-8 Students in Constructing Explanations in Science- and I highly recommend it to any upper elementary and middle school teacher of science. The book provides a very clear and engaging look at how to use a Claim, Evidence, Reasoning (CER) framework to improve student writing and discourse in science. The CER framework can support not only science explanations but also the Common Core State Standards’ focus on using evidence and argumentation in math and English/Language Arts. As I’ve been moving through the book, I’ve developed some tools that could be useful for professional development providers, professional learning communities, and ultimately students who are engaging with a CER framework. Resources: 1.

Argument map Argument maps are commonly used in the context of teaching and applying critical thinking.[2] The purpose of mapping is to uncover the logical structure of arguments, identify unstated assumptions, evaluate the support an argument offers for a conclusion, and aid understanding of debates. Argument maps are often designed to support deliberation of issues, ideas and arguments in wicked problems.[3] An argument map is not to be confused with a concept map or a mind map, which are less strict in relating claims. Key features of an argument map[edit]

Top 10 Thinking Traps Exposed Our minds set up many traps for us. Unless we’re aware of them, these traps can seriously hinder our ability to think rationally, leading us to bad reasoning and making stupid decisions. Features of our minds that are meant to help us may, eventually, get us into trouble. Here are the first 5 of the most harmful of these traps and how to avoid each one of them. 1. The Anchoring Trap: Over-Relying on First Thoughts Scientific Synopsis - Writing Center - The University of Oklahoma First a little background… This is by no means a comprehensive guide. I imagine that an internet search on “science writing” and “writing a synopsis” would turn up similar tips and tricks, including ones that I have perhaps neglected. I have, however, noticed some similar challenges writers face in crafting science synopses and other science reports during my time as a Writing Fellow and Consultant and would like to give you some tips for success in science writing.

Using Webb's Depth of Knowledge to Increase Rigor The word "rigor" is hard to avoid today, and it provokes strong reactions from educators. Policymakers tout its importance. Publishers promote it as a feature of their materials. Neuroscientists show ability to plant false memories The phenomenon of false memory has been well-documented: In many court cases, defendants have been found guilty based on testimony from witnesses and victims who were sure of their recollections, but DNA evidence later overturned the conviction. In a step toward understanding how these faulty memories arise, MIT neuroscientists have shown that they can plant false memories in the brains of mice. They also found that many of the neurological traces of these memories are identical in nature to those of authentic memories.

Agnotology Agnotology (formerly agnatology) is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The neologism was coined by Robert N. Proctor,[1][2] a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] Its name derives from the Neoclassical Greek word ἄγνωσις, agnōsis, "not knowing" (confer Attic Greek ἄγνωτος "unknown"[4]), and -λογία, -logia.[5] More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before. A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use.