3rd Interdisciplinary REASON Winter School 2019


Monday, February 18, 2019

Registration Opens
6th Floor Foyer

Welcome Session
Lecture Hall 605

Kristina Reiss, Heinz Nixdorf-Chair of Mathematics Education, Dean of the TUM School of Education (REASON)

Frank Fischer, Professor for Education and Educational Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (REASON)

REASON Winter School Team

Opening Keynote
Sibel Erduran
Lecture Hall 605

Opening Keynote
Your thesis as an argument: How are you justifying your claims?

Sibel Erduran, University of Oxford

A doctoral thesis is based on a long journey of learning about the research process. Like Charles Darwin who famously referred to his book The Origin of Species as “one long argument”, your dissertation will be based on an argument. From the formulation of the research problem to the development of research questions, analytical tools and evaluation of results, effective use of arguments is critical in thesis development. How do you justify the study of the problem? What claims are you making about what is lacking in the literature so that you are justified in studying the particular aspect? What data do you select to use and why? What reasons do you have for preferring one analytical approach instead of another? Such questions demand that you engage in evidence-based reasoning or argumentation, and that you present your work in a way that convinces the readers of your thesis that you are relying on evidence and reason.
In this talk, I will review some ideas about argument drawing on research findings that illustrate effective engagement. I will draw on some strategies that might facilitate the use of argument in your own work.

Chair: Kristina Reiss (TUM)

6th Floor Foyer & Seminar Room 607

Parallel Workshops
134 & 140

Teachers’ use of scientific evidence based on a nation-wide project
Location: Seminar Room 134
The workshop focuses on the use of evidence by teachers in practice based on our experiences from the IMST project. IMST is a nation-wide MINDT (German abbreviation for Mathematics, Informatics, Natural Science, German, and Technology) learning and teaching initiative in Austria. It represents a flexible support system primarily financed by the Federal Ministry of Education and consists of scientists accompanying teachers in their endeavours to improve instruction.
Based on examples from the report database of the IMST project, we will discuss the forms of evidence used by teachers and some of the major challenges in using and interpreting evidence. We will also extend on an analysis tool from the REASON program to shed light on the ways teachers apply the knowledge they acquired in a university context as well as different types of evidence when solving educational problems.

Konrad Krainer, Professor, Institute of Instructional and School Development, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt
Stefan Ufer, Professor for Mathematics Education, LMU
Andras Csanadi, Researcher in working group “Learning and Teaching with Digital Media,” Bundeswehr University of Munich

Arguing with and about evidence - exploring two sides of evidence-based argumentation
Location: Seminar Room 140
Before we start talking about evidence-based argumentation a crucial question needs to be addressed: Is there reliable and relevant evidence concerning a specific issue at hand? Only with a substantial research base can we start thinking about arguing with evidence in a specific context or debate.
To answer this fundamental question, throughout the workshop we use the example of effective teaching in STEM education with secondary populations. We then explore ways of communicating this evidence base into practice along the case of the Clearing House Unterricht project. Thereby we will also touch upon the so-called “prescriptive statements debate” and discuss the contribution that empirical research can make to the discourse about the design of education.
During the workshop participants are introduced to the exploration of an evidence database in a particular area of interest, gain insights about ways to transfer evidence into practice and reflect theoretical / methodological concerns about argumentation at the edge between research and practice.

Andreas Hetmanek, Researcher in working group "Teach@TUM," TUM School of Education
Maximilian Knogler, Researcher in working group "Teach@TUM," TUM School of Education

Coffee Break
6th Floor Foyer & Seminar Room 607

Paper Session I:
Evidence integration and decision making
in teacher education

Location: Seminar Room 140

M-1. Developing a video-based learning environment for preservice teachers’ diagnostic competences concerning mathematical argumentation
Elias Codreanu and Tina Seidel
Technical University of Munich, Germany

M-2. Fostering the use of evidence from models in science learning: Constructive and example-based scaffolding
Sarah Bichler, Sonya Richards, Lisa Hasenbein, Marcia Linn and Frank Fischer
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany; University of California, Berkeley, USA

M-3. Does a utility-value intervention foster preservice teachers’ instructional reasoning for technology-enhanced teaching?
Iris Backfisch, Andreas Lachner, Christoff Hische and Katharina Scheiter
Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, Germany

M-4. Evidence-based practice in teacher education: The role of personal domain variables and expertise among teacher educators
Despoina Georgiou, Anne Wiesbeck, Sog Yee Mok, Frank Fischer and Tina Seidel
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany; Technical University of Munich, Germany; University of Zurich, Switzerland

M-5. Challenges for teacher educators to integrate evidence from educational research in higher education teaching
Annika Diery and Tina Seidel
Technical University of Munich, Germany

Chair: Kristina Reiss (TUM)

Winter School Dinner
Wirtshaus Maxvorstadt

Join us at Wirtshaus Maxvorstadt for dinner with the REASON Winter School attendees.

3rd Interdisciplinary REASON Winter School 2019


Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Paper Session II:
Arguing about socio-scientific issues

Seminar Room 140

T1-1. Real-world problems in classroom: A systematic literature review on socioscientific argumentation
Olga Ioannidou, Andreas Hetmanek, Frank Fischer and Tina Seidel
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany; Technical University of Munich, Germany

T1-2. Argumentation on socio-economic issues: An exploratory analysis of students’ written argumentation structure
Nicole Ackermann and Bengü Kavadarli
University of Zurich, Switzerland

T1-3. Student-to-student interactions and their effect on the development of economic competence
Christin Siegfried
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Germany

T1-4. Characteristics of argumentative thinking among Haredi students
Ehud Tsemach and Anat Zohar
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

T1-5. The role of moral reasoning in socio-scientific issues: A case study in high school biology education
Tore Van der Leij
University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Chair: Birgit Dorner (KSH)

Douglas Walton
Lecture Hall 605

A Survey of Leading Argumentation Methods for Argument Evaluation and Argument Invention

Douglas Walton, University of Windsor

Argumentation is a set of context-sensitive practical methods used to help a user identify, analyze and evaluate arguments, especially common ones of the kind often found in everyday discourse. In the past it was the prevalent assumption that the deductive model of valid inference was the cornerstone of rational thinking. There has now been a paradigm shift to highly knowledge-dependent models of reasoning under conditions of uncertainty where a conclusion is drawn on a basis of tentative acceptance on a balance of considerations. Argumentation can be described as (1) a means of arriving a reasoned decision to accept or reject a claim that is open to doubt or disputation by weighing the pro arguments against the con arguments, (2) a means to build evidence-based knowledge that is provisional and fallible, (3) a means for inventing new arguments to support or attack a designated claim, and (4) an interdisciplinary subject that so far most notably includes subjects such as informal logic, speech communication, artificial intelligence, multi-agent systems, legal argumentation, computational linguistics, education, formal logic and argumentation in medical communication.
This presentation surveys argumentation tools that can be applied to common kinds of tasks encountered in solving argumentation problems. The following tools are included: argumentation schemes, including the scheme for inference to the best explanation, argument diagrams, a profile of dialogue tool for repairing informal fallacies, and use of formal and computational argumentation models for automated argument invention and for explanation. A brief survey on how these tools can be applied to some specific fields is included. It is shown how scientific argumentation can be modeled as evidence-based using the Carneades Argumentation System.

Chair: Beate Sodian (LMU)

Lunch (Open Science Lunch)
6th Floor Foyer & Seminar Room 607

Paper Session III:
Exploring, assessing, and enhancing
students’ reasoning skills

Seminar Room 140

T2-1. Assessing primary school students’ reasoning in interpreting experiments
Sonja Peteranderl and Anne Deiglmayr
ETH Zurich, Switzerland

T2-2. Investigating and scaffolding elementary students’ conditional reasoning skills in mathematical and everyday contexts
Anastasia Datsogianni, Stefan Ufer and Beate Sodian
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany

T2-3. Exploring primary students’ data-based argumentation – an empirical analysis of students’ strengths and difficulties
Jens Krummenauer and Sebastian Kuntze
Ludwigsburg University of Education, Germany

T2-4. Digital information retrieval in secondary school geography education – The development of reasoned judgements on complex geographic issues by researching digital evidence
Eva Engelen
Universität Köln, Germany

T2-5. Enhancing acquisition of scientific reasoning skills through memory tests?
Johanna Kranz, Katrin Kaufmann, Tobias Tempel and Andrea Möller
University of Vienna, Austria; Universität Trier, Germany; Ludwigsburg University of Education, Germany

Chair: Heinrich Hußmann (LMU)

Coffee Break
6th Floor Foyer & Seminar Room 607

Stephan Hartmann
Lecture Hall 605

Reasoning and Argumentation in Science: A Perspective from (Mathematical) Philosophy

Stephan Hartmann, MCMP, LMU

Reasoning and argumentation play an important role in the practice of science. In this talk, I will identify a number of new types of reasoning and argumentation (such as the No Alternatives Argument) that are used in science and show how they can be assessed in a normative framework. This will help us to better understand which types or reasoning and argumentation are successful, and which need to be improved or discarded. As scientific reasoning and argumentation crucially involve uncertainties, a Bayesian (or probabilistic) approach suggests itself. This approach is currently very popular in the field of mathematical philosophy. I will present the Bayesian framework and focus on its normative foundations and applications to the psychology of reasoning.

Chair: Frank Fischer (LMU)

Guided Tour of the Alte Pinakothek
Alte Pinakothek

Guided Tour of the Alte Pinakothek
Join us for a guided tour of the Alte Pinakothek with the REASON Winter School attendees.

3rd Interdisciplinary REASON Winter School 2019


Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Parallel Workshops
134 & 140

Meta analyses as evidence generation and evidence evaluation methods
Location: Seminar Room 134
Meta analyses have been frequently regarded as appropriate method to derive strong evidence on specific factors and their interaction with moderators. Not each meta analysis, however, provides strong evidence. On the one hand, many older meta analyses applied statistical analyses that – from today’s perspective – are problematic (e.g. overestimating effects). One the other hand, even current meta analyses often are hard to interpret: too heterogenous studies are used to compute integrated effect sizes, control conditions are not adequately specified, correlated effect sizes are ignored, the quasi-experimental nature of meta analyses is ignored.
The workshop will introduce a set of serious pitfalls and demonstrate ways to avoid them. R and RStudio are used to demonstrate and practice specific procedures. RMarkdown is used to document data handling and data analyses. Participants are invited to bring their own data to the workshop.

Karsten Stegmann, LMU

Analysing and theorising mechanisms of change towards evidence-based dialogue and practice
Location: Seminar Room 140
Research has demonstrated that guidelines and professional development programmes aimed at improving evidence-based reasoning and practice in educational and healthcare settings often fail to translate to change in professional practice. Moreover, research has shown that interventions are often implemented in a superficial way with apparently visible modifications to practice post-intervention failing to lead to genuine transformation. Quasi-experimental designs tell us about interventions’ capacity to impact change, but say little about how change happens or what may hinder it.
This workshop focuses on the conceptual and methodological tools from recent research to understand and investigate the mechanisms of, and barriers to, changing professional reasoning and practice, focusing primarily on observational data but drawing on other sources. In the workshop you will discuss recent research findings and have the opportunity to engage hands-on with real data examples. The presentation, discussion and data work will consider the subtle but effective discursive ways of resisting change, and the role norms, accountability and risk play in moving towards evidence-based practice and reasoning, and how we can analytically examine and establish these in our qualitative data sets.

Riikka Hofmann, University of Cambridge

Chair: Martin Fischer (LMU)

*Roundtable Discussions*
6th Floor Foyer & Seminar Room 607

Women in Academia
Sibel Erduran

Engaging in Interdisciplinary Research
Frank Fischer

Career Opportunities at US Universities
Judith Harackiewicz

Building a Research Program
Beate Sodian

Financial Opportunities in Research
Karsten Stegmann

Poster Session

W-1. Scientific reasoning in preschool: Understanding contrastive and controlled tests
April Moeller Bachhuber and Beate Sodian
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany

W-2. Influences of motivational constructs on scientific thinking in children
Kristin Nyberg and Susanne Koerber
University of Education Freiburg, Germany

W-3. Validation of a simulation-based learning environment measuring biology teachers‘ diagnostic competences
Maria Kramer, Julia Stürmer, Christian Förtsch, Sonja Förtsch and Birgit J. Neuhaus
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany

W-4. Examining students’ perspective on a training for achievement emotion regulation
Christiane Hoessle, Kristina Loderer, Elisabeth Vogl and Reinhard Pekrun
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany

W-5. Analyzing preservice teachers’ diagnostic argumentations to design and implement an adaptive feedback component
Elisabeth Bauer, Michael Sailer, Jan Kiesewetter, Claudia Schulz, Iryna Gurevych, Martin R. Fischer and Frank Fischer
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany; University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany; Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany

W-6. What misconceptions do preservice teachers hold about core educational topics? – Development and psychometric analysis of the Questionable Beliefs in Education Scales (QUEBEC)
Jana Asberger, Eva Thomm and Johannes Bauer
University of Erfurt, Germany

W-7. Teaching assessment competence in social work with flexible computer supported scripts and metacognitive reflection prompts
Mary Opio, Birgit Dorner and Ingo Kollar
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany; Katholische Stiftungshochschule München, Germany; Universität Augsburg, Germany

W-8. Effects of worked examples and external scripts on social work students‘ internal fallacy revelation scripts
Florian Spensberger, Sabine Pankofer and Ingo Kollar
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany; Katholische Stiftungshochschule München, Germany; Universität Augsburg, Germany

W-9. Using argument mapping to model requirements of argumentative synthesizing tasks with unreliable information
Dimitri Molerov
Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany

W-10. Styles of scientific reasoning: An empirical study of how psychologists produce evidence
Gina Scappucci, Christopher Osterhaus and Frank Fischer
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany

W-11. Repeated k-fold cross-validation as a predictor of replicability: A meta-scientific approach to evaluating scientific evidence
Arianne Herrera-Bennett, Chia Wei Ong and Moritz Heene
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany

W-12. Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life?
Aviv J. Sharon and Ayelet Baram Tsabari
Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

W-13. Please mind the knowledge gap: Source evaluation and content evaluation of science-based arguments online
Nina Vaupotič, Dorothe Kienhues and Regina Jucks
University of Münster, Germany

W-14. Sequencing learning activities to promote active learning and comprehension in science education
Yoana Omarchevska, Katharina Scheiter and Juliane Richter
Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Germany

Chair: Christopher Osterhaus (LMU)

Judith Harackiewicz
Lecture Hall 605

Connecting research and practice in social psychology – From the laboratory to motivation interventions in education

Judith Harackiewicz , University of Wisconsin-Madison

It is essential that students perceive value in their academic work. I will discuss longitudinal studies that document the importance of perceived value for interest and performance in high school and college courses, as well as experimental laboratory studies that show the potential for promoting utility value and interest in students. This basic research provides the basis for three recent lines of intervention research, in which we took these laboratory findings to practice.
In one, we tested the potential of utility value interventions to promote interest and performance for high school students in science classes and for college students in an introductory psychology class. In a second line of research, we examined the role of parents in communicating utility value to their teens, and tested an intervention intended to encourage parental communication with teens about utility value. In a third, we tested the potential of utility-value interventions to close achievement gaps in a gateway college science class. Theoretically, this research contributes to our understanding of value transmission and interest development, and practically, this research suggests that teachers and parents can make important contributions to students’ academic performance by focusing on utility value.

Chair: Reinhard Pekrun (LMU)

Closing Session
Lecture Hall 605