@article{Oberauer2006,
  author    = {Oberauer, Klaus},
  title     = {Reasoning with conditionals: A test of formal models of four theories},
  series = {Cognitive psychology},
  volume    = {53},
  journal   = {Cognitive psychology},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0010-0285},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.04.001},
  pages     = {238 -- 283},
  year      = {2006},
  abstract  = {The four dominant theories of reasoning from conditionals are translated into formal models: The theory of mental models (Johnson-Laird, P. N., \& Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: a theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review, 109, 646-678), the suppositional theory (Evans, J. S. B. T., \& Over, D. E. (2004). If. Oxford: Oxford University Press), a dual-process variant of the model theory (Verschueren, N., Schaeken, W., \& d'Ydewalle, G. (2005). A dual-process specification of causal conditional reasoning. Thinking \& Reasoning, 11, 278-293), and the probabilistic theory (Oaksford, M., Chater, N., \& Larkin, J. (2000). Probabilities and polarity biases in conditional inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 883-899). The first three theories are formalized as multinomial models. The models are applied to the frequencies of patterns of acceptance or rejection across the four basic inferences modus ponens, acceptance of the consequent, denial of the antecedent, and modus tollens. Model fits are assessed for two large data sets, one representing reasoning with abstract, basic conditionals, the other reflecting reasoning with pseudo-realistic causal and non-causal conditionals. The best account of the data was provided by a modified version of the mental-model theory, augmented by directionality, and by the dual-process model.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BaselHarmsPrechtl2013,
  author    = {Basel, Nicolai and Harms, Ute and Prechtl, Helmut},
  title     = {Analysis of students' arguments on evolutionary theory},
  series = {Journal of biological education},
  volume    = {47},
  journal   = {Journal of biological education},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0021-9266},
  doi       = {10.1080/00219266.2013.799078},
  pages     = {192 -- 199},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {A qualitative exploratory study was conducted to reveal students' argumentation skills in the context of the topic of evolution. Transcripts from problem-centred interviews on secondary students' beliefs about evolutionary processes of adaptation were analysed using a content analysis approach. For this purpose two categorical systems were deductively developed: one addressing the complexity of students' arguments, the other focusing on students' use of argumentation schemes. Subsequently, the categorical systems were inductively elaborated upon the basis of the analysed material showing a satisfactory inter-rater reliability. Regarding the arguments' complexity, students produced mainly single claims or claims with a single justification consisting of either data or warrants. With regard to argumentation schemes students drew their arguments mainly using causal schemes, analogies, or illustrative examples. Results are discussed in light of possible implications for teaching evolutionary theory using classroom argumentation.},
  language  = {en}
}