Critical Thinking LONG - Middlesex University

Critical Thinking (2)Learner Development Unitp

“Critical” –“Critically”Critically

Emphasise analytical‐ Emphasise

‐ Serious

analytical

‐ Thorough /

‐ Salient

g /thoroughness

‐ Brainstorming

I d th i ti

‐ Rigour / rigorous

Attention to detail‐ In‐depth examination

‐ Detail

‐ Attention to detail

Detail

‐ Evidence

‐ Analysis / analyse /

Thinking …

• Finding things out implications • Noticing connectionsg g• Working things out• Deciding

p• Analysing• Summarising

g• Realising

underpinningsN ti i• Solving

• Justifying• Remembering

• Hypothesising• Evaluating• Sequencing

• Noticing assumptions

• Testing• Remembering• Planning• Arguing

• Sequencing• Ordering• Sorting

g• (Adapted from McGuinness, 1999)• McGuinness, C. (1999). From

Thinking Skills to Thinking Classrooms: A Review andg g

• Identifying• Speculating

g• Classifying• Grouping

Classrooms: A Review and Evaluation of Approaches for Developing Pupils' Thinking. Nottingham: DfEE Publications.

• Calculating• Comparing• Deducing

• Predicting• Concluding• Distinguishing• Deducing

• Realising • Distinguishing• Noticing exceptions

Thinking (1) …

Thinking (2) …

Thinking (3) …

What kind of

Thinker are you? (1)Thinker are you? (1)

• “I hate talk shows where people shout their opinions but never p p pgive any reasons at all.”

• “Figuring out what people really mean is important to me."“I l d b i j b h I' d hi k hi• “I always do better in jobs where I'm expected to think things out for myself.”

• “I hold off making decisions until I have thought through myI hold off making decisions until I have thought through my options.”

• “Rather than relying on someone else's notes, I prefer to read the t i l lf ”material myself.”

• “I try to see the merit in another’s opinion, even if I reject it later.”• “Even if a problem is tougher than I expected I will keep workingEven if a problem is tougher than I expected, I will keep working

on it.”• “Making intelligent decisions is more important than winning

”arguments.”• Based on Facione, P. (2010). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts.

What kind of

Thi k ? (2)Thinker are you? (2)

“I f j b h th i tl• “I prefer jobs where the supervisor says exactly what to do and exactly how to do it.”“N tt h l th bl b t• “No matter how complex the problem, you can bet there will be a simple solution.”“I d 't t ti l ki thi ”• “I don't waste time looking things up.”

• “I hate when teachers discuss problems instead of j i i h ”just giving the answers.”

• “If my belief is truly sincere, evidence to the contrary is irrelevant.”

• “Selling an idea is like selling cars, you say whatever works.”

• Based on Facione, P. (2010). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts.

We Human Beings are S’times

Poor Thinkers Because WePoor Thinkers Because We …

• jump to conclusionsf il t thi k th h i li ti

• miss key ideasi l t id• fail to think‐through implications

• focus on the trivial• fail to notice contradictions• accept inaccurate information

• use irrelevant ideas• form superficial concepts• misuse words• ignore relevant viewpoints• accept inaccurate information

• ask vague / irrelevant questions• give / accept vague / irrelevant answers• ask loaded questions

• ignore relevant viewpoints• cannot see issues from other points of view• are unaware of our own prejudices• think narrowly• ask loaded questions

• answer questions we are not competent to answer

• come to conclusions based on inaccurate or

• think narrowly• think imprecisely• think illogically• think one‐sidedly

irrelevant information• ignore information that does not support

our view• make unjustified inferences

think one sidedly• think simplistically• think hypocritically• think superficially• make unjustified inferences

• distort data and state it inaccurately• fail to notice the inferences we make• come to unreasonable conclusions

p y• think ethnocentrically• think egocentrically• communicate our thinking poorly• come to unreasonable conclusions

• fail to notice our assumptions• often make unjustified assumptions

• have little insight into our own ignorance• http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/becoming‐a‐critic.cfm

More Reasons for Bad Thinking (1)Bad Thinking (1) …

• In what ways are our minds influenced by factors• In what ways are our minds influenced by factors ‘within’ ourselves?

Psychologically (our personality and ego)–Psychologically (our personality and ego)–Philosophically (our personal philosophy)Ethi ll ( thi l h t )–Ethically (our ethical character)

–Biologically (our biology and neurology)• Are these factors static or dynamic? • Are these factors innate or learned?• Are we in control of these factors? To what extent? [Are they really ‘within’ ourselves?!][ y y ]

• Based on http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/sts‐ct‐teaching‐students‐study‐learn‐p4.cfm

More Reasons for

Bad Thinking (2)Bad Thinking (2) … • In what ways are our minds influenced by factors• In what ways are our minds influenced by factors beyond ourselves?

• Sociologically (the social groups to which we belong)g y ( g p g)• Intellectually (the ideas we hold, how we reason)• Anthropologically (our cultural practices, mores, and

b )taboos)• Ideologically & politically (the structure of power and its use by interest groups around us)use by interest groups around us)

• Economically (the economic conditions under which we live)• Historically (our history and how we recountit)• Theologically (our religious beliefs)

• Are we in control of these factors? To what extent? [Are h ll ‘b d’ l ?!]they really ‘beyond’ ourselves?!]

• Based on http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/sts‐ct‐teaching‐students‐study‐learn‐p4.cfm

What is “Critical Thinking”?Critical Thinking ?

• “ a composite of attitudes knowledge and... a composite of attitudes, knowledge and skills. This composite includes: (1) attitudes of inquiry that involve an ability to recognize theinquiry that involve an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an acceptance of the general need for evidence in support of what is g ppasserted to be true; (2) knowledge of the nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations in which the weight or accuracy of different kinds of evidence are logically d i d d (3) kill i l i ddetermined; and (3) skills in employing and applying the above attitudes and knowledge”.

• Watson‐Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

What is “Critical Thinking”?Critical Thinking ? • “We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self‐regulatory judgment

which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry As such CT is a liberating force in education and a powerfula tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self‐rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive well‐informed trustful of reason open‐critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well informed, trustful of reason, openminded, flexible, fairminded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yielddeveloping CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society.”

• Facione, A. (1990) "Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of EducationalFacione, A. (1990) Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction”. A Report for the American Philosophical Association.


• “Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively g y p p yand skilfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation experience reflection reasoning or communicationobservation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity accuracy precision consistency relevance sounddivisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in ll i bl ti t iall reasoning: purpose, problem, or question‐at‐issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from

f f f ”alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference”.

• Michael Scriven and Richard Paul National Council for Excellence in Critical• Michael Scriven and Richard Paul, National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking.


• “Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience g , pto doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to

t di t id f l tassert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every p ykind of imposture”.

• Francis Bacon (1605)Francis Bacon (1605)

“Critical Thinking” as an Ethical Philosophyas an Ethical Philosophy

• Intellectual Humility• Intellectual Humility• Intellectual CourageI ll l E h• Intellectual Empathy

• Intellectual Integrity• Intellectual Perseverance• Faith In Reason• Fairmindedness

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking.

• http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/valuable‐intellectual‐traits.cfm


• As you read the ideas beneath consider• As you read the ideas beneath, consider what the various definitions and understandings imply.

» Human natureHuman nature » Human capacities» Rationality» Rationality

• What underlying ideologies, assumptions etc does the author himself hold / make?

• To what extent do you dis/agree with the• To what extent do you dis/agree with the ideas? In what respects? Why?

“Critical Thinking” as an Ethical Philosophyas an Ethical Philosophy • Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge,

including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism islikely to function self‐deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitationsof one's viewpoint.

• Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairlyaddress ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negativeemotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage isconnected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd areconnected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd aresometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions andbeliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading.

• Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put• Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively putoneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, whichrequires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth withour immediate perceptions of long‐standing thought or belief.p p g g g

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking.• http://www criticalthinking org/articles/valuable intellectual traits cfm• http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/valuable‐intellectual‐traits.cfm

“Critical Thinking” as an Ethical Philosophyas an Ethical Philosophy • Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking;

to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; and to honestly admitdiscrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action.

• Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to useintellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, andfrustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrationalopposition of others;.F i h I R C fid h i h l ' hi h i• Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interestsand those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play toreason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developingtheir own rational facultiestheir own rational faculties.

• Fairmindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpointsalike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or thefeelings or vested interests of one's friends community or nationfeelings or vested interests of one s friends, community or nation.

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking.htt // iti lthi ki / ti l / l bl i t ll t l t it f• http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/valuable‐intellectual‐traits.cfm


• Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of• Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self‐d i l i i i bi j di d li i i fdeceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. Itthat one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations or lack ofcombined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's beliefs.

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking• http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/valuable‐intellectual‐traits.cfm


• Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face• Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a

i h i Thi i d i h h i iserious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have "learned." Intellectual courage u c t ca y accept at e a e ea ed te ectua cou agecomes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social groupdistortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non‐conformity can be severe.



• Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need toIntellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediateour egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long‐standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and

i f th d t f i tireasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case‐at‐hand.



• Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to• Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in th i t ll t l t d d li t h ldthe intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self to the same rigorous standards of id d f hi h h ld 'evidence and proof to which one holds one's

antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action.

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinkingg• http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/valuable‐intellectual‐traits.cfm


• Intellectual Perseverance Having a consciousness of the• Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties obstacles and frustrations firm adherence todifficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion andothers; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insightachieve deeper understanding or insight.

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical ThinkingValuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking



• Faith In Reason: Confidence that in the long run one's• Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one s own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation people can learn toproper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep‐seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know itcharacter of the human mind and in society as we know it.



F i i d d H i i f th• Fairmindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, g ,community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one'sintellectual standards without reference to one s own advantage or the advantage of one's group.

• Valuable Intellectual Virtues (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking


Critical Thinking RequiresRequires …

• LOGIC• DEPTH

• BREADTH

• LOGIC

• EMPATHY• BREADTH

• RIGOUR• SELF‐AWARENESS

• ACCURACY • Based on Elder, L. & Paul, R. (1996). Universal Intellectual Standards. Available at

• PRECISION

Standards. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/universal‐intellectual‐standards.cfm

• CLARITY

• RELEVANCE

Becoming a Critical Thinker – Questioning …Questioning …

• RELEVANCE:RELEVANCE:

• Is this connected to the issue / question? Why / not? In what ways? To what extent?

• How does this bear on the issue / question?• How does this bear on the issue / question? Why?


• CLARITY:CLARITY:

• Could / should I / you elaborate further on that point? If so, how?

• Could / should I / you express that point in• Could / should I / you express that point in another way? If so, how?

• Could / should I / you give [me] an ill t ti ?illustration?

• Could / should I / you give [me] an example?Could / should I / you give [me] an example?


ACCURACY:ACCURACY: • Is that really true? y• To what extents is that [not] really true?

h h [ ] ll ?• In what ways is that [not] really true? • How could we check that?How could we check that? • How could I find out if that is true? What i f i / d I d?information / source do I need?

• Is that information / source sound? Can I trustIs that information / source sound? Can I trust it? Why / not? In what ways? To what extent?


PRECISION:

• Could I / you give more details?• Could I / you give more details?

• Could I / you be more specific? y p

• What exactly am I / are you saying?

• What exactly might I / you be [inadvertently] suggesting / implying? Is that intended /suggesting / implying? Is that intended / justified? Why / not?


DEPTH:DEPTH: • Does my / your statement / answer truly y / y / yaddress the complexities in the question? Why / not?Why / not?

• Am I / are you taking into account the /problems in the issue / question? In what

ways? To what extents? y• Am I / are you dealing with the most significant factors? Why / not? In what ways?significant factors? Why / not? In what ways?


BREADTHBREADTH: • What might this look like from a different gviewpoint?

• Do I need to consider another point of view? WhyDo I need to consider another point of view? Why / not? Whose point of view? Why? To what extents?extents?

• Are there other way/s to look at this issue / /question? What? Why? Are they valid? Why / not?

To what extents are they [not] valid? What evidence is there to support me / them?


LOGIC:LOGIC: • Does this really make sense? Why / not? To who? In what ways? ays?

• Does this really follow from what I / you said / wrote before? Why / not? To what extents? How?

• Have I / you said / written other ideas which contradict this? What? Where? Can both be true? Why / not? To what extents? In what ways?extents? In what ways?

• Is there sufficient evidence to support this? Why / not? Is evidence possible here? Why / not? Does a lack of evidenceevidence possible here? Why / not? Does a lack of evidence invalidate the argument? Why /not?

• Is the logic only subjectively logical or is it objectively g y j y g j ylogical? Why? In what ways? Is this a problem? Why / not?


RIGOURRIGOUR• Is there sufficient evidence to support this? Why / not? Is evidence possible here? Why / not? Does anot? Is evidence possible here? Why / not? Does a lack of evidence invalidate the argument? Why /not?

• Is the logic only subjectively logical or is it objectively• Is the logic only subjectively logical or is it objectively logical? Why? In what ways? Is this a problem? Why / not?not?

• Has my / your ideology influenced my / your logic? To what extent? Is this a problem? Why / not?what extent? Is this a problem? Why / not?

• Are there any caveats to my / your argument / point of view? What? Do they invalidate anything? Why /of view? What? Do they invalidate anything? Why / not?


• EMPATHY & SELF‐AWARENESS• EMPATHY & SELF‐AWARENESS

• How will my / your point of view seem to y y pother people?

H / id l i fl d /• Has my / your ideology influenced my / your logic? To what extent? Is this a problem? Why g p y/ not?

Life is complex …

A statement may be clear accurate precise andA statement may be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (i.e. lack depth). For example the ant drugs statement "Just say– For example, the ant‐drugs statement, Just say No!“. This is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. But does it satisfy the criterion of depth? Does itBut does it satisfy the criterion of depth? Does it truly deal with the complexities of the issue?

• Any argument may be clear accurate preciseAny argument may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth – For example an argument from a politically– For example, an argument from a politically conservative or liberal standpoint may satisfy various of these criteria, but is it likely to satisfy , y ythe criterion of breadth?

These ideas put another way (1)put another way (1) …

ff i S i• A. Affective Strategies• S‐1 thinking independently• S 2 developing insight into egocentricity or sociocentricity• S‐2 developing insight into egocentricity or sociocentricity• S‐3 exercising fairmindedness• S‐4 exploring thoughts underlying feelings and feelings underlyingS 4 exploring thoughts underlying feelings and feelings underlying

thoughts• S‐5 developing intellectual humility and suspending judgment• S‐6 developing intellectual courage• S‐7 developing intellectual good faith or integrity• S 8 developing intellectual perseverance• S‐8 developing intellectual perseverance• S‐9 developing confidence in reason

• Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/TRK12‐strategy‐list.cfm#s1

These ideas put another way (2)put another way (2) … • B. Cognitive Strategies ‐Macro‐Abilities• S‐10 refining generalizations and avoiding oversimplifications• S‐11 comparing analogous situations: transferring insights to new contexts• S‐12 developing one’s perspective: creating or exploring beliefs, arguments, or theories• S 13 clarifying issues conclusions or beliefs• S‐13 clarifying issues, conclusions, or beliefs• S‐14 clarifying and analyzing the meanings of words or phrases• S‐15 developing criteria for evaluation: clarifying values and standards• S‐16 evaluating the credibility of sources of informationS 16 evaluating the credibility of sources of information• S‐17 questioning deeply: raising and pursuing root or significant questions• S‐18 analyzing or evaluating arguments, interpretations, beliefs, or theories• S‐19 generating or assessing solutions• S‐20 analyzing or evaluating actions or policies• S‐21 reading critically: clarifying or critiquing texts• S‐22 listening critically: the art of silent dialogue

S 23 ki i t di i li ti• S‐23 making interdisciplinary connections• S‐24 practicing Socratic discussion: clarifying and questioning beliefs, theories, or perspectives• S‐25 reasoning dialogically: comparing perspectives, interpretations, or theories• S‐26 reasoning dialectically: evaluating perspectives interpretations or theoriesS 26 reasoning dialectically: evaluating perspectives, interpretations, or theories

• Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/TRK12‐strategy‐list.cfm#s1

These ideas put another way (3)put another way (3) …

• C Cognitive Strategies ‐Micro‐SkillsC. Cognitive Strategies ‐Micro‐Skills• S‐27 comparing and contrasting ideals with actual practice• S‐28 thinking precisely about thinking: using critical vocabularyS 28 thinking precisely about thinking: using critical vocabulary• S‐29 noting significant similarities and differences• S‐30 examining or evaluating assumptions• S‐31 distinguishing relevant from irrelevant facts• S‐32 making plausible inferences, predictions, or interpretations• S‐33 giving reasons and evaluating evidence and alleged facts• S‐34 recognizing contradictions

S 35 l i i li i d• S‐35 exploring implications and consequences

• Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/TRK12‐strategy‐list.cfm#s1p // g g/ / gy

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Instructional Strategy Cognitive Domain(Bloom 1956)

Affective Domain(Krathwohl Bloom &

Psychomotor Domain(Bloom, 1956) (Krathwohl, Bloom, &

Masia, 1973)Domain

(Simpson, 1972)

Lecture, reading, audio/visual, demonstration, or guided obser ations q estion and ans er period

1. Knowledge 1. Receiving phenomena

1. Perception 2. Setobservations, question and answer period phenomena Set

Discussions, multimedia CBT, Socratic didactic method, reflection. Activities such as surveys, role playing, case

2. Comprehension 3. Application

2. Responding to phenomena

3. Guided response 4. y , p y g,

studies, fishbowls, etc.pp p p

Mechanism

On‐the‐Job‐Training (OJT), practice by doing (some direction or coaching is required), simulated job settings (t i l d CBT i l ti )

4. Analysis 3. Valuing 5. Complex response

(to include CBT simulations)

Use in real situations. Also may be trained by using several high level activities coupled with OJT.

5. Synthesis 4. Organize values into priorities

6. Adaptation

Normally developed on own (informal learning) through 6 Evaluation 5 Internalizing values 7 Origination

Table taken from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/strategy.htmll ( ) f d l b db k h k d

Normally developed on own (informal learning) through self‐study or learning through mistakes, but mentoring and coaching can speed the process.

6. Evaluation 5. Internalizing values 7. Origination

‐ Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

‐ Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1973). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.

‐ Simpson E. J. (1972). The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.

Types of Thinking [again!] … Key Ability Types of Thinking

judge, appraise, choose, rate, assess, estimate,Evaluating

judge, appraise, choose, rate, assess, estimate, value, measure, criticise

f l t t h d i d l d fiSynthesising

formulate, teach, design, develop, re‐define, propose, create

Analysing distinguish, differentiate, calculate, debate, relate compare experiment contrast examinerelate, compare, experiment, contrast, examine

demonstrate, schedule, operate, sketch, employ,Applying

demonstrate, schedule, operate, sketch, employ, use, practice

Compre restate identify discuss locate recogniseCompre‐hending

restate, identify, discuss, locate, recognise, review, explain, tell, clarify

Knowing recall, define, state, list, repeat, name, recount, present, find

Becoming a Critical Thinker Yourself …Critical Thinker Yourself …

• Find the information you need • Digest it – grasp the key points, arguments & evidence• Analyse these – establish how ideas fit together and relate to each other;Analyse these establish how ideas fit together and relate to each other;

assess similarities & differences between the ideas; assess contradictions etc• Try to “take ownership” of the ideas, arguments etc for yourself – move from

what someone says to what someone is saying y y g• Develop & establish your perspectives based on these ideas• Develop your thinking & arguments, and bring together sources of information

to support yourselfto support yourself • Synthesise your sources – bring together different sources of information to

give authority to your arguments & ideas you are developing• Evaluate – always evaluate your ideas and other people’s ideas (e g relevanceEvaluate always evaluate your ideas and other people s ideas (e.g. relevance,

credibility, worth). Evaluate conclusions you are starting to draw• Apply – demonstrate your thinking, ideas and arguments (in exams, essays,

dissertations etc)dissertations etc)

Is this a fair summary? Why / not?Why / not?

1 Is open‐minded and mindful of alternatives1. Is open minded and mindful of alternatives2. Tries to be well‐informed3. Judges well the credibility of sources3. Judges well the credibility of sources4. Identifies conclusions, reasons, and assumptions5. Judges well the quality of an argument, including its reasons,

assumptions, and evidence6. Can well develop & defend a reasonable position7 A k i t l if i ti7. Asks appropriate clarifying questions8. Formulates plausible hypotheses; plans experiments well9 Defines terms in a way appropriate to the context9. Defines terms in a way appropriate to the context10. Draws conclusions when warranted – cautiously!11 Integrates all items in this list11. Integrates all items in this list

• http://www.criticalthinking.net/SSConcCTApr3.html

What is “Analysis” Being “Analytical”?Being Analytical ?

‐ In‐depth close examination of the literatureIn depth, close examination of the literature‐ Evidence & its interpretation?A t & th i lidit ?‐ Arguments & their solidity?

‐ The why, the what & the how of research‐ Connections & links between ideas / theories? [Likewise, … Similarly, …]

‐ Differences & dissimilarities between ideas / theories? [In contrast, … Conversely, …][ , y, ]

‐ Thorough / thoroughness ‐ Rigorous / rigour‐ Rigorous / rigour‐ Critical attitude

Being Critical Thinking Critically– Thinking Critically ...

• What is the basis of the author’s views – does it draw on• What is the basis of the author s views – does it draw on original research or is it developing the work of others (and if so who; how; why)?if so, who; how; why)?

• What is the background and experience of the author –ti i t t j li t d i tpractising accountant, manager, journalist, academic, etc. –

from which their ideas derive?

• If the work is research‐based, what enquiry methods are being used and how was the data collected?

• How recent is the reference – when was it published, when was the research carried out, and is it still relevant?

Being Critical Thinking Critically– Thinking Critically ...

Logic of theLogic of the reasoning behind the

/argument / claim?

Critical Literature

Who is the author/s?

Quality of evidence to support the Literature

Review What is their background?

support the argument / claim?

Appropriacy & i frigour of

methodology?

Critical Thinking LONG - Middlesex University

Documents

Transcript of Critical Thinking LONG - Middlesex University