Сборник международной конференции «модернизация сознания: характер передачи образа «Әлем»
жүктеу/скачать 2,86 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
|
Scheme 1. Critical Thinking Core Skills A big difference happened in 1962 with the article by Ennis that was called ‘A Concept of Critical Thinking’. Instead of concentrating on the process of critical thinking, on the quality of its products was the main goal. Ennis reinterpreted his original concept in the late 1980s, including into it a process of critical thinking that focuses on making decisions as to beliefs or actions. [5, 46 p.] The multiplicity of the definitions can be explained by multiplicity of understanding of the concept among scholars. For instance, critical thinking can be depicted as the process of arriving at results from hypotheses for logicians, as for scientists, it is a process of overcoming an obstacles of a living being, while educationalists are interested in detecting a benefit with educational purposes. Table 1. Nine aspects of critical thinking Category Facets of Critical Thinking 1. Asking how of information source 2. Asking how of information itself 3. Asking how of information linked to past knowledge 4. Asking why of information source 5. Asking why of information itself 6. Asking why of information linked to past knowledge 7. Asking what of information source 8. Asking what of information itself 9. Asking what of information linked to past knowledge Controversies Generalization of the concept Critical thinking started to become extensively famous and in use in the early 1970s. There were big numbers of people who believed in benefits it provided. But that didn’t halt people to take other side and argue about its real usefulness causing disbelief and controversies around it. Debaters believed that concept cannot be generalized and that every subject or situation had its different critical aspects and that they didn’t share congeniality at all. One of the supporters of such idea was McPeck (1981) that attacked thinking skills movement including critical thinking movement in 1970. According to his claims, there is no general thinking as inference interpre- tation explana- tion self- regulation evalua- tion analysis «САНАДАҒЫ ЖАҢҒЫРУ: «ӘЛЕМ» БЕЙНЕСІНІҢ РУХАНИ МҰРАЛАРДА БЕРІЛУ СИПАТЫ» АТТЫ ХАЛЫҚАРАЛЫҚ КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ 134 thinking always varies on the subject pattern. Some critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) mentioned that McPeck’s main argument requires elaboration, as it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), and Bailin et al. (1999). [6,29 p. ] Both McMillan (1987) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) pointed out that critical thinking is more likely to give results when it puts focus on the appropriate content or a particular subject, when it has connection to students’ educational interests. Looking at questions asked in student their assignments, the aspect most studied appears to be the effect of having students to write their own higher order test questions. The correlation between learners’ writing higher order questions and critical thinking was found to be positive when students created their questions either in class, or as an assignment out of class. [7, 28 p.] On the contrary Tierney, Soter, O’Flahavan, and McGinley carried out an experiment in which learners had to write a letter as an assignment, topic of which was controversial. [8, 30] Experimental group’s students were asked for higher order questions before writing a letter while control group students weren’t. The works of both groups were collected and analyzed by some trained judges that made a conclusion. They identified that students who were given higher order questions produced almost the same work as learners on control group, making no applicable differences. жүктеу/скачать 2,86 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|