Сборник международной конференции «модернизация сознания: характер передачи образа «Әлем»
жүктеу/скачать 2,86 Mb. Pdf көрінісі
|
| Findings and discussion
After the experiment the results were revealed. As predicted before, both experimental and control groups scored moderately 8 points from pre and post tests for general questions. The main score of experimental group during the pre-test was 5.5 out of 10 while for control group it was 6 out of 10. The dramatic difference was shown after the post testing results: control group averagely scored 6.2 out of 10 while experimental group improved with 8.5 out of 10. Conclusion This study argues that the potential of critical thinking is hindered by contextual restrictions, but also fail to cater to the different learners for whom such strategies are intended. Diverse learners' perspectives on effective educational techniques are included in the study. Although the data are not definitive, it appears that training dominated by one teaching approach is ineffective in mixed ability courses. As a result, instructors in developing countries can experiment with pedagogy to maximize learning under challenging circumstances. To summarize, this small-scale study raise crucial points for additional debate and investigation. The policy implications include that there is a need for more discourse in the developing world about subject mattered critical thinking. The research implications include that additional research is needed to understand how instructors might employ learner-centered teaching strategies to enhance learning across achievement gaps. Some pupils are likely to underachieve without learner-centeredness, limiting their life opportunities and contribution to national growth. References: 1. Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). 2. Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2010). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Dillon Beach: Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. 3. Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. 4. Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking – what can it be? Educational Leadership, 46(1), 38-43. 5. Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational leadership, 43(2), 44- 48. 6. McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York, NY: Saint Martin’s Press 7. McMillan, J. H. (1987). Enhancing College Students’ Critical Thinking: A Review of Studies. Research in Higher Education, 26, 3-29. 8. Adams, M. H., Whitlow, J. F., Stover, L. M., & Johnson, K. W. (1996). Critical thinking as an educational outcome: An evaluation of current tools of measurement. Nurse Educator, 21(3), 23–32. 9. Beyer, B. (1987). Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Chickering, A. (1972). Undergraduate academic experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 134–143. «САНАДАҒЫ ЖАҢҒЫРУ: «ӘЛЕМ» БЕЙНЕСІНІҢ РУХАНИ МҰРАЛАРДА БЕРІЛУ СИПАТЫ» АТТЫ ХАЛЫҚАРАЛЫҚ КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ 136 жүктеу/скачать 2,86 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|