|
I. Introduction In the theoretical part of this chapter, I describe the process of argument (re)construction. The process is more or less the same whether you are constructing an argument in support of your own conclusion, or reconstructing the argumentation of another. The differences boil down to differences in access and control—you have greater access to the intent behind an argument and greater control over the process of argumentation when you are constructing it than when you must react and reconstruct. When you work to (re)construct an argument, you must decide what explicit claims are relevant and then determine what relevant claims are left implicit. This is done in parallel, moving back and forth over a single topic or text until the argument lies bare before you. It can then be represented in standard form, a form that is designed to expose the structure of the argumentation. Below, I supply some suggestions concerning the teaching of argument reconstruction, as well as illustrations of the arguments identified in Chapter 4. It is altogether too easy for people to dismiss an argument without doing it justice, especially if they disagree with its conclusion. Disagreement with the conclusion colors their opinion of the reasons proffered, and the entire argument is either dispatched or ignored without a second thought. This is not effective critical thinking, however. Effective critical thinking is critical thinking that can generate results, and the dismissive approach to argumentative dialogue is antithetical to real results. This is due primarily to the fact that uncharitable treatment of an argument will not impress the arguer and will certainly not convince them to see the error of their ways or the wisdom of the critic's ways. Granted, there may be some contexts in which the goal is to pump up the spirits of the choir, so to speak, in which case creating common ground with those on the other side of the argument is not a priority. In most cases, though, common ground is a good thing, as it gains the approval of the arguer on the other side and promises to push the dialogue toward some meaningful resolution. In a classroom where arguments are a focus, it is likely that your more argumentative students will not act charitably when they discourse among themselves or engage a text. It is crucial that you advise them of the value of charity, viz., that charitable treatment of an argument or position will increase the power of their own argument by ensuring the active participation of one's argumentative interlocutor. By the way, this advice is also useful to one who constructs an argument, since once constructed, it can be misinterpreted too---it behooves an arguer to minimize, as much as is reasonable, the need for charity in the reconstruction of their reasoning. Reading between the lines of an argument is an art. To do it well, one must be familiar with the context of the argument, the goals of the arguer, and the style of their argumentation, among other things. Of course, when reconstructing an argument, not all of this information is available at all times, so one must speculate on what the author of the argument must have meant. This speculation is constrained by the principle of charity, which enjoins the critic to give the arguer the benefit of any reasonable doubt. But it is a crucial part of critical thinking at this stage. Arguers leave steps unsaid for various reasons, such as a belief that their audience can fill in these blanks or laziness or failure to appreciate the need for the step. Without these steps, though, the argument is more an argument sketch than a full-fledged case for a conclusion. In such a case, failure to credit the arguer with implicit steps results in reconstruction of a incomplete and weak piece of reasoning that can be dismissed much too easily, and so is incompatible with the principle of charity. Thus, speculation on what might be necessary to fill in the gaps and strengthen the argument is required by this principle. You will need to require it of your students. (On the construction side, you should advise students to be sure not to leave implicit anything that they think might be overlooked by their audience.) If you divide your class up into groups to reconstruct the arguments in a given text, you will get different reconstructions, guaranteed. As you might expect, there will be differences in what the groups find between the lines of the argument, but the differences will typically go beyond this. They will disagree about what is relevant, about what are the reasons, and about what are the reasons. But variation of this sort is a good thing, and something on which you can capitalize in a number of ways. First, it reveals the importance to critical thinking of what you bring to the table with you---of the context you provide as critic. Second, it highlights the artistic and unpredictable nature of reading between the lines. Third, it demonstrates the fact that in most cases---perhaps in all but those where the argument is laid out fully in standard form---the text that is home to the argument underdetermines the precise nature of the argument. This allows for flexibility, and it is this that underwrites the differences among the various reconstructions. Beware, though: this flexibility does not imply that anything goes---while you may have different but equally defensible reconstructions, you may also find among the bunch a number of mistaken reconstructions. Distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable differences. Whether you are constructing or reconstructing an argument, it should flow from reasons to conclusions. If you can't set it up so that you are conveyed naturally from beginning to end, from reasons to conclusion, then you still have work to do. If you are constructing an argument, know that failure to bridge gaps will open the door for criticism that no amount of charity may help you avoid. If you are reconstructing an argument of another, failure to bridge gaps can either be a sign that you have not completely identified the tacit premises or intermediate conclusions, consistent with the principle of charity, or you have encountered an argument that is just faulty in this way. A flowing reconstruction is in place when you find that a given step in the argument is either a premise or follows naturally and reasonably from those steps that precede it. Aim for this, both in the examples you use and in the works you accept from your students. Expect to make a point of this early while teaching argument reconstruction---those who are new to this can often appreciate the macrodetails of an argument without recognizing the gaps that remain between its steps. Call attention to this early and often in discussion. . Be sure to have students construct arguments of their own and reconstruct arguments of others, so that they know what life is like on both sides of the critical thinking process. The differences in perspective and pressure make these two closely related activities very different in character. But familiarity with both is obviously valuable, since students will put in time on both sides of the process throughout their lives. In fact, in an argumentative dialogue, they will toggle back and forth between them as the discourse unfolds. (One way to do this is to have the students reconstruct arguments and then defend their reconstructions.) Some variation of the reconstruction algorithm, described in the theoretical part of this chapter, could be copied onto a handout and distributed at that point in the course when you want to begin teaching this stage of the critical thinking process to your students. If you do this, be sure to use the handout to structure early efforts at reconstruction, both in your examples and in the exercises you give your students. With respect to the latter, you might require them to reconstruct an argument explicitly in the steps that are listed on the handout. Distribute a text, or have them read a text in advance, that is argumentative. Divide the students up into groups of three or four and instruct them to reconstruct the argument(s) in the text, putting them in standard form. Give them about 20 minutes to do this, and have one of them write out the arguments with a pen on overhead slides. Spend the last 20 to 25 minutes of class reviewing the slides. As you put a slide up, have the responsible group talk everyone through it and defend it. Try to get an argument out of them, either directly or by involving other groups that have seen things differently. This is an excellent way to get through an argumentative text in a fashion that exercises critical thinking skills. As an exercise, prepare an argumentative brief on a text that you are reading in your course. Make it no longer than a page, but include within it a number of irrelevant claims. Some of these could be wildly irrelevant, but make sure that some are hard to distinguish. (To do this, be sure that you have your argument first, and then embellish it with the irrelevant.) The exercise is for the students to reconstruct the argument after successfully distinguishing relevant from irrelevant. This could be done in class or as a take-home assignment. When you do a reconstruction exercise, either as a class in discussion or groups, or individually, be sure to devote some time early in this stage to discussion of the differences that will inevitably arise. Be sure to indicate that there isn't typically a single correct way to reconstruct the reasoning, although there will be more and less correct ways. Comment on what serves to distinguish the better from the worse in your particular case. Have students prepare 10 minute presentations on the material in your class, either individually or in groups. It is good to use these to kick off a discussion. Require that these presentations include an argument that they have constructed about the reading for that week, or about a topic that is related to the reading. (You might have a group a week do this on a dedicated discussion day.) While they are presenting, have the rest of the class take notes. After they are through with the presentation and after the clarificatory questions have been answered, give the class 5 minutes to reconstruct the presentation reasoning as they understood it. These should be collected at the end of class and given to the presenter(s), as a way of indicating just how clear their presentation was. Call on a few people to go through their reconstruction and have the presenter(s) respond to this. Once it is clear that everyone is on the same page (or at least in the same book), open the discussion more broadly to criticism and extension. If you have your students write short (1 to 2 page) essays, copy a couple of good ones that address important topics and distribute them. Divide the class into groups and have them reconstruct the reasoning contained in the essays. This is a useful variation on (B) above in that the author of the text in question is in the room to respond to reconstruction attempts.
In this section, I present reconstructions of the arguments found in the three pieces discussed in the Applications section of Chapter Four. These arguments are represented in standard form. It should be noted that these representations are really the end of the reconstruction process. The process should begin with a list of explicit argumentative claims, and then one should take these and organize them according to the specific arguments that comprise them. After this is done, one can begin filling in the blanks in the argument with those claims that one charitably takes to be implicit in the episode of argumentation. Once you have these in hand, you can put them all together in standard form, as I have done below. |
This is a brief piece, but it is rich with argumentation. As initial discussion of it in Chapter Four revealed, there are arguments all over the place in it. In fact, only responses 6, 7, and 11 lack arguments, and even that is not so clear, at least in the case of response 6. In what follows, I will reconstruct the reasoning as I find it in this interview, response by response. The arguments will be represented in standard form, and I will indicate implicit steps.
A. Response 1 : P1. If humanity remains hungry, homeless, and poor, then it is "going straight to suicide." P2. They will not go to suicide. (Imp) 3. Thus, they will not keep going straight to suicide; rather, they will change course in a positive way. (1, 2) P4. If positive change will take place, then it will come from movements and not revolutions or armed struggles. ------------------------------------- C. Therefore, there will be positive change effected for humanity by movements, such as trade union movements, social movements, etc.
B. Response 2 :
P1. If a guerilla group wishes to take authoritarian power, then it is not plausible and, in fact, almost suicide. P2. All but the EZLN in Chiapas, Mexico want to take authoritarian power. ------------------------------------- C. All but the EZLN are not plausible guerilla groups.
C. Response 3 :
P1. EZLN is earning the respect of ordinary folk. P2. Government is losing the respect of ordinary folk. P3. If EZLN gains respect while the Mexican government loses it, change will occur in Mexico. (Imp) ------------------------------------- C. Change will occur in Mexico.
D. Response 4A :
P1. Changes in power are occurring in Mexico. ------------------------------------- C. Therefore, Mexico is getting ready for these changes.
E. Response 4B :
P1. The surveys (of the Mexican people) indicate that the PRI is unpopular. ------------------------------------- C. The PRI’s unpopularity is evident.
F. Response 5 :
P1. If I go to the Lacandone jungle, I’ll die. P2. I don’t want to die. (Imp) P3. I won’t go to the jungle. (Imp) P4. If I don’t go, I should send a message. (Imp) ------------------------------------- C. I should send a message.
G. Response 8 :
P1. Corruption generates poverty. P2. Mexico is very corrupt—corruption is "almost an institution." P3. Mexico is very poor and is suffering from this. (Imp) 4. Mexico's poverty is caused by its corruption. (1, 2, 3 -- Imp) P4. If Mexico is poor and its poverty is caused by its corruption, then it suffers most from its corruption. (Imp) ------------------------------------- C. Mexico suffers most from corruption.
H. Responses 9 & 10 :
P1. Guerillas kidnapped embassy personnel in Peru. P2. Talks had started between the government and the kidnappers. P3. The guerillas had surrendered. (Imp) P4. Cuba and the Dominican Republic had agreed to give the guerillas refuge. P5. Fujimori sent people to kill the kidnappers. ------------------------------------- C. Fujimori acted badly. For identification of these arguments, go here . For evaluation of these arguments, go here .
II.2 Jonathan Alter on the Death Penalty
|
As I noted in Chapter Four, there are two main lines of argument in this piece. The first is delivered in paragraphs 2 through 9, while the second is located in paragraphs 10 and 11. In each of the two arguments, two premises are themselves conclusions of sub-arguments. In this section, I will present reconstructions of the two main arguments, in standard form, along with the sub-arguments that support premises of both. In parentheses after each step, I indicate the paragraph from which the step was taken and whether the step is implicit. Further, I indicate with an asterisk the steps that are themselves supported by further argument in the text.
A. Main Argument 1 : *P1. We are executing innocent people in the United States. (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8) *P2. The judicial system is not set up to ensure that we do not execute innocent people. (3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9) P3. If we are executing innocent people and the judicial system is not set up to help us avoid this, then we must place a moratorium on executions until we change the system. (2 – Imp) ------------------------------------ C. We must place a moratorium on executions until we change the system. (2 – the "until" clause is implicit) A.1 Argument for P1 : P1'. There is much anecdotal evidence of inmates executed without there being clear evidence of their guilt (e.g., Roy Roberts, Gary Graham). (2, 5-8) P2'. Many states, including Texas, do not allow death row inmates to get DNA testing on demand, and this means that many die without their guilt being confirmed by DNA testing. (3) P3'. Illinois released several men from death row on the basis of DNA tests revealing that they were not the perpetrators. (2) ------------------------------------- C(P1). We are executing innocent people in the United States.
A.2 Argument for P2 :
P1'. Many states, including Texas, do not allow death row inmates to get DNA testing on demand, and this means that many die without their guilt being confirmed by DNA testing. (3) P2'. After a conviction, the only way that a death row inmate can gain a reprieve is if (1) it can be shown that there was gross procedural error in the initial proceedings, and (2) the defense attorneys protest that this is so early in the process. This is so even if there is now considerable doubt about the inmate’s guilt. (4) P3'. As long as the defense attorney breathes, (s)he is "effective" in the eyes of the law, even though (s)he can be "indisputably incompetent", as in the Gary Graham case. (9, 6) P4'. Courts tend to trust the opinions of the original jurors only if they haven’t changed; if they have, then the jurors are no longer trusted. (7) P5'. Recent judicial and legislative actions have made it much more difficult to earn a federal reprieve. (8) ------------------------------------- C(P2). The judicial system is not set up to ensure that we do not execute innocent people.
B. Main Argument 2 :
*P1. Most Texans believe that they have executed an innocent person. (11) 2. Texas has executed an innocent person. P3. If Bush could have decreased the likelihood that an innocent person is executed and chose not to, and innocent people are executed, then we should be suspicious of Bush’s ability to lead. (11 – Imp) *P4. Bush could have decreased the likelihood that an innocent person is executed and chose not to. (10 – Imp) ------------------------------------- C. Therefore, we should be suspicious of Bush’s ability to lead. B.1 Argument for P1 : P1'. "A new poll shows that nearly 60 percent of Texans believe the state has, at some point, executed the innocent." (11) ------------------------------------- C(P1). Most Texans believe that they have executed an innocent person.
B.2 Argument for P4 :
P1'. Texas leads the way in executions because they have no Public Defenders and no "life without parole" sentences. (10) P2'. Bush could have changed this system by signing into law a bill that would have created a Public Defender system, but he vetoed it in favor of a more corrupt system. (10) P3'. If Bush has vetoed measures that would have decreased the execution rate in Texas, then Bush could have decreased the likelihood that an innocent person is executed and chose not to. (10 – Imp) ------------------------------------- C(P4). Therefore, Bush could have decreased the likelihood that an innocent person is executed and chose not to.
| For identification of these arguments, go . |
|---|
| For evaluation of these arguments, go . |
II.3 Geckos and Sticky Feet
Articles reporting the results of scientific research often give the reader insight into the process that led to those results. This is true of this article. While the article is shorter than the other two, it is more densely argued, with most sentences in the first four paragraphs contributing to claims in the main argument of the piece. I reconstruct that argument, along with the arguments adduced in support of the premises.
A. Main Argument : P1. The gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings is due either to (a) van der Waals forces, or (b) suction, or (c) friction, or (d) electrostatic attraction, or (e) glue, or (f) water adsorption. (1-4) *P2. It is not due to suction. (3, 4) *P3. It is not due to friction. (3, 4) *P4. It is not due to electrostatic attraction. (4) *P5. It is not due to glue. (4) P6. Of van der Waals forces and water adsorption, it is more likely due to van der Waals forces. (Imp) ------------------------------------- C. The gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings is most likely due to van der Waals forces. A.1 Argument A for P2 : P1'. The spatulae on gecko feet cannot be engaged or disengaged by planting them perpendicularly on surfaces. (3) P2'. If the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings is due to suction, then the spatulae would have to be engaged and disengaged in this way. (3 – Imp) ------------------------------------- C(P2). Therefore, the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings is not due to suction.
A.2 Argument B for P2 :
P1'. The adhesive force between gecko feet and surfaces is greater than suction alone can account for. (4) P2'. If suction were to account for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings, then it would have to account for this force. (4 – Imp) ------------------------------------- C(P2). Therefore, suction is not responsible for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings.
A.3 Argument C for P2 :
P1'. Gecko feet work well in a vacuum. (4) P2'. If the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings were to be explained by suction, then its feet should not work in a vacuum. (4 -- Imp) ------------------------------------- C(P2). Therefore, suction is not responsible for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings.
A.4 Argument A for P3 :
P1'. The adhesive force between gecko feet and surfaces is 600 times greater than friction alone can account for. (3) P2'. If friction were to account for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings, then it would have to account for this force. (3 – Imp) ------------------------------------- C(P3). Therefore, friction is not responsible for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings.
A.5 Argument B for P3 :
P1'. Gecko feet work well on glass. (4) P2'. If the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings were to be explained by friction, then their feet should not work on glass. (4 -- Imp) ------------------------------------- C(P3). Therefore, friction is not responsible for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings.
A.6 Argument for P4 :
P1'. Gecko feet function in ionized air. (4) P2'. If the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings were to be explained by electrostatic attraction, then their feet should not work in ionized air. (4 -- Imp) ------------------------------------- C(P4). Therefore, electrostatic attraction is not responsible for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings
A.7 Argument for P5 :
P1'. Gecko feet do not have glue glands. (4) P2'. If the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings were to be explained by glue, then their feet should have glue glands. (4 -- Imp) ------------------------------------- C(P5). Therefore, glue is not responsible for the gecko’s ability to effortlessly walk on walls and ceilings.
Module 5: Critical Thinking
Navigation links :
ETAP 623 Fall 2023 | Nick Gentile Portfolio Page | Nick Gentile Mini-Course: Essential Skills to Foster an Effective Learning Environment
Module 5 Overview
In module five (5) we will be focusing on the 21 st century skill of Critical Thinking. There will be emphasis placed on the strategies that educators can implement to achieve higher order thinking within their learning environment. We will see the value in student creativity and their original thoughts instead of forcing memorization.
Your first task is to take notes on the videos within the Module 5 Mini Lecture tab as well as the articles within the Module 5 Required Readings tab.
You will be required to complete one (1) discussion for this module. The directions to complete this task can be found within the Module 5 Discussion Prompt tab. Please include references to the mini lectures and required readings as you see fit. Remember to relate to your own experiences and generate two (2) substantive peer responses .
Your next task will be to complete the Module 5 Assessment: Reflect and Revise Prior Learning Environments and Interactions . You will reflect on experiences that could have been modified to foster a more effective and opportunistic learning environment that cultivated higher order thinking and critical thinking skills. More directions can be found within the Module 5 Assessment – Reflect and Revise Prior Learning Environments and Interactions tab.
Finally, you will be required to complete a Module 5 Discussion Conclusion . This is an open-ended prompt that you will submit to your instructor explaining what you gained from the module or something that stood out to you.
If you have any questions regarding the current module, please reach out by email or ask a class question in Module 5 Ask a Question .
Module 5 Objectives
At the conclusion of this module, the learner:
- Will be able to identify the different levels of critical thinking strategies within the learning environment. (Cognitive Learning Domain)
- Will be able to assemble revisions on prior experiences where the learning process could have elevated opportunities of critical thinking to align with Higher Order Thinking Strategies. (Psychomotor Learning Domain)
- Will be able to question and propose various strategies that enhance the learning environment, ultimately generating a positive stance on emphasizing the significant of critical thinking skills throughout the learning process. (Affective Learning Domain)
Module 5 Required Readings
The following readings are aligned with the above Module 5 Objectives. Please take notes when reading the following articles:
- ARISOY, B., & AYBEK, B. (2021) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u1wTjvYTWXzoAc1mMfH5Bt4RwCW46r5j/view?usp=sharing
- Santoso, T., Yuanita, L., & Erman, E. (2018) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eIi1RBDycTpHFOPieYicZvBhTri3KWJs/view?usp=sharing
- Xhomara, N. (2022) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yMtVOncigW4c19ExhaQiVgKlCOeZT-5n/view?usp=sharing
Module 5 Mini Lecture
Please watch all videos attached for this module. These videos will replace the lecture segments of a traditional in-person course. When developing your discussion posts, small group activities, or independent assessments, I encourage you to incorporate concepts and methods covered throughout the videos.
- 4Cs. [2.4], Critical thinking : Critical thinking in the workplace . (2019). Makematic. https://video.alexanderstreet.com/p/RljjxpygO
- Critical Thinking: Why, How Examples https://youtu.be/eBAdfJye2QU?feature=shared
- Critical Thinking Wins the Day at a KIPP High School https://youtu.be/dazO9o2aJU4?feature=shared
Module 5 Discussion Prompt
Use the following prompt to guide your discussion post. You do not need to answer every question, they are here to ignite your thinking.
Do you believe that critical thinking is an essential skill needed to foster an effective learning environment? Do you think that the teacher has influence on the level of student critical thinking based on the level of questioning provided? Is there value in reflecting and modifying approaches when teaching students? In other words, overtime is it realistic to fine tune questioning strategies, approaches, sequential steps in activities, et cetera, in an effort to further develop student critical thinking skills?
I encourage you to include personal experiences when answering this prompt.
You will be required to create an initial post and two substantive peer responses. All posts should include APA Citations including required readings, mini-lectures, or additional references found outside of the required readings.
Use the Google Slides link below to craft your initial post. When responding to your peers, utilize the comment feature on their slide to leave your response.
Google Slide Link: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1OmDpHRwbrT9PxfU3TsBsUQ6hKae0tibdmpE4Pp3qWBQ/edit?usp=sharing
Module 5 Assessment - Reflect and Revise Prior Learning Environments and Interactions
Reflect on experiences that could have been modified to foster a more effective and opportunistic learning environment that cultivated critical thinking skills. See the following Google Doc Link for more elaborate directions.
Google Doc Link : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XArkrRdmS4VrBaOVpSoYpJEJ8HIEcGi95bvdsU_dlzY/edit?usp=sharing
Module 5 Discussion Conclusion
What did you take out of the discussions, independent assignments, mini-lectures, and readings from this module?
Submit your answer to the Google Form Link below.
Google Form Link: https://forms.gle/bWWSUQwmUAkBJqLB9
Module 5 Ask a Question
Use the Google Doc link below to ask any question related to the current module.
Please be as specific as possible so I can ensure that I accurately answer your question and clarify any confusion or misconceptions.
Google Doc Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M51PpwocaU_vOnnuUIGxLzb1SHCiwVg75K4-IyoFx54/edit?usp=sharing
Moving Forward
Click here to progress to Module 6: Wrap-Up .
Click here to return to the main course page: Nick Gentile Mini-Course: Essential Skills to Foster an Effective Learning Environment .
- Toggle limited content width
COMMENTS
Learn how to preview and assign Critical Thinking Challenge assignments available to support Technology for Success. These "Choose Your Own Adventure"-style ...
It is analytical without being nitpicky. Critical thinking can be decisive without being stubborn, evaluative without being judgmental, and forceful without being opinionated. Judging. -ego-driven. -self-preservation. -self is important, others matter less. -feelings-motivated. -fear-based. -close-minded.
5.2 critical thinking challenge: working with applications Your solution's ready to go! Enhanced with AI, our expert help has broken down your problem into an easy-to-learn solution you can count on.
Terms in this set (5) What criteria has to be met for you to get a picture of the person that stole your tablet? Wrong passcode is entered 3 times. When your tablet is missing, you realize that you last used it in class and had the speakers set to mute. Which result can you expect if you try to track it by playing a sound? In MDM terms, which ...
a. 2 nd- Ask your network administrator to give you permission to access the folder - of course you need permission so you have to ask. b. Check Windows Explorer to verify that you can connect to the network. c. 1 st- Save the workbook file to your hard drive - saving things first is always good.
=Applications= I. Introduction. In the theoretical part of this chapter, I describe the process of argument (re)construction. ... This is not effective critical thinking, however. Effective critical thinking is critical thinking that can generate results, and the dismissive approach to argumentative dialogue is antithetical to real results ...
See Answer. Question: Task Instructions Х Complete the critical thinking challenge by making a owns and series of decisions, which lead to one of several specific One day as outcomes. Take the time to consider each scene and think nese unsche carefully about your options. As you read through each strative cos scene, you can use the scroli bar ...
Module 5 Dropbox Critical Thinking Application Consequential Theory bonnie hernandez christian moriarty phi1600 identification the main ethical issue: what. Skip to document. ... Module 5 Dropbox Critical Thinking Application Consequential Theory. Course. Studies in Applied Ethics (PHI 1600 ) 66 Documents.
Module 5 Critical Thinking. Scientific Inquiry. Click the card to flip 👆. • Scientific inquiry involves questioning, researching to see what is already known, investigating, and gathering and interpreting data. • Social Workers: - Need highly developed critical thinking skills. - Must know how to engage in scientific inquiry. - Must ...
Module 5: Software and Apps: Week 3 Discussion: Life on the Web 5.1 Concept Video: Trends in App Development. 5.2 Critical Thinking Challenge: Working with Applications. Module 5 Computer Concepts Skills Training . Module 5 Computer Concepts Exam. 2/7: Week 4 2/8: Module 6: Security and Safety: Week 4 Discussion: Apps Safety
Critical Thinking (5.2, 5.3, 5.4) Course: Critical Thinking (PHIL 102) 7 Documents. Students shared 7 documents in this course. University: New Jersey City University. Info More info. ... all of the discussion work; Andrik Turcios - Individual; Interviewing 2 family member; Related documents. Chapter 3 Media- Principles of sociology;
Critical thinking allows us to analyze outcomes, compare ideas, identify parallels, sequence events, synthesize information and draw conclusions from a given body of knowledge. Students can try the following five tools students to develop the critical thinking skills necessary for success: Brain Games. Logic Puzzles. Board Games.
Terms in this set (14) evidence. includes anything which might be used to determine or demonstrate the truth of a claim. analogy. Drawing a comparison between 2 things in order to show a meaningful resemblance between them. It implies that if 2 things are alike in one respect, they will be alike in other respects. Its quality hinges on 2 factors:
In module five (5) we will be focusing on the 21 st century skill of Critical Thinking. There will be emphasis placed on the strategies that educators can implement to achieve higher order thinking within their learning environment. We will see the value in student creativity and their original thoughts instead of forcing memorization.
1.) Ask questions- Don't just accept "Facts" at face value. 2.) Consider Multiple points of view- Be fair and open-minded. 3.) Draw conclusions- Look at the outcome of your inquiry of items #1 and #2 in a demanding, critical way. 1.) Attacking the person any argument that resorts to a personal attack. 2.)
Where connecting with a large audience once was a challenge, today an organization can reach millions across the globe. ... (Roy, 2016). An example is if management sent out a generalized post asking for applications to an internship program, the large audience can become overwhelming and threaten the search. ... Module 5: Critical Thinking ...
Ex. 1-Chapter 5:u000bCritical Thinking and u000bDecision Making. critical thinking. Click the card to flip 👆. Nursing organizations and accrediting agencies identify this as an essential skill for nurses. Nursing actions require this to integrate the complex knowledge, skills, technologies, and patient care activities into evidenced based ...