Promoting and Assessing Critical Thinking Flashcards
The ability to discern judgment based on standards.
Critical Thinking
2 Greek words where
Critical Thinking is derived from:
-kriticos (discerning judgement)
-criterion (standards)
3 phases of Critical Thinking:
- It analyzes thinking
- It evaluates thinking
- It improves thinking
True or False
3 phases of Critical Thinking
It evaluates thinking:
By focusing on the parts of thinking in any situation
False
It analyzes thinking :
By focusing on the parts of thinking in any situation
True or False
3 phases of Critical Thinking
It evaluates thinking:
By figuring out its goodness and badness
False
It evaluates thinking :
By figuring out its strengths and weaknesses
3 phases of Critical Thinking
________________________:
By building on its strengths while reducing its weaknesses
It improves thinking :
By building on its strengths while reducing its weaknesses
Critical thinking has three dimensions:
1.
2.
3.
Critical thinking has three dimensions:
1. an analytic
2. an evaluative
3. a creative component
True or False:
As critical thinkers, we evaluate thinking in order to analyze it. We evaluate it in order to improve it.
False
As critical thinkers, we analyze thinking in order to evaluate it. We
evaluate it in order to improve it
To analyze thinking,
identify its 8 components:
To analyze thinking:
Identify its:
1. Purpose
2. Question
3. Information
4. Conclusion(s)
5. Assumptions
6. Implications
7. Main concept(s)
8. Point of view
To assess thinking, we need to check for 8 factors:
To assess thinking:
Check it for:
1. Clarity
2. Accuracy
3. Precision
4. Relevance
5. Depth
6. Breadth
7. Significance
8. Logic and fairness
What would be the result of assessing and analyzing thinking?
YOU BECOME A WELL
CULTIVATED THINKER
True or False:
A Well-cultivated Critical Thinker:
-Raises vital questions and problems, formulates them clearly and precisely
True
True or False:
A Well-cultivated Critical Thinker:
Gathers and assesses relevant information, using concrete ideas to interpret it effectively
False
Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively
True or False:
A Well-cultivated Critical Thinker:
Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and
standards
True
True or False:
A Well-cultivated Critical Thinker:
Thinks close-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as
need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences
False
Thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as
need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences
True or False:
A Well-cultivated Critical Thinker:
Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems
True
Critical thinking adds a _______________to ordinary thinking.
Critical thinking adds a
SECOND LEVEL OF THINKING
to ordinary thinking.
True or False
A Well-cultivated Critical Thinker:
The first level analyzes, assesses, and improves our ordinary thinking
False
A Well-cultivated Critical Thinker:
The second level analyzes, assesses, and improves our ordinary thinking.
It is a spontaneous and non-reflective.
-Contains insight, prejudice, truth, and error, good and bad reasoning, indiscriminately combined
First-order thinking
A first-order thinking raised to the level of conscious realization (analyzed, assessed, and reconstructed)
Second-order thinking
Also called the Parts of Thinking or the Fundamental Structures of Thought.
Elements of Thought
in Critical Thinking
These provide a general framework of thought
Elements of Thought
in Critical Thinking
8 Elements of Thought
in Critical Thinking:
- Purpose
- Point of View
- Assumptions
- Implications and Consequences
- Information
- Interpretation and Inference
- Concepts
- Question at Issue
9 Universal Intellectual Standards in Critical Thinking:
- Clarity – understandable, the meaning can be grasped
- Accuracy – free from errors
- Precision – exact to the necessary level of detail
- Relevance – relating to the matter at hand
- Depth – contains complexities and interrelationships
- Breadth – encompasses multiple viewpoints
- Logic – no contradictions
- Significance – focuses on the most important
- Fairness – justifiable; not self serving
Universal Intellectual Standards in Critical Thinking:
understandable, the meaning can be grasped
Clarity
True or False
Universal Intellectual Standards in Critical Thinking:
Precision
– free from errors
False
Accuracy
– free from errors
Universal Intellectual Standards in Critical Thinking:
exact to the necessary level of detail
Precision
Universal Intellectual Standards in Critical Thinking:
relating to the matter at hand
Relevance
True or False
Universal Intellectual Standards in Critical Thinking:
Logic
– contains complexities and interrelationships
False
Depth
– contains complexities and interrelationship
Universal Intellectual Standards in Critical Thinking:
encompasses multiple viewpoints
Breadth
Universal Intellectual Standards in Critical Thinking:
-no contradictions
Logic
Universal Intellectual Standards in Critical Thinking:
focuses on the most important
Significance
Universal Intellectual Standards in Critical Thinking:
justifiable; not self serving
Fairness
The reader or listener can understand what is being said
Clarity
“Gateway” standard to critical thinking
Clarity
If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant
Clarity
This is essential for both educator and student
Clarity
Accuracy
Remember that a statement may be clear but inaccurate -> ___________________
Remember that a statement may be clear but inaccurate ->
Validate Sources of information always
Remember that a statement may be clear but inaccurate -> Validate Sources of information always
Accuracy
Exactness and Specificity
Giving exact amount of detail that is required for a given situation
Precision
-How is this idea connected to the topic at hand
- How to presented facts bare to the topic
- How do ideas presented by students relate to the ideas discussed
Relevance
-How do ideas/ presentations address the complexities of topic at hand
- How do deal with significant factors that must be addressed (i.e. lectures)
Depth
- The idea of using multiple points of view
- Using other ways to look at and solve problems
Breadth
- If the topic/ problem makes sense
- If answers to question sets follow from given data/information
Logic
- What the most significant information is needed to be gathered (for students) or conveyed
(for educators) - How important are the facts being presented with regards to the context of discussion
Significance
-If the thinking, assumptions and behaviors are justified
- If the concepts discussed are being justifiably used or discussed
Fairness
Criteria of an “exemplary” student:
- Often raises important questions and issues
- Study lessons in a habitual and effective manner.
- Analyzes key questions and problems clearly and precisely
- Recognizes key questionable assumptions, clarifies key concepts effectively
- Read a lot of books.
- Uses language in keeping with educated usage
- Frequently identifies relevant competing points of view
- Has motivation and discipline to perform well in class.
- Demonstrates a commitment to reasoning carefully from clearly stated premises in the
subject, - Has a marked sensitivity to important implications and consequences
Criteria of an “exemplary” student:
- Often raises important questions and issues
- Analyzes key questions and problems clearly and precisely
- Recognizes key questionable assumptions, clarifies key concepts effectively
- Uses language in keeping with educated usage
- Frequently identifies relevant competing points of view
- Demonstrates a commitment to reasoning carefully from clearly stated premises in the
subject, - Has a marked sensitivity to important implications and consequences
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Exemplary Students
- High-Performing Students
- Mixed-Quality Students
- Low-Performing Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
They frequently try to get through courses by memorizing things rather than by understanding them
Low-performing Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
Often produce work that is unclear, imprecise, and
poorly reasoned.
Low-performing Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
May achieve competence in reciting information
and naming concepts, but they often use terms and
concepts incorrectly because their understanding is
superficial or mistaken
Low-performing Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Perform inconsistently in a subject, and
therefore develop a limited body of knowledge.
Mixed-Quality Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Often use memorization as a substitute for
understanding
Mixed Quality Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Learning at this level demonstrates incomplete
comprehension of basic concepts and principles
Mixed Quality Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Internalized a few of the intellectual standards
appropriate to the assessment of their own work in a subject, but demonstrate inconsistency in self-evaluation
Mixed Quality Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Sound thinking within a subject
High-Performing Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Development of a range of knowledge acquired
through the exercise of thinking skills and abilities.
High-Performing Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Thinking is, clear, precise, and well-reasoned, but
sometimes LACKS depth of insight (especially into opposing points of view).
High-Performing Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Internalize the intellectual standards relevant to the
subject and demonstrate competence in self-evaluation
High-Performing Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Implies excellence in thinking within the subject
Exemplary Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Use their intellectual skills to develop a broad
range of knowledge.
Exemplary Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
-Exemplary work is clear, precise, and well-reasoned, but also insightful and well-informed
Exemplary Students
4 ADDENDUM: STUDENT PROFILES
- Student has internalized the basic intellectual standards appropriate to assessing his or her own
work in a subject and is highly skilled at self-evaluation.
Exemplary Students
True or False
Close reading and substantive writing are symbiotic skills of disciplined thought they support and reinforce one another.
True
True or False
Both close reading and substantive writing require that people think from multiple perspectives, and both require that we use the elements of reasoning well
True
“Could you elaborate on that point?”
Clarity
“Could you express that point another way?”
Clarity
“Could you give me illustration / example?”
Clarity
“Is that statement true?”
Accuracy
“How can we check if it is accurate or true?”
Accuracy
“Could you give me more details?”
Precision
“Could you be more specific?”
Precision
“How is this idea connected to the topic at hand ?”
Relevance
How to present facts bare to the topic?
Relevance
How do ideas presented by students relate to the ideas discussed ?
Relevance
How does the questions relate to the issue we are dealing with?
Relevance
How do ideas/ presentations address the complexities of topic at hand
Depth
How to deal with significant factors that must be addressed (i.e. lectures)
Depth
How are you taking into account the problems of the questions?
Depth
How are you dealing with the most significant factors in the problem?
Depth
Do we need to consider another point of view?
Is there another way to look at this questions?
What will this look like from the pov of other?
Breadth
If the topic/ problem makes sense ?
Logic
If answers to question sets follow from given data/information?
Logic
Does this really make sense?
How does that inference follow from the evidence?
Logic
Does all of this fit together logically?
Logic
How important are the facts being presented with regards to the context of discussion?
Which of the idea / concept is the most important?
Significance
Is my thinking justified given the evidence?
Are my assumptions justified?
Fairness
Is my behavior fair?
Is my selfish interest keeping me from considering problem from alternative viewpoints?
Fairness
