UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST

=== 1802619026f21cf1dfa80b05be490545294c807c_685463_1 ===

UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST

SPECIALIZATION: MASTER BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

ESSAY- EXAM COURSE CRITICAL THINKING AND ELEMENTS OF PR

Scientific coordinator,

Professor

Name Surname

Student:

Name Surname

2018

ESSAY- EXAM COURSE CRITICAL THINKING AND ELEMENTS OF PR

What do you think critical thinking is and how should it be taught? Be specific. Define critical thinking, contrasting it with other understandings. Then show how you would organize a course to teach it. What would be some of the activities you would include? What sort of things would you have students read or do? Identify specific attitudes, skills or techniques that you would teach. Make clear just why you would do what you would do in such a course.

What do you think critical thinking is and how should it be taught? Be specific. Define critical thinking, contrasting it with other understandings.

An interesting view of critical thinking asserts that it is formed when we are confronted with opinions and situations that do not fit into what we know that do not fit our knowledge, experience, preconceptions and beliefs. Facing other views, we are going to reevaluate our own beliefs and see them in the light of others. This would also help to enrich our vision of life and reality, expanding our knowledge. This vision is best known to us in relation to free thinking, but rather to the so-called thinkers called "free-thinkers." Here we will quote Lev Tolstoy: "Free thinkers are those who wish to use their minds without partiality and without fear to understand things that conflict with their own customs, privileges or belief. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for a righteous thinking: where it is absent, the discussion risks becoming worse than unnecessary. " It seems that the history of "critical thinking" is not too long. This expression would have been used for the first time in 1941 in a course (An Experiment in the Development of the Critical Thinking) of Edward Glasser, who became later known by launching a test critical thinking. Despite some criticism of this phrase, considered too general or vague, the expression "critical thinking" has become popular in recent times, becoming popular in mass-word as well. However, as mentioned in the last definition, criticism means, in philosophical tradition, also a methodical practice of doubt. And, in our opinion, thinking first criticizes this and means: have a skeptical thinking that casts doubt on all the information promoted to be true until it is shown to be true. This connects with the first definition, which states that critical thinking helps us assess claims alleged by some people to be true, and thus avoid credulity and able to be manipulated by false claims.

Critical thinking and reflexive analysis are, in this sense, the oppositions of irrationality, propaganda and manipulation; is somehow intellectual self-defense. With this attitude – and I expressed this feeling before – critical thinking can be called even skepticism, skepticism moderately different from the classic type pyrrhonian, skepticism applied to particular situations not intended to question human knowledge in general. " But critical thinking, as it is in the above quote, is not equal to skeptical thinking. Critical thinking implies, of course, the first stage, skeptical thinking, but it is wider, more comprehensive than the latter. Immediately after we doubted the veracity of information comes the second stage of critical thinking that where there is a careful assessment of the premises, evidence and arguments, a usage analysis and investigation and several instruments and intellectual skills that help us discover the truth or the falsity of the statements. In brief, the second stage of critical thinking is the evaluation of the arguments / evidence.

What is the relationship between critical thinking and free thinking, we have no time and no desire to analyze it because it goes beyond the chosen theme. We can only say, briefly from what we know, that critical thinking is not the same as free thinking, because it uses certain methods and guides by certain (scientific) principles that help it determine the truth. At the same time, we can mention that there is no "free thinking" but a desideratum, an ideal: a man can only think freely if he has no faith or conviction … and such a man is for sure a madman.

We tend to give it right, given that asking questions can help us discover the truth. And the question that is probably the basis of critical, skeptical and free thinking is "Why?" Why is this considered to be reality or truth, but not otherwise? Following the research of the chosen subject, I came to the conclusion that critical thinking is a form of thinking composed of skepticism + evaluation of the evidence. Skepticism has the capacity to make us doubt in the first instance of any information until it is shown to be true or false. Thus, skeptical thinking (but not in the Pyrrhonian sense, which denies any possibility of knowledge) helps the individual who possesses it to avoid

rationalism, propaganda and manipulation, and the evaluation of evidence helps the person to discover whether that information is true or false. Several scientific methods are used in the process of evaluating arguments, including logic, investigation, analysis, which helps a critical mind to reach the truth. In short, critical thinking is designed to help us understand the reality and discover the truth / accumulate the right knowledge. And the knowledge of truth and the correct understanding of reality can help the individual to succeed and succeed in life, including, in particular, in business and management. With regard to the etymology of the word "critical", it comes from ancient Greek , meaning the intellectual ability to judge, to discern. Next, we will mention several definitions or descriptions of "critical thinking" found online: – Critical thinking is the mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, especially statements or sentences claimed by some people to be true. It leads to a process of reflection on the meaning of these assertions, examining the evidence and reasoning offered and judging the facts. Critical Thinking is the type of thinking that is structured on the basis of a careful evaluation of the evidence and the premise of judgement.

Critical thinking does not necessarily mean criticizing, but making sense of the evaluation of the evidence. It is to develop certain intellectual tools to avoid the credulity and the possibility of being impressed by false or pseudoscience statements (disputable or absurd ideas presented as scientific truths) … It is a form of disciplined thinking that evaluates information, arguments and thinking (Scientia.ro) – Critical Thinking … involves clear evaluations and formulations as it is used both in evaluating your existing opinions (yours or others) and in designing new ones. It operates according to rational standards in that they are judged from the perspective of how they are reasonably well founded. Critical thinking implies, of course, the logic … but it is more comprehensive than logic, as it does not only imply logic, but also the truth or falsity of the statements, the evaluation of arguments and evidence, the use of analysis and investigation, the application of more competencies that help us decide what it is worthwhile to believe or do – Critical thinking is clear and rational thinking in which criticism is involved . Although criticism is usually understood as the detection of errors and as a negative judgment, it also implies the recognition of merits, and in the philosophical tradition also means a methodical practice of doubt / skepticism..

Show how you would organize a course to teach it.

Critical thinking is an important approach to teaching because it increases the satisfaction and learning level of students when they need to use and apply the ideas in the curriculum. Students who receive information passively are less likely to understand what they have heard or read than students who have critically examined, interpreted, applied or tested this information. By presenting the subject as a problem or issue, students are more motivated and understand better. When we evaluate or judge in a serious and thoughtful way, we must inevitably use criteria. It goes far beyond simply basing one's choice on personal preferences and fantasies. For example, before deciding whether ice cream should be part of a diet, one has to go beyond one's personal preferences and assess whether it is nutritious, affordable, easily accessible and easy to maintain. This set of factors forms the criteria necessary to judge the merits of including ice cream in a diet. Only the questions that lead to this type of evaluation allow us to think critically. What is most effective pedagogically, have students write information from a textbook about the different characteristics of world's main regions or ask them to convince their class that the area they have studied is the best place to move an entire family (using the following criteria: climate, natural beauty, cultural attractions, jobs, lifestyle)?

Being more motivated, students will tend to do additional research that generally goes well beyond the information presented in textbooks, to understand regional differences much better, and to remember these characteristics much better when tested. on the subject. In other words, critical thinking is an effective pedagogical approach that stimulates students' interest while improving their skills. Without changing the resources used or the structure of the classroom, teachers can challenge students in this way. The teacher can ask students to use this information to ask the question "Between the dolphin or dear, which animal best met the different needs of traditional life?" ". In the same vein, instead of writing a report on a known leader, students can decide among the different contributions made by a designated person that had the greatest long-term impact. Critical thinking is also encouraged by discussing a variety of suggested solutions for a playground dilemma or story that is most effective, achievable and safe. Also rather than simply choosing the title that students prefer for their persuasion paragraph, they may have to decide which title is the most interesting among several possibilities. The starting point for encouraging critical thinking, far from being easy, lies in the questions asked and the tasks asked of students.

What would be some of the activities you would include?

What is a question that invites students to think critically, and how does it differ from non-critical thinking questions? To illustrate this difference, consider the following questions: Even routine activities, such as note-taking, can help to think critically. For example, students can develop criteria for effective note-taking. To teach these criteria, teachers can invite students to imagine that a local politician has asked them to give him concise information about the front pages of the dailies. To accomplish the task, students must ensure that the document is less than half a page, and that it accurately summarizes all the important points connected to topics of interest to the politician. During note-taking, students use their critical thinking skills to judge whether the entries they have chosen meet the established criteria – that is, accurate, relevant, complete and concise. In all cases, when they have to make a judgment based on specific criteria, students are not just finding facts or defining ir their personal preferences. They do not just report what they know or love. They judge or evaluate the options available, and determine the most appropriate choice (the most reasonable, the wisest, the easiest to justify) based on relevant criteria. In fact, students critically analyze content, attitudes, and skills related to the social studies curriculum. Instructional strategies are grouped into four phases of development inspire: concrete experience, observation reflective, conceptual abstraction and active experimentation.

Strategies are planned to move students from one phase to another. Strategies combine a task of writing, a philosophical content, a skill and an attitude of critical thinking combined towards the same goal: ultimately, to bring students to think in depth. The first phase of development of critical thinking is called concrete experience. It aims to raise awareness: to bring about a positive experience of exploring concepts in a new cultural field. Four strategies are proposed to arouse interest, provoke curiosity, astonishment and questioning. The second phase, reflective observation, wants to continue the exploration by soliciting student´s preliminary reflections on their understanding of the problems. It consists of ten informal writing activities that allow students to practice certain critical thinking skills in an environment that has more reflective than academic requirements. The third phase, conceptual abstraction, is a pivotal step to deepen students' initial understanding and move to a higher conceptual level. It includes five informal writing activities to prepare for the more formal and often noted exercise of structured writing, dissertations, argumentative texts, etc. At the end of this phase, students produce texts that are close to the form of professional writings, essays and philosophical dissertations. The fourth phase, active experimentation, represents the culmination of the learning of the previous phases. Writing tasks are expected to approach professional standards with a great variety in presentation. Some teachers might consider this phase the ultimate moment of their teaching and should be considered and even evaluated as the final skill to be attained in their courses. Bean seems to believe that it is unrealistic to expect that all students will be able within fifteen weeks to have sufficiently mastered philosophical content, developed critical thinking skills, and demonstrated critical thinking attitudes to believe that phase ends inside the course. The examples he gives of student productions are more activities that could be practiced outside the school setting (philosophical writing contest, public speaking competition, philosophical discussion group, extracurricular activities, etc.). This is why there are no proposals in this phase for particular writing tasks; Students who are in this phase of experimentation will be able to practice their critical thinking also within the requirements normally expected for the course.

What sort of things would you have students read or do? Identify specific attitudes, skills or techniques that you would teach. Make clear just why you would do what you would do in such a course.

In practice, students – whose sample will be specified below – have individually selected five sites that they have deemed reliable for a given theme. They were then grouped into groups of four and explicitly invited to confront them, discuss them together, and finally retain five of the ones they chose beforehand. We have therefore observed the critical spirit relative to the reliability of sources that compared to the Internet because it is probably the medium most representative of the issues1 that concern media education. The hypothesis that made it possible to evaluate the pedagogical device is as follows: when we encourage these young people to report in a group of their methods and thought processes following an Internet research task, their critical performance – heard here as a result of the ability to select sources deemed reliable for a given topic in a task – increases. The idea is that reflexive awareness would naturally emerge from such a discussion. Concretely, the students had to carry out a research concerning the work of Michel Foucault (1975), to supervise and to punish. To evaluate the hypothetical improvement following the group discussion, it was necessary to assign a degree of reliability to each of the sites selected by the students. This task was proposed to four evaluators selected for their expertise in the fields of social sciences, philosophy and historical criticism. The main thrust of this methodology was to prefer an intersubjective and interdisciplinary point of view rather than the application of an exclusive grid. The pupils' performances are rather weak: they trust sites judged unreliable by the evaluators. The average student score is close to three points, which is an overall rating between "rather unreliable" and "unreliable". In other words, they generally chose unreliable sources. Few students stand out, and do so only insignificantly: whatever happens, none of them earn more than five points. This weakness of performance is verified whether individually or in groups, which leads us to the second point of our development. Lack of significant improvement following the group discussion Recall our hypothesis: we had imagined that after a small group discussion, one of the ways to arouse their critical spirit, the performance of the students tested would be increased. However, when comparing the scores obtained individually to those obtained in groups, there is an overall improvement extremely low, possibly due to chance. there is a truly perceptible improvement. When comparing the results by group, the situation is almost the same: an improvement, if we consider it to be present, remains statistically insignificant. Students also benefit differently: only those who had an extremely low score (one point or two) are rewarded with a perceptible improvement. Others (individuals or groups) see their ratings fall. How to explain the non-improvement of the pupils? Several factors come into play. First of all, it is worth noting the speed with which they performed both tasks. If in just two hours, these may seem difficult to achieve by secondary school students, we must sweep this argument: indeed, most of them are far from having all the time allotted time to profit. Similarly, it should be noted that sometimes a group has completely rejected very reliable sources (seven or eight points) selected by one or other of its members. To understand the poor results obtained, as well as the lack of improvement concerning them, we can not refer to a single cause: not taken into account of instructions, inability to locate indices of relevance present on the site, lack of knowledge contextual, blind trust in the first information found, etc. The causes are very diverse, the deficiencies too.

It is for this reason that the critical return and the extensions of this experience are multiple. This problematic inherent in the device invites anyway to take into account other types of similar experiments, in which students should for example perform a second individual research after discussion rather than select from sites previously selected. The empirical data produced Such studies would undoubtedly clarify the results obtained. Secondly, let us consider the following question: are we facing a pedagogical situation that really allows a reflexive return? Indeed, if the "thinkers of metacognition" previously cited1 seem to agree that the critical and argued return on choices during a task leads to an improvement in performance, here we do not see. Rather than calling into question a whole stream of studies, it seems wise to question the true intellectual investment of young people in the collective situation. The dynamics of these groups, like the phenomena of leadership, pose questions. A typical group reinforces us in this idea: its members made an easy choice, after only a few minutes, without discussion. One of them decided that they would take each of the first sources selected by the members of his group and select the fifth at random. The question of causality may arise in another way: it is very likely that events have occurred that have made non-improvement, despite the possible increase in reflexive feedback, may have been caused by variables other than those manipulated ( precisely, for example, the group phenomenon). It would probably be rewarding to repeat the experience with older subjects, in particular to check the difficulty of the task. In addition, there is the question of the maturation of skills, the questioning attitudes that may arise from the system: long-term enrichment is not excluded. Young people may have been sensitized by simply confronting the question of the reliability of their sources. It is therefore advisable to envisage an experiment that accompanies young people over the long term and finally to compare their results with other young people who would not have received this support. Moreover, knowing that some groups or individuals have seen their performance drop after discussion, while others have progressed, it would be interesting to build a qualitative behavior analysis device during group exchanges. This might help to identify beneficial attitudes for the development of critical skills. Finally, a similar experiment could be repeated by allowing the pupils to choose new sources individually, in order to neutralize the possible biases of a conditioned selection after a group discussion. Finally, we will try to determine the contributions for media education, and the possible roles and tracks that would be interesting to exploit. As a first step, we will come back to the evaluation of the tested pedagogy, in order to examine whether to reject it or not future studies and didactic activities. Next, we will discuss the legitimacy of our questioning, about the roles of media education in terms of a reflexive return to validation of sources. With this in mind, we will ask ourselves what is the current state of education regarding the relationship with the media: is there no way to go from this point of view? After that, we will talk about the use of the Internet. Finally, we will broaden the horizon, in order to highlight the multiple pathways and the richness of the investigation in the field.

Although we could cite others, let us note two tracks to finish to stimulate reflection on the roles of media literacy in critical thinking. The first is multidisciplinary enrichment. Indeed, our experience has been nourished by sources that are specific to the field of media education, which is very well developed in Quebec, but also from documents from the pedagogical world, as well as from historical criticism and theorists of communication. In particular, we have outlined the idea of ​​"metacognition", related to the reliability of the sources. Media education, through its investigation, could lead to the creation of extremely interesting concepts and approaches for all areas of education. As an extension of these considerations, the second line of reflection is as follows: media literacy raises the intrinsic question of a new definition of critical thinking – multidisciplinary, in utilitarian terms, of competencies – an extremely consensual notion, but for which it is difficult to find elements allowing its concrete realization.

References

Evans, A. , Reading and Thinking: Exercises for Developing Reading Comprehension and Critical Thinking Skills. New York: Teachers College Press, 1979, p.39.

Adams, D. M., Cooperative Learning: Critical Thinking and Collaboration across the Curriculum. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas, 1990, p.103.

Thayer-Bacon, B., Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively. New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press. [electronic resource], 2000.

Vaughn, L., The Power of Critical thinking: Effective Reasoning About Ordinary and Extraordinary Claims. London: Oxford University Press, 2005, p.97.

Ruggiero, V. R. , Critical Thinking Supplement to Becoming A Master Student: Tools, Techniques, Hints, Ideas, Illustrations, Instructions, Examples, Methods, Procedures, Processes, Skills, Resources and Suggestions For Success. Rapid City, SD: College Survival, Inc., 1993.

Barrell. J. , Developing More Curious Minds. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2003, [electronic resource]

Howie, S. H. , College Thinking and Composing: A Textbook for College Writing. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 1996.

Eugene A. Engeldinger, RQ, Bibliographic Instruction and Critical Thinking: The Contribution of the Annotated Bibliography, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Winter 1988), pp. 195-202, Published by: American Library Association, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25828259

Halpern, D. F. , Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.

Seesholtz, M., & Polk, B. (2009, October 10). Two professors, one valuable lesson: How to respectfully disagree. Chronicle of Higher Education, Cronicle, electronic resorce,

Boisvert, J., The formation of critical thinking: theory and practice. Brussels : From Boeck, 1999.

From Smedt, T., Risks and communication: dangerous communication. Communications Research, 2004, 22, 7-10

Research Group in Mediation of Knowledge. (2003). The mediation of knowledge. Louvain-la-Neuve. p. 30. Available at: http://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/comu/ Documents / Brochure2003.pdf

Lalande, A., Technical and Critical Vocabulary of Philosophy: Text reviewed by the members and correspondents of the French Society of Philosophy and published with their corrections and observations. Paris: University Presses of France, 2006.

Mediappro, Use and use of the Internet (Results Belgium), 2006.Available at: http://www.media-animation.be/IMG/pdf/Mediappro-Belgique-Resultats.pdf

Piette, J., Media education and critical function. Paris: The Harmattan, 1996. 23, 231-255.

Romainville, M. , Knowing how to talk about his methods: metacognition and performance

at University. Brussels: De Boeck (Coll "Pedagogies"), 1993.