Right off the bat back in week one, we asked you to “put on your thinking caps” and “answer questions” about your choosing your major, and how you explain that. Also, you were asked to “comprehend” an article about GAP brands and “form a conclusion” after “gathering pertinent information” regarding advantages of an interdisciplinary education. Last week if you look at the first picture, it asked you to “identify,” “evaluate,” and “blend” information in talking about the integrative process.
My name is Byron Faudie and I chose to post this week because one of my areas of concentration is education. Many people in the education business, as well as other disciplines will recognize the bold words as those related to the broad area of thinking known as critical thinking. This is the part people clam up . .oh no .. critical thinking!! (Runs screaming from the room pulling out hair) . .. but you've already been doing it, now we are just going to take a little closer look.
One way that I use critical thinking all the time in my job through what I call, “consider the source.” I work in the financial service industry and there is a lot of information that flies over my desk all of the time. People want me to know about the status of the economy, other people want me to know about what sectors of the market are ready to do better, some people want me to know more fact based information such as rule and law changes in the industry. The critical thinking that I have to put into much of this material to decide if it goes in the regular file cabinet, or the blue file (recycle bin, we're green) is who is behind the publishing of the material, and why do they think it's important for me to know that. Is this an ad? Who paid for research? What is the data really saying?
Critical thinking can be thought of partly as the sorting process of the brain. What am I going to keep, what am I going to pitch, what can I take a piece of and mix it with something else and put pieces of information together to make new information – draw different conclusions based on different versions of material presented.
My example focused on critical thinking in one field. The question for discussion though it, how does your critical thinking relate to being interdisciplinary?
So far we talked about critical thinking being fact based. My example talked about research, finding sources and reasoning. We looked at critical thinking as it applied to university studies. Another realm in the critical thinking world falls under ethics, values, and beliefs. These are longer term ideas that you hold deeply – but how did you get there? Why do you hold the values you do? – those questions aren't necessarily part of the discussion, but I pose them with the likely answer that you've determined your ethics, values, and beliefs using the critical thinking process over a long period of time.
As a way to practice, here is a critical thinking activity called the Virtual Philosopher developed by Dr. Wade Maki from the Philosophy department at University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
(note: It's Flash) http://web.uncg.edu/dcl/courses/vicecrime/vp/vp.html
Click on the link above to get to the Virtual Philosopher.(or copy and paste, I can't tell if it's hotlinked when I am making a post) The activity only takes a couple of minutes. I am going to be specifically vague because I don't want to give away my answers or thoughts on the activity until you've had a chance to try it and comment on it. In your response, comment on how the Virtual Philosopher scored your responses. What insight have you gained about your own critical thinking and reasoning?
Lastly, two reminders. First – in your response, you don't necessarily have to respond to all of the prompts – they are designed as springboards for further conversation throughout the week. The requirement per Ms. Spraker does not include having to respond to every single question posed. Also, reminder number two -- please sign your responses with your real name (this goes for every week). Ms. Spraker can't give credit to “UCFGRAD2010” or “STUDENT4EVR” - she needs your name for the grade book.
Have a great week everyone!
As strange as it sounds, I think you can give examples of critical thinking in fantasy football leagues. Like financial news and research, player updates, trends, stats, and predictions all can be found in excess for your players. The key is to identify which sources are trustwothy, which are biased opinions and selected stats (team websites), and which are hard numbers that you can draw your own conclusions around (complete stats). You can pickup players with high upside at low cost (sleepers) or you spend high picks on sure things (Adrian Peterson). Critical thinking is much easier and more fun than some people think.
ReplyDeleteJoshua Winsett
Joshua, you are exactly correct that fantasy football is an exercise that works as you described.
ReplyDeleteThere is a 2003 book by Michael M Lewis called Moneyball: The art of Winning and Unfair Game. Part of the main premise of the book talks about how the Oakland A's have applied the stats to pickup some sleepers and be successful. The IMDB has the status of the movie adaptation as "in production" and notes a 2011 release.
I think the idea of labeling critical thinking what it is just scares people away. I agree it isn't as hard as people make it out to be, and certainly can lead to satisfaction when you get the desired results.
Joshua, I'm having a hard time applying critical thinking to fantasy football - but my husband and son think it's genius. :) My son especially appreciated the Adrian Peterson reference.
ReplyDeleteAll--
While critical thinking is about thoroughly researching, it's important to research more than one point of view - and that each be carefully considered. I remember reading (one of our assignments) that critical thinking might lead to new insights (i.e. fresh perspectives) and a willingness to consider and revise views where change is warranted. For some, I think, the idea of changing one's point of view shows a certain weakness, but I find it liberating.
Lisa Schmidt
DeAnna Powell
ReplyDeleteI view critical thinking as a natural tool that the everyday person uses without trying. It is one thing for a teacher to put students on the spot and tell them to use these skills in a theoretical situation. But there is more of an impact when someone uses critical thinking while going about their daily lives to better themselves or bring about an educational change.
I'm not sure how the virtual philosopher related to my critical thinking more than morals or ethics. But it did put me in a situation that forces me to deal with something that is not an everyday occurance. I suppose it was somewhat accurate, but I felt as if it were pushing me to make the decisions that I "should" make as an individual. I was questioned in a doubtful manner when I chose something, making me feel like worse of a person, and then suddenly, a great person.
DeAnna Powell
To me critical thinking is more than just the evaluation of the source but also how it relates to other information that has already been considered and information that has not been considered to offer additional perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI would say the virtual philosopher was more of an exercise in introspection than critical thinking, it required us to decided what we thought was morally right, morals and ethics are emotional decisions not logical ones.
Reading your approach about critical thinking related to being interdisciplinary is very interesting. Like Aaron, I believe that critical thinking is one of the three key components to making an assignment rigorous. This is an example of an interdisciplinary unit, which takes a look at an organizing center from the perspectives of multiple disciplines at the same time in order to encourage students to discover transcendent themes. Knowingly, critical thinking, Interdisciplinary analysis, and the use of transfer in completing the assignment, together, they make up the “Big Three” and establish the basis for creating a truly rigorous assignment. Developing assignments that focus on “The Big Three” promotes engagement, rigor, and replicates more of the skills that students will need as throughout their lives.
ReplyDeleteGeorges Desliens
I completed the Virtual Philosopher activity. Two of my three responses were consistent with my original belief. The activity is interesting, but I would submit to you that one's personal ethics and integrity are only as strong as the options available. For example, in the lifeboat scenario, there wasn't an option to sacrifice oneself. Assuming you value all human life equally, that option might have allowed you to stay consistent with your belief. (I say "might" because if you value all human life equally, you must certainly include your own life in that value system.)
ReplyDeleteWhen you remove options, people are forced to establish a new set of beliefs. Just a thought...
Lisa Schmidt
Lisa~ I have to agree with you on your first comment. I view critical thinking as a tool to make an educated decision, to see a situation or problem from different views. It's true that some might see your change of position as a weakness, but I personally see it as a strength. When an individual is able to look at all the facts, recognize they were wrong, and then support the potentially opposite position, it makes them a better person overall. I for one, change my opinion of different subjects all the time as new information is presented. I find those that don't to be very narrow minded and one sided on most issues.
ReplyDeleteKylee Jones
After completing the Virtual Philosopher activity I felt the "problems" to be almost unrelated to our personal ethics asked earlier in the exercise. Yes, we can have an overall position on ethics, but when presented with different situations and options I believe that those ethics have a little leeway. I was consistent for the first two "problems," even though I feel (like Lisa), that our ethics are only as strong as the situation and options allowed. For the third "problem" I was asked to consider 5 patients for a liver transplant. As I read the descriptions of the people and tried to consider the "best" possible for the transplant, I came to the conclusion that the answer isn't so cut and dry. I knew what they wanted me to say as to correspond with my previous answer of all life being equally important, but I felt with more information available the circumstances of the "problem" had changed.
ReplyDeleteWas I the only person to change my "personal ethics" after reading all the information? I thought, and still think, I have strong ethics, but presented with different information those ethics can slightly shift depending.
Kylee Jones
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found the Virtual Philosopher simulation very interesting. I admit that ethically all humans are equally worth saving. Following that, my score comes up with two inconsistent (The life boat and a friend’s dilemma) and one inconsistent (Liver transplant). Accordingly, I should decide randomly or on first comes first serves basis. Either that or I should admit that ethically, some humans’ lives are more worthy of being saved than others. I gained more insight that lying is sometimes justifiable and achieving the greater good is not always the option. So we can wait for a miracle. Critically, I understand that the right choice in everything is mostly subjective.
ReplyDeleteDesliens Georges
Lisa, as to two of your points, I do know people that think that changing their mind shows weakness, and I agree with you that as more information is available that there is instance that shifting my position on a topic is the best move.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I did find the Virtual Philosopher activity limited in choices. I got 2 consistent, and 1 was in-consistent for the same reason - what I really wanted to do wasn't a choice.
Mdsiemer - Please put your real name somewhere on your post so that Ms. Spraker can give you credit in the grade book.
ReplyDeleteAs to your comment, I certainly agree that critical thinking is a lot more than the one example I was able to pose for this exercise. Your mentioning relating information is very much a part also.
As to morals and ethics - the idea was that your morals and ethics are often formed over time based on decisions that you make, what to accept and what to reject which is also a part of critical thinking (analysis).
D. Georges - the last line of your recent post resonated with me the most. "right choice in everything is mostly subjective." I understand the use of subjective there to mean there isn't exactly 1 correct answer. I think the process of getting to that answer though, when carefully thought out carries more objectivity.
ReplyDeleteCritical Thinking, arguably my biggest weakness, is vital to IDS. My viewing issues from multiple angles and considering the pros and cons of all viewpoints, we can arrive at a mutually beneficial conclusion. The excersise made me reconsider my original answers, and they may have been snap decisions and not as thought out as they should be. By applying critical thinking to the first set of questions and using that mindset for the second set, it is easy to be consistant in your answers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh. The fantasy football "metaphor" is a great comparison. My wife gets infuriated at me for spending 3 hours Sunday Morning reviewing past stats, injury histories, scoring tendancies, and other important facts before setting my roster for the weekend. This is my most in depth use of critical thinking. I take a lot of care in minimizing mistakes and maximizing risk. The same mentality should be applied to all facets of critical thinking. Well put Josh. Kudos.
ReplyDeleteI thought the virtual philosopher was a good jumping off point for a discussion, but not a good test for one's critical thinking. I feel that ethics is an application of critical thinking because rarely does one have an absolute perspective. I've always thought that one who has an absolute perspective lacks the experience to appreciate the possible variables.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in the liver transplant scenario, there is no opportunity to discuss additional details in each patient's case. We had to choose between specific predetermined philosophies, which I think lends to a great ethical debate. But critical thinking is a process, not an end state. If we were to be faced with the same scenario, and same options, but were in a position to articulate additional questions needed to make a decision, bounce those questions off each other in a discussion, etc then I think it would have been a great exercise for the process of critical thinking regardless of the final decision of who gets the liver.
-William Powell
@Sean,
ReplyDeleteCritical thinking used to be a major weakness for me also. At one point I decided to work on critical thinking and I think the pendulum swung too far in the other direction and my decision making became paralyzed because I was trying to consider every possible perspective and gather every bit of data I could to ensure I made the most complete and well rounded decision I could.
I think there has to be a middle ground in there somewhere (which I try to determine in each situation, since it is different in each situation). Some decisions are time sensitive and may not be able to go through as thorough of a critical thinking process as one would like. Some decisions can allow for, or even demand, a more robust critical thinking process. For me, I believe the key is to ensure critical thinking is always an element to whichever degree is practical. I think the wisdom we can hope to gain is in knowing to which depth of critical thinking is most appropriate given the issue at hand.
-William Powell
@Lisa,
ReplyDeleteI thought your perspective was very interesting ("I would submit to you that one's personal ethics and integrity are only as strong as the options available."). I read that when you posted it and actually thought about that a lot before replying. It makes me wish this was an "in-person" class because I think there could have been some good real-time discussion on that point.
I sort of agree, and sort of don't (how's that for non-committal). In real life, I would disagree with your statement. I would say one's sense of ethics and integrity is only as strong as the value one places on ethics and integrity and one's commitment to them. I qualify that by saying in real-life because in real life our options are mostly limited by our ability to define acceptable options. In real life you could have decided that sacrificing yourself is an option on the table, but in a scripted scenario you are limited to what the scenario has presented to you as options. One could have also decided that an acceptable option would be to have the lifeboat occupants take turns treading water so their survival is decided by their ability to swim rather than a decision by the group.
My question is does a scenario with a closed list of options really evaluate one's ethics or integrity? I would say no because it forces one to choose between the options the author presents, and ONLY those options. Does one establish new beliefs? No, not necessarily. One just chooses the least undesirable of the given options. Forming a new belief system would imply based on the scenario and options available in the scenario, one altered one's ethics and decision making for future situations where one would be free to come up with one's own options.
Example. I want to relax with my wife after a long day at work. My wife plans on watching Keeping up with the Kardashians on TV (I wretch even as I type this). If you knew my wife, you would know it's not an option for her to not watch that show, and recording it and watching it later isn't an option she'll go for. I'm working on it, but for now that's her position. :) So my options are to not spend that time with her because I don't want to watch that show, or be a good husband, hide my contempt for the Kardashians, and spend time with her while she watches her show. If I chose to spend time with her and watch the show, I can assure you it would not have changed my belief/opinion about that show. If as a result of my choice I find myself enjoying the show (shudder) then my choice would have allowed for me to have a different perspective and change of opinion. But that change of belief/opinion wasn't automatic simply because I made a decision one way or another.
I enjoyed your post. Looking forward to more posts throughout the rest of the course!
-William Powell
Bill~ I have to agree with you in that a scenario with only a closed list of options can't really evaluate our ethics or integrity. Like you said we have to "choose the least undesirable of the given options," wether we agree with them or not. This does not mean that our ethics are inconsistent, but that given the choice we would have completed the scenario differently.
ReplyDeleteI like your example of the Kardashians, but I have to say that on occasion I too watch this show. You might learn to like it. :)
Kylee Jones
Bill,
ReplyDeleteYour post about watching the Kardashians made me laugh out loud. You are a good husband to watch a show you don't enjoy in order to spend time with your wife. :)
Earlier in the same post you ask a question: Does a scenario with a closed list of options really evaluate one's ethics or integrity? I think maybe the point of the original exercise is that there will be times when we don't like the options available to us, but we'll be forced to make a decision. Hopefully, they won't be life or death decisions, but probably they will take us out of our comfort zone and - possibly - require us to adjust our beliefs.
Has anyone had a real life situation that required you to adjust your core values or beliefs?
Lisa Schmidt
In response to Joshua's statement
ReplyDelete-About applying critical thinking to fantasy football, everything seems so well thought up. I can definitely see how it can make sense you, even though I find it difficult to compare something like that. Perhaps I'm not thinking outside of the box as much as I could be. I'm looking for other ways to ignite my creative insights, and I think I need something more personable, like football/fantasy football is to you.
DeAnna Powell
Bill-
ReplyDeleteYou are very right in stating that critical thinking will vary in degree and importance depending on the situation one is in. Critical thinking may not even be necessary in some circumstances, because there might just be an easy answer/solution.I know someone can refute my argument and say, regardless of what one is doing, that critical thinking will always come into play, because it is natural for a person to think of how they would like to do something themselves.
DeAnna Powell
The virtual philosopher activity to me was thought provoking, but not a very good measuring stick of someones ethics. Rarely in life are solutions to problems so cut and dry, and only having a few options for each one seemed limiting. Often I found myself thinking that there were other options for the problems given. One specific example is the lifeboat one I ran into. There was no option where people took a vote, or anyones input was given. Who died and made me leader of the lifeboat? Ethics are formed my experiences and beliefs, and I think being put in situations like that would cause someone to continue to redefine their own ethics.
ReplyDeleteJosh Winsett
Bill, I tend to agree with you that in the liver transplant scenario, there is no opportunities to discuss. One important thing, I figured out that we need to use our critical thinking disposition to match the application of it in doing the virtual philosopher. Another thing, there was no wrong answer when it comes to virtual philosopher. Practically, we need to be open minded to deal with complex structure or complex phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteGeorges Desliens
I agree Georges that "Practically, we need to be open minded to deal with complex structures or complex phenomenons." Critical thinking involves weighing all the evidence and whittling down the non solutions. Like one of the interdisciplinarian characteristics: ambiguity figures into those situations.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Andrew Harris
This is so "chochy" group. I'm doing three in a row. I had a week that unraveled and tested my interdisciplinary metal and taxed my critical thinking abilities. It is a task when you got a gator on your rear. I've bored group 6 with it so I won't go over it here. The virtual philosopher was a trip. The liver transplant one I said the young boy as he was the most critical.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Andrew Harris
Jonathan Andrew Harris
I didn't see any way to be consistent with the 400 pound man and the boy. I said hope for a miracle as all live is valuable. I was busted for inconsistency when I chose the boy. It's apples and oranges...The other choices didn't impress me as worthier or unworthier but they classified him as unlikely to survive as he was the sickest. He was the one who would benefit the most. What if he grew up and cured AIDS, breast cancer, and addictions? That would have been a waste. But these decisions are made everyday but we shouldn't trust that the system is fair should we? Could we assume the rich and powerful ultimately wield back channel power?
ReplyDeleteHave a great week everyone and I'll be on my game this coming week.
Thanks and sorry for the last minute postings.
Jonathan Andrew Harris
Great week everyone, thanks for great participation and all of your comments. I agree with everyone's notes that the Virtual Philosopher did have limited choices. I like that Josh W. for example wanted more options - like voting people off the lifeboat. That would have been nice, but as Lisa pointed out to us - sometimes life sets your options to choose from, and you don't get to add in your own.
ReplyDelete