User:EDUC320COURTNEY/sandbox

Critical Thinking and Argumentation

Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking is a type of reflective thinking that allows us to better understand an issue or problem more thoroughly by weighing, evaluating and understanding the information we are given.

4 Components of Critical Thinking

1. Knowledge: knowledge and tactics are more easily controlled through instruction. Tactics are thinking frames, acquisition, automaticity, transfer (high vs. low-road)
2. Inference: forming connections between knowledge using deduction and/or induction.
3. Evaluation: analyzing, judging, weighing, forming moral judgements, criticizing and questioning information.
4. Metacognition: "thinking about thinking" (cite). Analyzing whether our decisions were informed decisions

7 Critical Thinking Dispositions

1. Inquisitive
2. Systematic
3. Judicious
4. Truthseeking
5. Analytical
6. Open-minded
7. Confidence in reasoning

Argumentation

The act or process of giving reasons for or against something : the act or process of making and presenting arguments. (cite) Critical thinking in addition to clear communication makes a good argument.

The components of an argument

• Claim
• Reasoning
• Evidence
• Counter-evidence
• Rebuttal
• Conclusion

The Psychology of Argumentation

The psychological process of argumentation that allows us the produce, analyze and evaluate.

Components of the psychology of argumentation

• Production: How we produce reasons for a standpoint.
• Analysis: Assessing the validity of proposed arguments.
• Evaluation: Exploring the different views of and argument.

Relationship between Argumentation and Critical Thinking

How Argumentation Improves Critical Thinking

Argumentation is a part of the critical thinking process, it clarifies reasoning and the ability to assess viable information. It is a part of metacognition where we evaluate our own ideas. We can use Critical Thinking skills such as induction and/or deduction to create a structured and clear argument.

How Critical Thinking Improves Argumentation

Critical Thinking helps us evaluate the information necessary to make an argument. It helps us judge the validity of each position. We use it to assess the credibility of sources and helps us approach the issue from multiple points of view.

Argumentative Ability

When Critical Thinking is taught within a curriculum, it is positively correlated with argumentative ability and analysis. That is, when a curriculum is infused with Critical Thinking, the ability for students to generate strong, well-rounded arguments and analyze arguments relatively better.

Analytical Skills

Critical Thinking helps in expanding analysis beyond the use of heuristics. Rather than relying on personal prior knowledge, Critical Thinking draws the focus away from one's beliefs and allows for a more objective evaluation of information.

Application within an Instructional Setting

Instructing Argumentation and Critical Thinking

• Teaching tactics
• Increasing knowledge

Skills Programs

• The Productive Thinking Program
• The IDEAL Problem Solver
• The CoRT Thinking Materials
• The Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Program

References

Bensley, A., Crowe, D. S., Bernhardt, P., Buckner, C., & Allman, A. C. (2010). Teaching and assessing critical thinking skills for argument analysis in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 37(2), 91. doi:10.1080/00986281003626656

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.) Pearson.

Flores, K. L., Matkin, G. S., Burbach, M. E., Quinn, C. E., & Harding, H. (2010). Deficient critical thinking skills among college graduates: Implications for leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(2), 212. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x

Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? argumentation?. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.001

Hornikx, J., & Hahn, U. (2012). Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(3), 225. doi:10.1080/13546783.2012.674715