"We aren't teaching students how to think critically!" So goes the exasperated lament you have probably heard and possibly uttered. The thing is, that's a crazy hard thing to do. It may seem like a logic class should teach you to think in a more disciplined way, for example, but the sad fact is that those mental habits are very unlikely to transfer [PDF] beyond the walls of the logic course. There are many different styles and contexts of critical thinking, and there is no magic subroutine that we could insert into our mental programming that covers them all.
But despair is not the only option. Effective coursework can build important and useful critical thinking skills. Doug Bonn at the University of British Columbia and Stanford's N.G. Holmes and Carl Wieman focused on good scientific, quantitative thinking when teaching a group of first-year physics students. And like good critically thinking educators, they put their strategy to the test and published the results so they can be evaluated by others.
Original article from Ars Technica .
[Related]: How to improve students' critical thinking about scientific evidence
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:22PM
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:41PM
I went to http://evergreen.edu/ [evergreen.edu] . Most of the classes are larger, my first year there I had one 48 credit course that spanned the entire year and 4 different subjects. There was a lecture component a seminar component and a lab component. It gave us ample time to actually use the information we were learning and discuss the information as well.
We didn't have any grades and there were no particular rules about which classes you took over all. Which gave me ample time to cover topics that I'd never have the chance to cover. My area of concentration was simple the subjects I spent the most time on rather than a formal process like you'd see at most other schools.
In the modern era where people change jobs regularly and even entire fields, it makes less and less sense to specialize in one area and more and more sense to get comfortable taking skills from one domain to another. Because, you're probably going to be changing fields at some point.
The main downside here is that if you're not self-directed and prepared to take some responsibility for your learning, you can get a crap education. But, if you're willing to select challenging classes that broaden your horizons a bit, I don't run into people as well educated from most other schools. In fact, I run into some people that are just completely useless outside of their field of study and barely educated in what they were studying.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday August 19 2015, @07:45PM
On the specialize vs breadth topic. Breadth is important and my school did it wrong. All the breadth was just to checkoff a box on the ABET accreditation form. Specialization is necessary to further one specific field for the sake of that field. My minor has done more for me than my major. I think you should be able to pursue any breadth if it is what you like not just the forced fit of the flowchart. Some people will just not like music or art appreciation and should be able to take something more personally meaningful.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Wednesday August 19 2015, @09:47PM
The only draw-back was it was a smaller program so most of the higher level classes (Calculus, choir, drama, AP sciences. languages, probably more) had to be taken at the local High School and under state law the kids were/are limited to two courses.