Posts Tagged ‘critical thinking’
Critical news literacy session for social policy analysis course
Katie Querna, Thursday, 11AM, Stewart Hall
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/21/dumb-and-lazy-the-flawed-films-of-ukrainian-attacks-made-by-russias-fake-factory
https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2022-02-24/the-war-in-ukraine-via-tiktok-how-ordinary-citizens-are-recording-russian-troops.html
+++ please cover this information at home and bring your ideas and questions to class +++++
Most students can’t tell fake news from real news, study shows
Read more: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/03/28/fake-news-3/
Module 1 (video to introduce students to the readings and expected tasks)
- Fake News / Misinformation / Disinformation
- Definitions
- Fake news, alternative facts
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=fake+news
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=alternative+facts
- Misinformation vs disinformation
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/02/18/fake-news-disinformation-propaganda/
- Propaganda
- Conspiracy theories
- Bots, trolls
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/11/22/bots-trolls-and-fake-news/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2020/04/30/fake-social-media-accounts-and-politicians/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2020/01/20/bots-and-disinformation/
- Clickbait
Filter bubbles, echo chambers
(8 min) video explains filter bubbles
https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter
+++++ thank you for covering this information at home. Pls don’t forget to bring your q/s and ideas to class +++++
Why we are here today?
We need to look deeper in the current 21stcentury state of information and disinformation and determine how such awareness can help policy analysis.
How do we make up our mind about news and information; where from we get our info; who do we believe, who do we mistrust.
What do you understand under the following three items and their place in our efforts to analyze policies?
“critical thinking,” https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/05/11/the-5-step-model-to-teach-students-critical-thinking-skills/
“media literacy,” “Media Literacy now considers digital citizenship as part of media literacy — not the other way around”
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2020/01/07/k12-media-literacy/
“critical [news] literacy”
https://youtu.be/i2WyIkK9IOg
how do these three items assist a better analysis of policies?
Class assignment:
Share a topic which is very much to your heart.
Please feel welcome to use the following resources and/or contribute with your own resources to determine the sources and potential bias
library spot fake news
fake news resources
fake news and video
Feel free also to use the following guidelines when establishing the veracity of information:
Here is a short (4 min) video introducing you to the well-known basics for evaluation of academic literature:
https://youtu.be/qUd_gf2ypk4
- ACCURACY
- Does the author cite reliable sources?
- How does the information compare with that in other works on the topic?
- Can you determine if the information has gone through peer-review?
- Are there factual, spelling, typographical, or grammatical errors?
- AUDIENCE
- Who do you think the authors are trying to reach?
- Is the language, vocabulary, style and tone appropriate for intended audience?
- What are the audience demographics? (age, educational level, etc.)
- Are the authors targeting a particular group or segment of society?
- AUTHORITY
- Who wrote the information found in the article or on the site?
- What are the author’s credentials/qualifications for this particular topic?
- Is the author affiliated with a particular organization or institution?
- What does that affiliation suggest about the author?
- CURRENCY
- Is the content current?
- Does the date of the information directly affect the accuracy or usefulness of the information?
- OBJECTIVITY/BIAS
- What is the author’s or website’s point of view?
- Is the point of view subtle or explicit?
- Is the information presented as fact or opinion?
- If opinion, is the opinion supported by credible data or informed argument?
- Is the information one-sided?
- Are alternate views represented?
- Does the point of view affect how you view the information?
- PURPOSE
- What is the author’s purpose or objective, to explain, provide new information or news, entertain, persuade or sell?
- Does the purpose affect how you view the information presented?
In 2021, however, all suggestions above may not be sufficient to distinguish a reliable source of information, even if the article made it through the peer-reviewed process. In time, you should learn to evaluate the research methods of the authors and decide if they are reliable. Same applies for the research findings and conclusions.
++++++++++++++++++++
Aditional topics and ideas for exploring at home:
civil disobedience
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/09/30/disruptive-technologies-from-swarming-to-mesh-networking/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2019/08/30/tik-tok-students-and-teachers/
https://news.softpedia.com/news/Venezuela-Blocks-Walkie-Talkie-App-Zello-Amid-Protests-428583.shtml
http://www.businessinsider.com/yo-updates-on-israel-missile-attacks-2014-7
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/11/14/internet-freedom/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/08/31/police-to-block-social-media/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/04/04/technology-and-activism/
https://www.illuminatehighereducation.com/episodes/37
“campuses have low digital literacy”
“earning [degree] model” must be replaced with teaching people “how to learn.”
automation
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
more on disruption on higher ed in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=disrupt+higher+education
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-05-21-computational-thinking-is-critical-thinking-and-it-works-in-any-subject/
Computational thinking is one of the biggest buzzwords in education—it’s even been called the ‘5th C’ of 21st century skills.
Document-based questions have long been a staple of social studies classrooms
Since the human brain is essentially wired to recognize patterns, computational thinking—somewhat paradoxically—doesn’t necessarily require the use of computers at all.
In a 2006 paper for the Association for Computing Machinery, computer scientist Jeanette Wing wrote a definition of computational thinking that used terms native her field—even when she was citing everyday examples. Thus, a student preparing her backpack for the day is “prefetching and caching.” Finding the shortest line at the supermarket is “performance modeling.” And performing a cost-benefit analysis on whether it makes more sense to rent versus buy is running an “online algorithm.” “Computational thinking will have become ingrained in everyone’s lives when words like algorithm and precondition are part of everyone’s vocabulary,” she writes.
three main steps:
Looking at the data: Deciding what’s worth including in the final data set, and what should be left out. What are the different tools that can help manipulate this data—from GIS tools to pen and paper?
Looking for patterns: Typically, this involves shifting to greater levels of abstraction—or conversely, getting more granular.
Decomposition: What’s a trend versus what’s an outlier to the trend? Where do things correlate, and where can you find causal inference?
++++++++++++++++++++
more on critical thinking in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=critical+thinking
Home
What the Deck is an exploratory, card-based game that aims to introduce students, faculty and staff of all ages and backgrounds to a wide variety of situations in which established and emerging technologies impact society.
UMN to pay Google $2.36M for new online learning platform
“Every Time A Child Says “I Don’t Believe In Fairies” There Is A Fairy Somewhere That Falls Down Dead”
Assessment Is an Enormous Waste of Time
https://www.chronicle.com/article/assessment-is-an-enormous-waste-of-time/
The assessment industry is not known for self-critical reflection. Assessors insist that faculty provide evidence that their teaching is effective, but they are dismissive of evidence that their own work is ineffective. They demand data, but they are indifferent to the quality of those data. So it’s not a surprise that the assessment project is built on an unexamined assumption: that learning, especially higher-order learning such as critical thinking, is central to the college experience.
the Lumina Foundation’s Degree Qualifications Profile “provides a qualitative set of important learning outcomes, not quantitative measures such as numbers of credits and grade-point averages, as the basis for awarding degrees.”
article in Change, Daniel Sullivan, president emeritus of St. Lawrence University and a senior fellow at the Association of American Colleges & Universities, and Kate McConnell, assistant vice president for research and assessment at the association, describe a project that looked at nearly 3,000 pieces of student work from 14 institutions. They used the critical-thinking and written-communication Value rubrics designed by the AAC&U to score the work. They discovered that most college-student work falls in the middle of the rubric’s four-point scale measuring skill attainment.
Richard Arum and Josipa Roska’s 2011 book, Academically Adrift, used data from the Collegiate Learning Assessment to show that a large percentage of students don’t improve their critical thinking or writing. A 2017 study by The Wall Street Journal used data from the CLA at dozens of public colleges and concluded that the evidence for learning between the first and senior years was so scant that they called it “discouraging.”
not suggesting that college is a waste of time or that there is no value in a college education. But before we spend scarce resources and time trying to assess and enhance student learning, shouldn’t we maybe check to be sure that learning is what actually happens in college?
+++++++++++++++
more on assessment in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=assessment
and critical thinking
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=critical+thinking
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/14/poor-numerical-literacy-linked-to-greater-susceptibility-to-covid-19-fake-news
The research, published in the journal Royal Society Open Science
Researchers at Cambridge University said the findings suggested improving people’s analytical skills could help turn the tide against an epidemic of “fake news” surrounding the health crisis.
Some scientists think that susceptibility to misinformation is related to political views, while others think it is linked to reasoning abilities.
Another distinct factor linked to belief in Covid-19 “fake news” was age, the researchers found. Being older was associated with lower susceptibility to misinformation everywhere (except Mexico)
Political conservatism was also linked to a slightly higher susceptibility to misinformation, the researchers found, but surprisingly, this link was not as strong in the US and UK as it was elsewhere.
+++++++++++++++++++
more on critical thinking in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=critical+thinking
Teaching & Assessing Soft Skills
Communication in Person & Online (available in PDF format here: Communication in Person Online Rubric)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16JVAivizIysXdmUVXzC2BP2NiclbJ21N9cOZQ6NdqxU/edit
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| Limited, to no, participation in discussions.
Does not come to discussions prepared. As a result, fails to support statements with evidence from texts and other research.
Few attempts to ask questions or build on ideas shared.
Frequently violates the “dos and don’ts of online communication.” |
Limited participation in discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with various partners.
Does not consistently come to discussions prepared. Limited preparation and inability to support statements with evidence from texts and other research reflects lack of preparation.
Limited attempts to ask questions, build on ideas shared, or invite quieter voices into the conversation.
Hesitant to respond to other perspectives and fails to summarize points or make connections.
Occasionally violates the “dos and don’ts of online communication.” |
Participates in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners.
Comes to discussions prepared, having read and researched material. Draws on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts and other research on the topic.
Attempts to drive conversations forward by asking questions, building on ideas shared, and inviting quieter voices into the conversation.
Responds to diverse perspectives, summarizes points, and makes connections.
Respects the “dos and don’ts for online communication.” |
Initiates and participates effectively in a range of collaborative discussions (one-on-one, in groups, and teacher-led) with diverse partners.
Comes to discussions prepared with a unique perspective, having read and researched material; explicitly draws on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts and other research on the topic.
Propels conversations by posing and responding to questions that relate to the current discussion. (Adds depth by providing a new, unique perspective to the discussion.)
Responds thoughtfully to diverse perspectives, summarizes points of agreement and disagreement, and makes new connections. Leans in and actively listens.
Makes eye contact, speaks loud enough to be heard, and body language is strong.
Respects the “dos and don’ts for online communication.” |
Critical Thinking & Problem Solving, (available in PDF format here: Critical Thinking Problem Solving Rubric)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fjlODmLvrVZyrKnzz54LbVa7CqfbAJvLfb98805fjuY/edit
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| Reflects surface level understanding of information.
Unable or unwilling to evaluate quality of information or draw conclusions about information found.
Does not try to solve problems or help others solve problems. Lets others do the work.
Does not actively seek answers to questions or attempt to find information. Does not seek out peers or ask teacher for guidance or support. |
Attempts to dive below the surface when analyzing information but work lacks depth.
Struggles to evaluate the quality of information and does not draw insightful conclusions about information found.
Does not suggest or refine solutions, but is willing to try out solutions suggested by others.
Asks teachers or other students for answers but does not use online tools, like Google and YouTube, to attempt to answer questions or find information. |
Demonstrates a solid understanding of the information.
Evaluates the quality of information and makes inferences/draws conclusions.
Refines solutions suggested by others.
Attempts to use online tools, like Google and YouTube, to seek answers and find information. |
Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the information.
Effectively evaluates the quality of information and makes inferences/draws conclusion that are insightful.
Actively looks for and suggests solutions to problems.
Uses online tools, like Google and YouTube, to proactively seek answers and find information.
|
Collaboration & Contributions in a Team Dynamic (available in PDF format here: Collaboration Contributions in a Team Dynamic Rubric)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ucjgylXWz8nOM5Vq8FpTByur8smsbov3mR8pX-7n1SE/edit
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| Fails to listen to, share with, and support the efforts of team members making accomplishing a task more difficult for the team.
Frequently inattentive or distracting when team members talk. Requires frequent redirection by team members and/or teacher.
Body language does not reflect engagement in the process. Focus on leaning in, asking questions, actively listening (e.g. make eye contact).
Rarely offers feedback. Frequently becomes impatient, frustrated, and/or disrespectful.
Limited attempts to move between roles.
Does not use resources to support the team’s work. |
Attempts to listen to, share with, and support the efforts of team members are limited or inconsistent.
Does not always listen when team members talk and requires redirection by team members and/or teacher.
Body language does not reflect engagement in the process. Focus on leaning in, asking questions, actively listening (e.g. make eye contact).
Occasionally offers feedback. At times, becomes impatient or frustrated with the process making teamwork more challenging.
Limited attempts to move between roles.
Does not consistently use resources to support the team’s work. |
Listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of team members.
Listens when team members talk.
Attempts to engage in group tasks; however, body language does not consistently communicate interest or attention. Body language reflects engagement in the process, but there is room for improvement.
Offers feedback and treats team members with respect. At times, becomes impatient or frustrated with the process making teamwork more challenging.
Attempts to be flexible and move between roles; at times dominates a particular role. This is an area of potential growth.
Uses resources to support the team’s work. |
Consistently listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of team members.
Leans in and actively listens when team members talk.
Body language communicates interest in team tasks and engagement in the process.
Offers constructive feedback, treats team members with respect, and is patient with the process.
Creates balance on the team moving between responsibilities without dominating any one role.
Uses resources effectively to support the team’s work. |
\++++++++++++++++++++++
more on soft skills in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=soft+skills
Do critical thinking skills give graduates the edge?
It has long been claimed that critical thinking ability sets graduates apart. But are universities really preparing students for the modern workplace? David Matthews reports
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/do-critical-thinking-skills-give-graduates-the-edge
what value is higher education supposed to add? And how is this different from what school or vocational education offer?
A further question is whether even the academic brand of critical thinking is being particularly well taught at university. According to Bryan Greetham, a philosopher and university researcher who has written several books on how students and professionals can improve their thinking, “We tend to want to do the simple thing – which is to teach students what to think, not how to think.”
This was most famously explored in the 2011 book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. The authors, American sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa, found that 45 per cent of US undergraduates failed to significantly improve their critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills during their first two years at university. Other US-based studies have raised similar concerns. One from 2009, “Improving Students’ Evaluation of Informal Arguments”, published in the Journal of Experimental Education, warned that college and high school students have “difficulty evaluating arguments on the basis of their quality”.
But if universities don’t have the resources to offer intensive classes, could they weave the teaching of critical thinking skills into regular teaching? Britt thinks that academics can easily make time for quick “check-ins” during their lectures to ensure that their students understand what they’ve been told.
High school experience, of course, varies enormously by country. In France, studying philosophy – arguably the closest that traditional disciplines get to explicit critical thinking courses – is compulsory. In England, meanwhile, the critical thinking A level has recently been scrapped.
As well as calls for critical thinkers and smart thinkers, there are also frequent demands from politicians for more “entrepreneurial” university graduates – who, instead of joining graduate recruitment programmes at large employers, might start their own businesses.
+++++++++++++++++++
critical thinking
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=critical+thinking