Научные статьи \ Воспитание. Обучение. Образование \ Специальные определители для теории, принципов, методов и организации обучения \ Основы образования. Теоретические основы. Философские основы и др.

Фундаментальные теоретические конфликты в науке о критическом мышлении

Фундаментальные теоретические конфликты в науке о критическом мышлении

Автор: Голубинская А.В., Вяхирева В.В.

Журнал: Science for Education Today @sciforedu

Рубрика: Философия и история для образования

Статья в выпуске: 2 т.14, 2024 года.

Бесплатный доступ

Проблема и цель. В статье исследуются причины отсутствия научного консенсуса о критическом мышлении. Несмотря на то, что это понятие стало одним из ключевых для современной культуры, его содержание не определено, а организационные решения остаются дискуссионными. В данной статье мы предлагаем сфокусировать внимание не на пробелах в нашем знании о критическом мышлении, а на поиске причин того, что именно препятствует достижению консенсуса по этим вопросам. Цель статьи – установить фундаментальные неопределенности и теоретические конфликты в науке о критическом мышлении, препятствующие решению терминологических и организационных аспектов проблемы. Методология. Исследование носит теоретический характер и опирается на агнотологический подход к анализу экспертного незнания (Р. Проктор, С. Файрштайн и др.). Данный подход сочетает в себе традиционные методы логического и философского анализа, но применяется, когда целью исследования является не восполнение пробела в знаниях, а поиск объяснений, почему именно мы не знаем то, чего не знаем. Для достижения цели были определены предметы научных дебатов относительно критического мышления и проанализированы предпосылки, на которые опираются конфликтующие концепции. Результаты. В исследовании установлено, что существующие дебаты организационного характера о том, как следует обучать критическому мышлению в образовательных учреждениях, являются производными от дискуссий фундаментального уровня. Авторы делают вывод, что современные исследования критического мышления, несмотря на кажущуюся тематическую близость друг к другу, на самом деле отражают разные, притом несовместимые между собой подходы к природе, психологическим механизмам и стандартам критического мышления. Заключение. Проведенное исследование позволило сделать вывод о том, что достижение консенсуса по практическим вопросам, например, такому как способ организации обучения критическому мышлению, требует предварительного разрешения фундаментальных теоретических конфликтов, связанных с природой, психологическими механизмами и социокультурными стандартами критического мышления.

Еще

Критическое мышление, природа критического мышления, трансфер критических навыков, стандарты критического мышления, включенный подход, специализированный подход, натурализм критического мышления, конструктивизм критического мышления, универсализм критических навыков, релятивизм критических навыков

Еще

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/147242884

IDR: 147242884   |   УДК: 165.021+37.015.31+159.928.235   |   DOI: 10.15293/2658-6762.2402.05

Fundamental theoretical conflicts in the science of critical thinking

Introduction. The article explores the reasons for the lack of scientific consensus on critical thinking. Despite the fact that this concept has become one of the key ones for modern culture, it has not been properly defined, and organizational decisions remain controversial. In this article, we propose to focus not on the gaps in our knowledge of critical thinking, but on finding the reasons for what exactly prevents consensus on these issues. The purpose of the article is to establish fundamental uncertainties and theoretical conflicts in the science of critical thinking that prevent the solution of terminological and organizational aspects of the problem. Materials and Methods. The study is theoretical in nature and is based on an agnological approach to the analysis of expert ignorance (R. Proctor, S. Feirstein, etc.). This approach combines traditional methods of logical and philosophical analysis, but is used when the purpose of the study is not to fill the gap in knowledge, but to find explanations why exactly we do not know what we do not know. In order to achieve this goal, the subjects of scholarly debates regarding critical thinking were identified and the prerequisites on which conflicting concepts are based were analyzed. Results. The study found that the existing organizational debates about how critical thinking should be taught in educational institutions are derived from discussions at a fundamental level. The authors conclude that modern research on critical thinking, despite its apparent thematic proximity to each other, actually reflects different, yet incompatible approaches to nature, psychological mechanisms and standards of critical thinking. Conclusions. The research led to the conclusion that reaching consensus on practical issues, such as the way to organize critical thinking training, requires prior resolution of fundamental theoretical conflicts about the nature, psychological mechanisms and socio-cultural standards of critical thinking.

Еще

Список литературы Фундаментальные теоретические конфликты в науке о критическом мышлении

  • Поздняков М. В. Критическое мышление: его сущность и присутствие во образовательных программах российских вузов // Вестник Томского государственного университета. – 2023. – № 492. – С. 68–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/492/8 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=55367883
  • Ennis R. Incorporating critical thinking in the curriculum: An introduction to some basic issues // Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the disciplines. – 1997. – Vol. 16 (3). – P. 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews199716312
  • Wright I. Challenging students with the tools of critical thinking // The social studies. – 2002. – Vol. 93 (6). – P. 257–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00377990209600175
  • Gann D. A few considerations on critical thinking instruction // The Journal of Saitama City Educators. – 2013. – Vol. 3 (3). – P. 14–18. URL: https://www.academia.edu/4212254/A_Few_Considerations_on_Critical_Thinking_Instruction
  • Schreglmann S., Karakuş M. The effect of educational interfaces on the critical thinking and the academic achievement // Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education. – 2017. – Vol. 13 (3). – P. 839–855. DOI: http://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.290420
  • Taghinezhad A., Riasati M. J. The interplay of critical thinking explicit instruction, academic writing performance, critical thinking ability, and critical thinking dispositions: an experimental study // IJERI: International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation. – 2020. – Vol. 13. – P. 143–165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.4594
  • Zulkifli H., Hashim R. Philosophy for children (P4C) in improving critical thinking in a secondary moral education class // International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. – 2020. – Vol. 19 (2). – P. 29–45. DOI: http://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.2.3
  • Williams R. L., Worth S. L. The relationship of critical thinking to success in college // Inquiry: Critical thinking across the disciplines. – 2001. – Vol. 21 (1). – P. 5–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews200121123
  • Arisoy B., Aybek B. The Effects of Subject-Based Critical Thinking Education in Mathematics on Students' Critical Thinking Skills and Virtues // Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. – 2021. – Vol. 92. – P. 99–119. DOI: http://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2021.92.6 URL: https://ejer.com.tr/the-effects-of-subject-based-critical-thinking-education-in-mathematics-on-students-critical-thinking-skills-and-virtues/
  • Willingham D. T. Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? // Arts Education Policy Review. – 2008. – Vol. 109 (4). – P. 21–32. DOI: http://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32
  • Halpern D. F. Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker // New directions for teaching and learning. – 1999. – Vol. 80. – P. 69–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/TL.8005
  • Lehman D. R., Lempert R. O., Nisbett R. E. The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events // American Psychologist. – 1988. – Vol. 43 (6). – P. 431. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.6.431
  • Pettersson H. De-idealising the educational ideal of critical thinking // Theory and Research in Education. – 2020. – Vol. 18 (3). – P. 322–338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878520981303
  • Dwyer C. P. An Evaluative Review of Barriers to Critical Thinking in Educational and Real-World Settings // Journal of Intelligence. – 2023. – Vol. 11 (6). – P. 105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060105
  • Bensley D. A. Critical Thinking, Intelligence, and Unsubstantiated Beliefs: An Integrative Review // Journal of Intelligence. – 2023. – Vol. 11 (11). – P. 207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11110207
  • Ritola J. Philosophical Issues in Critical Thinking // Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1480
  • Pettersson H. From critical thinking to criticality and back again // Journal of Philosophy of Education. – 2023. – Vol. 57 (2). – P. 478–494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhad021
  • Larsson K. On the role of knowledge in critical thinking—using student essay responses to bring empirical fuel to the debate between ‘generalists’ and ‘specifists’ // Journal of Philosophy of Education. – 2021. – Vol. 55 (2). – P. 314–322. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12545
  • Leś T., Moroz J. More Critical Thinking in Critical Thinking Concepts (?) A Constructivist Point of View // Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies. – 2021. – Vol. 19 (1). – P. 98–124. URL: http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/19-1-4.pdf
  • Gross M. The unknown in process: Dynamic connections of ignorance, non-knowledge and related concepts // Current sociology. – 2007. – Vol. 55 (5). – P. 742–759. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392107079928
  • Wehling P. Why Science Does Not Know: A Brief History of (the Notion of) Scientific Ignorance in the Twentieth and Early Twenty-First Centuries // Journal for the History of Knowledge. – 2021. – Vol. 2 (1). – P. 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jhk.40
  • Firestein S. Sharing the resources of ignorance // Routledge international handbook of ignorance studies (Ed. M. Gross, L. McGoey). – Routledge, 2022. – P. 113–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003100607
  • Firestein S. Ignorance: How it drives science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. URL: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ignorance-9780199828074 URL: https://books.google.ru/books?id=SrK7iS3E8nAC&dq
  • van Gelder T. Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science // College Teaching – 2005. – Vol. 53 (1). – P. 41–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.41-48
  • Baumeister R. The psychology of irrationality: Why people make foolish, self-defeating choices // The psychology of economic decisions : Rationality And Well-Being. – 2003. – P. 3–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199251063.003.0001
  • Грачева Д. А. Анализ сопоставимости измерения метапредметных навыков в цифровой среде // Психологическая наука и образование. – 2022. – Т. 27, № 6. – С. 57–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2022270605 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=50359714
  • Koenig M. A., Echols C. H. Infants' understanding of false labeling events: The referential roles of words and the speakers who use them // Cognition. – 2003. – Vol. 87 (3). – P. 179–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00002-7
  • Pea R. D. Origins of verbal logic: Spontaneous denials by two-and three-year olds // Journal of child language – 1982. – Vol. 9 (3). – P. 597–626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900004931
  • Mascaro O., Sperber D. The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception // Cognition. – 2009. – Vol. 112 (3). – P. 367–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012
  • Couillard N. L., Woodward A. L. Children's comprehension of deceptive points // British Journal of Developmental Psychology. – 1999. – Vol. 17 (4). – P. 515–521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/026151099165447
  • Wimmer H., Perner J. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception // Cognition. – 1983. – Vol. 13 (1). – P. 103–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5
  • Dacey A. Come now, let us reason together: Cognitive bias, individualism, and interactionism in critical thinking education // Informal Logic. – 2020. – Vol. 40 (1). – P. 47–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i1.6024
  • Janssen E. M. Teaching critical thinking in higher education: Avoiding, detecting, and explaining bias in reasoning. – Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2020. – 231 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33540/351
  • Lamont P. The construction of “critical thinking”: Between how we think and what we believe // History of Psychology. – 2020. – Vol. 23 (3). – P. 232–251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000145
  • Gilbert D. T., Krull D. S., Malone P. S. Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information // Journal of personality and social psychology. – 1990. – Vol. 59 (4). – P. 601–613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.601
  • Brashier N. M., Marsh E. J. Judging truth // Annual review of psychology. – 2020. – Vol. 71 (1). – P. 499–515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807
  • Porot N., Mandelbaum E. The science of belief: A progress report // Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. – 2021. – Vol. 12 (2). – P. e1539. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1539
  • Markovsky B., Cetina K. K. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge // Contemporary Sociology. – 2000. – Vol. 29 (3). – P. 556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2653984
  • Böschen S., Kastenhofer K., Marschall L., Rust I., Soentgen J., Wehling P. Scientific cultures of non-knowledge in the controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMO): the cases of molecular biology and ecology // GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society. – 2006. – Vol. 15 (4). – P. 294–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.15.4.12
  • Böschen S., Kastenhofer K., Rust I., Soentgen J., Wehling P. Scientific non-knowledge and its political dynamics: The cases of agri-biotechnology and mobile phoning // Science, Technology, & Human Values. – 2010. – Vol. 35 (6). – P. 783–811. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909357911
  • Heidler R. Epistemic cultures in conflict: The case of astronomy and high energy physics // Minerva. – 2017. – Vol. 55 (3). – P. 249–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9315-3
  • Papoulias S. C., Callard F. Material and epistemic precarity: It's time to talk about labour exploitation in mental health research // Social Science & Medicine. – 2022. – Vol. 306. – P. 115102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115102
  • Keller R., Poferl A. Epistemic cultures in sociology between individual inspiration and legitimization by procedure: Developments of qualitative and interpretive research in German and French sociology since the 1960s // Forum: Qualitative Social Research. – 2016. – Vol. 17 (1). – P. 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-17.1.2419
  • Münster S., Terras M. The visual side of digital humanities: a survey on topics, researchers, and epistemic cultures // Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. – 2020. – Vol. 35 (2). – P. 366–389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqz022
  • Stine G. Skepticism, Relevant Alternatives, and Deductive Closure // Philosophical Studies. – 1976. – Vol. 29. – P. 249–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00411885
  • Arum R., Roksa J. Limited learning on college campuses // Society. – 2011. – Vol. 48. – P. 203–207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-011-9417-8
  • Dumitru D. Critical thinking and integrated programs. The problem of transferability // Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. – 2012. – Vol. 33. – P. 143–147. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.100
  • Heijltjes A., Van Gog T., Paas F. Improving students' critical thinking: Empirical support for explicit instructions combined with practice // Applied Cognitive Psychology. – 2014. – Vol. 28 (4). – P. 518–530. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3025
  • van Peppen L. M., Verkoeijen P. P. J. L., Kolenbrander S. V., Heijltjes A. E. G., Janssen E. M., van Gog T. Learning to avoid biased reasoning: Effects of interleaved practice and worked examples // Journal of Cognitive Psychology. – 2021. – Vol. 33 (3). – P. 304–326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2021.1890092
  • van Peppen L. M., Verkoeijen P. P. J. L., Heijltjes A. E. G., Janssen E. M., van Gog T. Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills: is comparing correct and erroneous examples beneficial? // Instructional Science. – 2021. – Vol. 49 (6). – P. 747–777. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09559-0
  • Monteiro S., Sherbino J., Sibbald M., Norman G. Critical thinking, biases and dual processing: The enduring myth of generalisable skills // Medical education. – 2020. – Vol. 54 (1). – P. 66–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13872
  • Boreham N. C. The dangerous practice of thinking // Medical Education. – 1994. – Vol. 28 (3). – P. 172–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1994.tb02695.x
  • Marewski J. N., Gaissmaier W., Gigerenzer G. We favor formal models of heuristics rather than lists of loose dichotomies: A reply to Evans and Over // Cognitive Processing. – 2010. – Vol. 11. – P. 177–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0340-5
  • Корниенко А. А. Экспертное знание в обществе порожденного риска: концептуальный аспект // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Философия. Социология. Политология. – 2018. – № 43. – С. 69–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863X/43/6 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35424555
Еще
QR-код для установки приложения SciUp Наведите камеру и скачайте бесплатное приложение SciUp