Using the Controversy over Human Race to Introduce Students to the Identification and the Evaluation of Arguments.
Saved in:
| Title: | Using the Controversy over Human Race to Introduce Students to the Identification and the Evaluation of Arguments. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Archila, Pablo Antonio1 pa.archila@uniandes.edu.co, Molina, Jorge2, Danies, Giovanna3, Truscott de Mejía, Anne-Marie4, Restrepo, Silvia1 |
| Source: | Science & Education. Aug2022, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p861-892. 32p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Critical thinking, *Universities & colleges, *College teachers, *Qualitative research, *Higher education |
| Abstract: | The identification and the evaluation of arguments are fundamental elements of critical thinking. However, the explicit promotion of these elements is virtually absent from university science courses. Much of the reason for this is that in most universities, across nearly all disciplines, instructors are required to see the conceptual content coverage of the syllabus as a priority. Moreover, lack of preparation and the fact that critical thinking activities are time-consuming rapidly reduce the interest of many instructors to include them in their courses. Here, we describe the use of a dialogue-based critical thinking classroom scenario (CTCS). The study used a mixed-methods approach with both quantitative and qualitative analyses of questionnaire responses. One hundred and seventeen undergraduates (73 females; 44 males; ages 16–24 years), enrolled in an introductory science course in Colombia, were asked to identify and evaluate arguments regarding a dialogue between two scientists who explore the controversial question of whether or not the concept of race is applicable to humans. It was found that the dialogue-based CTCS provided students with opportunities to identify and evaluate arguments both for and against the question and to make informed decisions about whether or not the concept of race in humans is biologically meaningful. Moreover, analyses of responses to closed-ended and open-ended questions revealed that more than half the participants were able to evaluate arguments in a fair-minded way. Practical implications for the cultivation of critical thinking skills in higher education and further research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Science & Education is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The identification and the evaluation of arguments are fundamental elements of critical thinking. However, the explicit promotion of these elements is virtually absent from university science courses. Much of the reason for this is that in most universities, across nearly all disciplines, instructors are required to see the conceptual content coverage of the syllabus as a priority. Moreover, lack of preparation and the fact that critical thinking activities are time-consuming rapidly reduce the interest of many instructors to include them in their courses. Here, we describe the use of a dialogue-based critical thinking classroom scenario (CTCS). The study used a mixed-methods approach with both quantitative and qualitative analyses of questionnaire responses. One hundred and seventeen undergraduates (73 females; 44 males; ages 16–24 years), enrolled in an introductory science course in Colombia, were asked to identify and evaluate arguments regarding a dialogue between two scientists who explore the controversial question of whether or not the concept of race is applicable to humans. It was found that the dialogue-based CTCS provided students with opportunities to identify and evaluate arguments both for and against the question and to make informed decisions about whether or not the concept of race in humans is biologically meaningful. Moreover, analyses of responses to closed-ended and open-ended questions revealed that more than half the participants were able to evaluate arguments in a fair-minded way. Practical implications for the cultivation of critical thinking skills in higher education and further research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09267220 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11191-021-00299-8 |
