Talk:Cognition and Instruction/Argumentation and Critical Thinking

In examining the topics of Critical Thinking (CT) and Argumentation, the approach taken was in a way that would clearly define both of the topics first, then show their relationship with each other, how they are used in instruction and how they are instructed. With this in mind, the decisions made about the topics were to clearly define each of the elements in both CT and Argumentation and then show their interactions as well as how they are instructionally applied. Clear definitions of both CT and Argumentation will give the reader a basic understanding of the concepts and the components that comprise each of them. From the definitions, it important to highlight the Psychology of Argumentation since it underlies the conceptual understanding and significance of these topics. The way that minds create and rationalize arguments is one of the key elements of this section. Exploration into how the mind works in relation to CT includes metacognitive processes which occur when these two topics are used in conjunction. That is, CT relies on students being able to rationalize and see different points of view which are essential in developing a good argument in addition to understanding multiple perspectives or approaches to an argument. The next section investigates the influence of Argumentation on CT and vice versa. The final sections will be used to show how both CT and Argumentation can be instructed in a classroom setting through specific programs and skills as well as the different methods and/or ideas for how CT and Argumentation play a role in learning.EDUC320COURTNEY (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)EDUC320JLAM (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Research findings of Ref8 to be added into Productive Thinking Program section

Peer Review

The chapter is coming along really well. It is evident that you guys spent a lot of time planning and writing it. I really liked how the table of contents is simple and short. This doesn’t confuse the readers and makes it easier for them to navigate through without getting lost. Another strong feature in the chapter are the bolded words. When the terms are bolded and defined in the text itself, it makes everything flow and the material is understood throughout the text. When a reader is reading your chapter, they shouldn’t have to go the glossary to look up a word and then come back to the reading, so by bolding and defining the words you guys have made it easier to read the text. My only suggestion for the chapter would be to maybe write how to apply the skills programs, such as the IDEAL problem solver into the classroom. How can teachers use these problem solving tactics? Maybe show examples of step by step on how to solve problems using the different programs. Or are there any experiments done on these that you can maybe explain? But that is all I could find for improvement, you guys have a solid start and can’t wait to read the completed version! EDUC320pkb (discuss • contribs) 04:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The relationship between argumentation and critical thinking are well explained and defined. I really liked the section on “Instructing Argumentation and Critical Thinking”, particularly the section on ‘Skilled Programs’. It is very informative and clearly defined. There is a lot of research to back up what they are trying to convey in the chapter, which makes it liable. The writing style throughout the chapter is concise and I liked the choice of words for the glossary. It makes it easier for readers to understand the concept after first understanding the bolded words. It also makes it easier for readers when some of the headings break down the components or characteristics into point form. Everything was well organized and each section clearly defined what they were trying to explain. There were no conflicting information in sections. Some improvements for this chapter are fixing up some run-on sentences and some grammatical errors. Some of the run-on sentences make the definition more complex to understand. The skilled problems could also be used to further expand on how it relates to the educational setting. For instance, how those skills can be used in a classroom setting. Other than that, I think everything else in this chapter was done very well! Educ320vhsiao (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Weakest: Organization

Strongest: Lists and a lot of support from studies

You did a great job explaining what argumentation and critical thinking are individually and collaboratively, but your large paragraphs made it difficult to read. In your paragraphs under the subheads “How Critical Thinking Improves Argumentation” and “How Argumentation Improves Critical Thinking”, you provided different ways of how it could do so, but it would be helpful if you could separate those reasons into different paragraphs- or even smaller subheads. When you begin to talk about the study by Hornikx and Hahn, it might be helpful to make that a new paragraph, again, possibly under a new subheading. I also found that because some of your paragraphs were super long and detailed, and some were very brief, it was inconsistent. With the last two paragraphs excluded (those I thought were very interesting and just the right length), I found that the shorter paragraphs (earlier in the chapter) lacked detail and the longer paragraphs lacked organization. Regardless, it is always good to have details as it shows support for your topic. I think you did well finding a lot of studies that supported argumentation and critical thinking. More so, you did a good job of connecting these ideas to your subheadings. It is just a matter of organization. Additionally, you have many lists (4 components of critical thinking; 4 components of argumentation; even with the definition of critical thinking) which make reading a lot easier to understand. These lists are what readers want to see, so as long as you are able to clearly explain each thing listed and summarize its connectivity to the topic. --Educbym (discuss • contribs) 07:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)