Abstract
The invention of inertia requires an examination of what would be needed to have the Earth to rotate around its axis and a ball fall straight down beside the high tower. Such a notion requires a high order of critical thinking, hardly the abilities found in most students entering an introductory course.
Duhem’s viewpoint is that a single hypothesis by itself whether induced by observation or postulated by a guess is not really science. The essential difference between science and pseudoscience and nonscience is that a scientific theory should provide coherent, consistent, and wide-ranging theoretical organizations.
Kalman (Sci Educ 11:83–94, 2002; Sci Educ 19(2):147–163, 2010) discusses how very important it is that students become aware of how science works so that they can undergo conceptual change and confront their personal (alternative) scientific conceptions.
Studying philosophy of science helps students to develop a coherent view of science. This is partly because it helps students develop their critical thinking skills.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. (2000). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bacon, F. (1863). The New Organon, in the works (Vol. VIII) (J. Spedding, R. L. Ellis, & D. D. Heath, Trans.). Boston: Taggard and Thompson.
Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II a domain. New York: David Mckay.
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David Mckay.
Brush, S. G. (1974). Should the history of history of science be rated X? Science, 183, 1164–1172.
Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An introduction. Science & Education, 17, 143–145.
Duhem, P. (1906/1954). The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Eger, M. (2006). In A. Shimony (Ed.), Science, understanding, and justice: The philosophical essays of Martin Eger. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.
Facione, P. A. (Ed.). (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. American Philosophical Association, ERIC ED, 315, 423.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1962). Explanation, reduction and empiricism. In H. Feigl & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. III). Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). New York: Verso.
Fogarty, R., & McTighe, J. (1993). Educating teachers for higher order thinking: The three-story intellect. Theory Into Practice, 32, 162–169.
Halpern, D. F. (1997). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A brief edition of thought and knowledge (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Herschel, J. (1830/1987). A preliminary discourse on the study of natural philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions & reconstructions in the philosophy of science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Holton, G., & Brush, S. G. (1973). Introduction to concepts and theories in physical science (2nd ed.). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Kalman, C. S. (2002). Developing critical thinking in undergraduate courses: A philosophical approach. Science and Education, 11, 83–94.
Kalman, C. S. (2010). Enabling students to develop a scientific mindset. Science & Education, 19(2), 147–163.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrove (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Losee, J. (1987). Philosophy of science and historical enquiry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Losee, J. (1993). A historical introduction to the philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marzano, R. J. (1993). How classroom teachers approach the teaching of thinking. Theory Into Practice, 32, 154–160.
Mathews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
McPeck, J. E. (1981). Critical thinking and education. Oxford: M. Robertson.
Nelson, C. E. (1994). Critical thinking and collaborative learning. In K. Bosworth & S. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Underlying processes and effective techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Norris, S. P. (1992). The generalizability of critical thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.
Paul, R. (1985). McPeck’s mistakes: Why critical thinking applies across disciplines and domains. Informal Logic, 7(1), 35–43.
Paul, R. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique.
Popper, K. R. (1965). Conjectures and refutations (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sahlin, N.-E. (1991). Baconian inductivism in research on human decision-making. Theory & Psychology, 1(4), 431–450.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Strong, J. (1958). Concepts of classical optics (pp. 181–186). San Francisco: Freeman.
Toulmin. (1972). Human understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Weinstein, W. (1993). Critical thinking: The great debate. Educational Theory, 43, 99–117.
Zieger, L. B. (1998). Critical thinking resources: An annotated bibliography. http://www.montclair.edu/Pages/CRC/Bibliographies/CriticalThinking.html
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendix: Peer Evaluation of Group Members
Appendix: Peer Evaluation of Group Members
1.1 Peer Evaluation of Group Members Team
Purpose: To ensure that the “team component” of each individual’s grade reflects each person’s contributions to the group project.
Assumption: When a member has, in total, contributed to the overall work of the team about the same as the average team member, he/she should receive 100% of the “overall team grade” for the team component of the course.
When a member has made exceptional contributions to the work of the team (e.g., analytical, organizational. written, investigative, verbal), he/she should receive a higher grade (e.g., 110%, 120% of the team grade).
Similarly, when a member has been contributing less than other members, he/she should receive a lower grade (e.g., 90%, 80% of the team grade).
There is no requirement that the overall percentage average is 100%. For example, it is possible for one member to receive 110% and the rest of the group to receive 100%.
Instructions: List below the members of your team and indicate what percentage of the team grade you recommend for yourself and for each other team member. If you have listed a percentage other than 100% for any team member, please indicate underneath the evaluations or on back of the form an explanation for the evaluation. For example, group member x did extra research, summarizing the material of a number of relevant chapters for the group.
Name | Percentage |
1. (Yourself) | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kalman, C.S. (2018). Critical Thinking. In: Successful Science and Engineering Teaching. Innovation and Change in Professional Education, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66140-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66140-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66139-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66140-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)