Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
berpikir kritis

berpikir kritis

Ratings: (0)|Views: 236|Likes:
Published by pindana

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: pindana on Jul 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Assessing the Development of Critical Thinking in Greece through an Approachof Teaching Science to Primary School Students which Incorporates Aspects of History of Science
Katerina MALAMITSA, Ph.D. in Science Education, Faculty of Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, Email:katmal@primedu.uoa.gr  Panagiotis KOKKOTAS, Professor, Faculty of Primary Education, National andKapodistrian
University of Athens, Greece, Email:kokkotas@primedu.uoa.gr  Michael KASOUTAS, Ph.D. student, Faculty of Primary Education, National andKapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, Greek State’s Scholarship (IKY), Email:mkasout@primedu.uoa.gr  Efthymios STAMOULIS, Ph.D. student, Faculty of Primary Education, National andKapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, Greek State’s Scholarship (IKY), Email:estamoulis@sch.gr  
In this paper a) we have tried to define critical thinking by analyzing it in itscomponents or characteristics, b) we are presenting the argumentation about theimportance of incorporating aspects of History of Science in science education and c)we discuss our attempt to shape a proposal for teaching science by using aspects of  History of Science and especially the Galvani – Volta controversy with the aim tocultivate sixth grade Greek primary school students’ critical thinking.
Key Words:
critical thinking teaching program, conceptual change, electromagnetism,research
Theoretical Framework 
In spite the necessity of developing student’s critical thinking proposed byacademics, researchers and educators there is great difficulty in defining criticalthinking and consequently in assessing it. The concepts advanced by R. Ennis (1987),R. Paul et al. (1995), M. Lippman (1991), H. Siegal (1988) and R. Sternberg (1985a,1985b, 1987) among others were prominent and influential. In the relevant literaturecritical thinking is conceptualized according to where emphasis is given each time:i.e. as logical fallacies (Dreyfus & Jungwirth, 1980; Jungwirth & Dreyfus, 1990;Jungwirth, 1987), as formal reasoning processes or skills (Blair & Johnson, 1980;Lawson, 1982, 1985; Obed, 1997), as scientific reasoning in general (Friedler et al.,1990) etc.An historical benchmark in conceptualizing critical thinking is the consensusof a panel of 46 leading theoreticians, teachers and critical thinking assessmentspecialists from several disciplines as it is described in the conference proceedings of the American Philosophical Association (APA) widely known as the “Delphi Report”(Facione, 1990a: 12). Based on the APA Delphi consensus conceptualization of critical thinking a series of psychometrical instruments were created and the “Test of Everyday Reasoning” (TER) which was used in our research
In this context for critical thinking, we believe that science education couldconstitute an appropriate field promoting critical thinking skills by
challenging studentsto question the bases of knowledge, by stimulating critical reflection on theknowledge and experience gained inside and outside the classroom, by promotingawareness of subjective and ideological biases and by developing the ability toanalyze evidence expressed in rational argument.
 Furthermore, Roth and Lucas (1997) point out that “meaningful learning inscientific classrooms appears to require that students’ world views are commensurablewith that of the science they experience in and through the reenacted curriculum”.
 general students hold views different or alternative to those that they will be taught intheir courses.
A common problem is that many of the contemporary science programs focuson teaching the content of science and not the methodology of science, or itsdevelopment, history and effect on our society. In our point of view, History of Science can provide content material which could be used in science teaching(Matthews, 1994; 1998a; 1998b; Stinner et al, 2003, Stinner & Williams, 1998)enhancing the way students understand how science works and promoting thedevelopment of the thinking skills needed to critically analyze ideas and comparethem with observations about nature.According to Monk and Osborne (1997) it is crucial to incorporate the role of epistemology in the History of Science - because the answer to the question “how weknow” is an important aspect of our account of science and the evidence for our ontological commitments. Additionally, in the context of science education scientificepistemology is a central concept and an essential critical skill required to participatein any scientific discourse.
In our proposal, we have designed and implemented a teaching project whichexplicitly tackles issues in the broader context of History of Science, together withaspects of the Nature of Science in a pronouncedly non-authoritarian and student-centred approach. During the implementation we took into account the possibility toprovide opportunities to the students who participated to our project to directly addressvalues connected to science, its history and its nature.
Research Design – Methodology and Findings
The purpose of our research is to examine whether the exploitation of cases of History of Science and especially the Galvani - Volta controversy in science teachingcontributes towards sixth grade primary school students’ critical thinking skillsdevelopment (Binnie, 2001, Seroglou et al, 2001).We decided to develop a project by using concepts of electromagnetism aswell as presenting some of its historical aspects (Galvani and Volta, Oerstead andFaraday).The duration of the project was thirty hours of which twenty six hours weredevoted to teaching and four hours to the evaluation of the project. We designedtwelve worksheets through which we have tried to transform our theoretical background into “hands on and minds on activities” for the students. During theimplementation of the project for example, the teacher was trying to cultivate criticalthinking by requiring students “How, Why and What If” questions in order to redirecttheir thinking.
The evaluation of our project consisted of three interlinked strategies (classroomobservation, evaluation of the students’ answered worksheets and TER scores) in orderto measure and assess the development of students’ critical thinking skills whoparticipated to the teaching project which used aspects of History of Science (forexample the Galvany-Volta controversy). Pre-post testing procedures were also usedwere appropriate.
In this paper we are presenting results of the students’ answers in thequestionnaires before and after the implementation of the teaching project.
Our study expresses mainly the need to create opportunities for students to helpthem develop their understanding of how scientific ideas are accepted and/or rejected onthe basis of empirical evidence, and how scientific controversies can arise from differentways of interpreting such evidence.We support that in this way science learning is viewed as a process of activeindividual construction (of knowledge), as a social process which involves others in this
construction (students, teacher, parents, experts, etc) and finally as a process of enculturation into the scientific practices of the wider society (Cobb et al. 1996).
The results of our research showed that students generally respond positively both to the introduction of History of Science (practical work with real materials) andto the learning environment that our project created (constructivist approach focusedon developing critical thinking). Our findings support that the use of aspects of History of Science: (a) creates instructional tools the use of which could improvescience teaching in classrooms by adopting a pluralistic methodology (formulatingquestions, seeking answers, interpreting data, problem solving, decision making anddeveloping arguments), (b) supports learning by conversing for discussing, arguingand building consensus among members of a learning community and (c) contributestowards students’ critical thinking development.
Blair, J. & Johnson, R. (1980).
 Informal Logic
.Interness, Cal: Edgepress.Binnie, A. (2001). Using the History of Electricity and Magnetism to EnhanceTeaching,
Science & Education
10, 379-389.Cobb, P. & Yacker, E. (1996). Sociomathematical Norms Argumentation andAutonomy in Mathematics,
 Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
458-477.Dreyfus, A. & Jungwirth, E. (1980). Students' Perceptions of the Logical Structure of Curricular as Compared with Everyday Contexts - Study of Critical ThinkingSkills.
Science Education
64(3), 309-321.Ennis, R. (1987). A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking. In Baron, J. and Sternberg, R.(Eds.),
Teaching Thinking Skills
 New York: Freeman.Facione, P. A. (1990a).
Critical Thinking: a Statement of Expert Consensus for  Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and  Recommendations ("The Delphi Report").
Washington, D.C.: ERIC.Facione, P. A. (1990b).
The California Critical Thinking Skills Test - College Level:Technical Report #1 - Experimental Validation and Content Validity
. Inanonymous (Ed.). Washington, D.C.: ERIC.Facione, P. A. (1990c).
The California Critical Thinking Skills Test - College Level:Technical Report #2 - Factors Predictive of CT Skills
. In anonymous (Ed.).Washington, D.C.: ERIC.Facione, P. A. (2001).
Test Manual: The Test Of Everyday Reasoning - A Measure of Thinking Skills.
Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment/The California Academic Press.Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., Blohm, S. W. & Giancarlo, C. A. (2002).
Test Manual:The California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Form A, Form B, Form2000).
Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment/The California Academic Press.Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R. & Linn, M. (1990). Learning Scientific Reasoning Skills inMicrocomputer Laboratories.
 Journal of Research in Science Teaching 
27(2),173-191.Jungwirth, E. & Dreyfus, A. (1990). Identification and acceptance of a posterioricasual assertions invalidated by faulty enquiry methodology: An internationalstudy of curricular expectations and reality. In Herget, D. (Ed.),
More history and  philosophy of science in science teaching 
(pp. 202-11). Tallahassee, FL: FloridaState University.Jungwirth, E. (1987). Avoidance of logical fallacies: A neglected aspect of scienceeducation and science-teacher education.
 Research in Science and Technological  Education
5 43-58.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->