Linda Elder - The Student Guide to Historical Thinking: Going Beyond Dates, Places, and Names to the Core of History
Here you can read online Linda Elder - The Student Guide to Historical Thinking: Going Beyond Dates, Places, and Names to the Core of History full text of the book (entire story) in english for free. Download pdf and epub, get meaning, cover and reviews about this ebook. year: 2019, publisher: The Foundation for Critical Thinking, genre: Religion. Description of the work, (preface) as well as reviews are available. Best literature library LitArk.com created for fans of good reading and offers a wide selection of genres:
Romance novel
Science fiction
Adventure
Detective
Science
History
Home and family
Prose
Art
Politics
Computer
Non-fiction
Religion
Business
Children
Humor
Choose a favorite category and find really read worthwhile books. Enjoy immersion in the world of imagination, feel the emotions of the characters or learn something new for yourself, make an fascinating discovery.
- Book:The Student Guide to Historical Thinking: Going Beyond Dates, Places, and Names to the Core of History
- Author:
- Publisher:The Foundation for Critical Thinking
- Genre:
- Year:2019
- Rating:4 / 5
- Favourites:Add to favourites
- Your mark:
The Student Guide to Historical Thinking: Going Beyond Dates, Places, and Names to the Core of History: summary, description and annotation
We offer to read an annotation, description, summary or preface (depends on what the author of the book "The Student Guide to Historical Thinking: Going Beyond Dates, Places, and Names to the Core of History" wrote himself). If you haven't found the necessary information about the book — write in the comments, we will try to find it.
As part of the Thinkers Guide Library, this book advances the mission of the Foundation for Critical Thinking to promote fair-minded critical societies through cultivating essential intellectual abilities and virtues across every field of study across world.
Linda Elder: author's other books
Who wrote The Student Guide to Historical Thinking: Going Beyond Dates, Places, and Names to the Core of History? Find out the surname, the name of the author of the book and a list of all author's works by series.
The Student Guide to Historical Thinking: Going Beyond Dates, Places, and Names to the Core of History — read online for free the complete book (whole text) full work
Below is the text of the book, divided by pages. System saving the place of the last page read, allows you to conveniently read the book "The Student Guide to Historical Thinking: Going Beyond Dates, Places, and Names to the Core of History" online for free, without having to search again every time where you left off. Put a bookmark, and you can go to the page where you finished reading at any time.
Font size:
Interval:
Bookmark:
In this appendix we differentiate skilled from unskilled reasoners, focusing on each element of thought individually.
All reasoning has a purpose.
Primary intellectual standards: | (1) clarity, (2) significance, (3) achievability, (4) consistency, (5) justifiability, (6) fairness |
Common problems: | (1) unclear, (2) trivial, (3) unrealistic, (4) contradictory, (5) unjustifiable, (6) unfair |
Principle: | To reason well, you must clearly understand your purpose, and your purpose must be reasonable and fair. |
| Skilled Reasoners | Unskilled Reasoners | Critical Reflections |
| take the time to state their purpose clearly. | are often unclear about their central purpose. | Have I made the purpose of my reasoning clear? What exactly am I trying to achieve? Have I stated the purpose in several ways to clarify it? |
| distinguish it from related purposes. | oscillate between different, sometimes contradictory, purposes. | What different purposes do I have in mind? How do I see them as related? Am I going off in somewhat different directions? How can I reconcile these contradictory purposes? |
| periodically remind themselves of their purpose to determine whether they are straying from it. | lose track of their fundamental object or goal. | In writing this historical paper, do I seem to be wandering from my purpose? How do my third and fourth paragraphs relate to my central goal? |
| adopt realistic purposes and goals. | adopt unrealistic purposes and set unrealistic goals. | Am I trying to accomplish too much in the paper? |
| choose significant purposes and goals. | adopt trivial purposes and goals as if they were significant. | What is the significance of pursuing this particular historical purpose? Is there a more significant purpose I should be focused on? |
| choose goals and purposes consistent with other goals and purposes they have chosen. | inadvertently negate their own purposes. do not monitor their thinking for inconsistent goals. | Does one part of my paper seem to undermine what I am trying to accomplish in another part? |
| adjust their thinking regularly to their purpose. | do not adjust their thinking regularly to their purpose. | Do I stick to the main issue throughout the paper? Am I acting consistently in pursuit of my purpose? |
| choose purposes that are fair, considering the desires and rights of others equally with their own desires and rights. | choose purposes that are self-serving at the expense of others needs and desires. | Do I have a self-serving purpose, which causes me to distort the information to fit that purpose? Am I taking into account the rights and needs of relevant others in pursuing this purpose? |
All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some question, solve some problem.
Primary intellectual standards: | (1) clarity and precision, (2) significance, (3) answerability, (4) relevance, (5) depth |
Common problems: | (1) unclear and imprecise, (2) insignificant, (3) not answerable, (4) irrelevant, (5) superficial |
Principle: | To settle a question, it must be answerable; you must be clear about it and understand what is needed to adequately answer it. A deep question requires reasoning through its complexities. |
| Skilled Reasoners | Unskilled Reasoners | Critical Reflections |
| are clear about the question they are trying to settle. | are often unclear about the question they are asking. | Am I clear about the main question at issue? Am I able to state it precisely? |
| can re-express a question in a variety of ways. | express questions vaguely and find questions difficult to reformulate for clarity. | Am I able to reformulate my question in several ways to recognize the complexities in it? |
| can break a question into sub-questions. | are unable to break down the questions they are asking. | Have I broken down the main question into sub-questions to better think through its complexities? What sub-questions are embedded in the main question? |
| routinely distinguish questions of different types. | confuse questions of different types; thus often respond inappropriately to questions and expect the wrong types of answers from others. | Am I confused about the type of question I am asking? For example: Am I confusing a conceptual question with a factual one? Am I confusing a question of preference with a question requiring reasoned judgment? |
| distinguish significant from trivial questions. | confuse trivial with important questions. | Am I focusing on superficial questions while significant questions need addressing? |
| distinguish relevant from irrelevant questions. | confuse irrelevant questions with relevant ones. | Are the questions Im raising in this paper relevant to the main question at this issue? |
| are sensitive to the assumptions built into the questions they ask. | often ask loaded questions. | Am I phrasing the question in a loaded way? Am I taking for granted, from the outset, the correctness of my own position? |
| distinguish questions they can answer from questions they cant. | try to answer questions they are not in a position to answer. | Am I in a position to answer this question? What information would I need before I could answer it? |
All reasoning is based on data, information, evidence, experience, research.
Primary intellectual standards: | (1) clear, (2) relevant, (3) important, (4) fairly gathered and reported, (5) accurate, (6) adequate, (7) consistently applied |
Common problems: | (1) unclear, (2) irrelevant, (3) insignficant, (4) biased, (5) inaccurate, (6) insufficient, (7) inconsistently applied |
Principle: | Reasoning can be only as sound as the information upon which it is based. |
| Skilled Reasoners | Unskilled Reasoners | Critical Reflections |
| assert a claim only when they have sufficient evidence to back it up. | assert claims without considering all relevant information. | Is my assertion supported by evidence? Do I have enough evidence to truly support my claim? |
| can articulate and evaluate the information behind their claims. | dont articulate the information they are using in their reasoning and so do not subject it to rational scrutiny. | Have I been transparent about the information I am using? What standards am I using to evaluate the information? Do I have evidence to support my claim that I havent clearly articulated? |
| actively search for information against (not just for) their own position. | gather only that information that supports their own point of view. | Where is a good place to look for evidence on the opposite side? Have I looked there? Have I honestly considered information that doesnt support my position? |
| focus on relevant information and disregard what is irrelevant to the question at issue. |
Font size:
Interval:
Bookmark:
Similar books «The Student Guide to Historical Thinking: Going Beyond Dates, Places, and Names to the Core of History»
Look at similar books to The Student Guide to Historical Thinking: Going Beyond Dates, Places, and Names to the Core of History. We have selected literature similar in name and meaning in the hope of providing readers with more options to find new, interesting, not yet read works.
Discussion, reviews of the book The Student Guide to Historical Thinking: Going Beyond Dates, Places, and Names to the Core of History and just readers' own opinions. Leave your comments, write what you think about the work, its meaning or the main characters. Specify what exactly you liked and what you didn't like, and why you think so.