Thinking

Thinking and problem-solving are core skills that university educators aim to teach students. Learning different ways of thinking and how to resolve or respond to problems creates wellrounded learners that are capable of breaking down issues or problems into manageable parts, adapting to changing situations or contexts and devising creative or novel solutions. These are key characteristics required in the 21st century digitally focused work environment. This chapter will provide you with an overview of different types of thinking, give guidance on how you can practise these approaches before then moving onto a discussion of problem-solving. Examples of the various forms of thinking discussed will be provided. Finally, the chapter will conclude by providing a detailed overview of the research process as it relates to problem solving

Pragmatist Ethics and Climate Change [preprint]

This chapter explores some features of pragmatic pluralism as an ethical perspective on climate change. It is inspired in part by Andrew Light’s work on climate diplomacy as U.S. Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs, and by Bryan Norton’s environmental pragmatism, while drawing more explicitly than Light or Norton from classical pragmatist sources such as John Dewey. The primary aim of the chapter is to characterize, differentiate, and advance a general pragmatist approach to climate ethics. The main line of argument is that we are suffering culturally from a sort of “moral jetlag” due in part to “moral fundamentalist” habits, and that a critical focus on pragmatic pluralism—in moral theory generally and climate ethics particularly—would be salutary for our recovery if philosophers are to speak more effectively to “wicked problems” in a way that aids public deliberation and social learning. Moral fundamentalist habits, and the monistic one-way assumption that unintentionally—but not blamelessly—exercises and unduly reinforces them, are obstacles to fostering habits of moral and political inquiry better suited to dealing with predicaments rapidly transforming our warming planet

Cognitive load of critical thinking strategies

Critical thinking is important for today\u27s life, where individuals daily face unlimited amounts of information, complex problems, and rapid technological and social changes. Therefore, critical thinking should be the focus of general education and educators\u27 efforts (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Oliver & Utermohlen, 1995). Despite passively agreeing or disagreeing with a line of reasoning, critical thinkers use analytical skills to comprehend and evaluate its merits, considering strengths and weaknesses. Critical thinkers also analyze arguments, recognizing the essentiality of asking for reasons and considering alternative views and developing their own point of view (Paul, 1990). Kuhn and Udell (2007) emphasize that the ability to participate in sound argument is central to critical thinking and is essential to skilled decision making. Nussbaum and Schraw (2007) emphasized that effective argumentation includes not only considering counterarguments but also evaluating, weighing, and combining the arguments and counterarguments into support for a final conclusion. Nussbaum and Schraw called this process argument-counterargument integration. The authors identified three strategies that could be used to construct an integrative argument in the context of writing reflective essays: a refutation, weighing, and design claim strategy. They also developed a graphic organizer called the argumentation vee diagram (AVD) for helping students write reflective essay. This study focuses on the weighing and design claim strategies. In the weighing strategy, an arguer can argue that the weight of reasons and evidence on one side of the issue is stronger than that on the other side. In a design claim strategy, a reasoner tends to form her opinion or conclusion based on supporting an argument side (by taking its advantages) and eliminating or reducing the disadvantages of the counterargument side. Based on learning other definitions for argumentation, I define argumentation in this study as a reasoning tool of evaluation through giving reasons and evidence for one\u27s own positions, and evaluating counterarguments of different ideas for different views. In cognitive psychology, cognitive load theory seems to provide a promising framework for studying and increasing our knowledge about cognitive functioning and learning activities. Cognitive load theory contributes to education and learning by using human cognitive architecture to understand the design of instruction. CLT assumes limited working memory resources when information is being processed (Sweller & Chandler, 1994; Sweller, Van Merriënboer & Paas, 1998; Van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005). The Present Research Study Research Questions 1- What is the cognitive load imposed by two different argument-counterargument integration strategies (weighing, and constructing a design claim)? 2- What is the impact of using the AVDs on amount of cognitive load, compared to using a less diagrammatic structure (linear list)? It is hypothesized that the weighing strategy would impose greater cognitive load, as measured by mental effort rating scale and time, than constructing a design claim strategy. As proposed by Nussbaum (2008), in using weighing strategy a larger number of disparate (non-integrative) elements must be coordinated and maintained in working memory. It is also hypothesized that the AVDs would reduce cognitive load, compared to a linear list, By helping individuals better connect, organize, and remember information (various arguments) (Rulea, Baldwin & Schell, 2008), and therefore freeing up processing capacity for essential cognitive processing (Stull & Mayer, 2007). The experimental design of the study consisted of four experimental groups that used strategies and two control groups. I tested the hypotheses of the study by using a randomized 2x3 factorial design ANOVA (two strategies prompt x AVD and non- AVD) with a control group included in each factor. Need for cognition (NFC), a construct reflecting the tendency to enjoy and engage in effortful cognitive processing (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), was measured and used as an indication of participants\u27 tendency to put forth cognitive effort. Thinking and argument-counterargument integration processes took place through electronic discussion board (WebCampus), considering analysis questions about grading issue Should students be graded on class participation? I chose that analysis question as it represents an issue that is meaningful and important for college students, in that they can relate and engage easily in thinking about it. The results of the first research question pointed to a significant relationship between the complexity of an essay, as measured by complexity of weighing refutation, and cognitive load as measured by time and cognitive load scale. Weighing refutations also involved more mental effort than design claims even when controlling for the complexity of the arguments. The results also revealed that there was a significant interaction effect for NFC. The results of the second research question were non-significant. The results showed that the linear list that was used by the control group was as productive as the AVDs. There was no difference between the control and experimental groups in the amount of cognitive load that they reported in terms of mental effort and time spent on the thinking and integration process. Measuring the cognitive load of different argument-counterargument integration strategies will help inform instructional efforts on how best to teach these strategies, design effective instructional techniques for teaching critical thinking, and will also help provide theoretical insight in the cognitive processes involved in using these strategies

Strategies for integrating literacy into a science classroom

A science reading course offers opportunities for students to develop their scientific literacy by delving into current topics in science through reading and writing. Due to the nature of the course, students could be enrolled for one semester or for the whole year. Through differentiation, Science Reading is accessible for a variety learning and interest levels. This creative component lays the groundwork for the development of a science reading course by providing examples of topics, methods, lesson activities, and assessments that could be incorporated into a Science Reading curriculum. The project recognizes the resources that are available to educators and includes a series of ideas or starting points for others to develop their own units or courses that embrace literacy in the science classroom

A Model of Critical Thinking in Higher Education

“Critical thinking in higher education” is a phrase that means many things to many people. It is a broad church. Does it mean a propensity for finding fault? Does it refer to an analytical method? Does it mean an ethical attitude or a disposition? Does it mean all of the above? Educating to develop critical intellectuals and the Marxist concept of critical consciousness are very different from the logician’s toolkit of finding fallacies in passages of text, or the practice of identifying and distinguishing valid from invalid syllogisms. Critical thinking in higher education can also encompass debates about critical pedagogy, i.e., political critiques of the role and function of education in society, critical feminist approaches to curriculum, issues related to what has become known as critical citizenship, or any other education-related topic that uses the appellation “critical”. Equally, it can, and usually does, refer to the importance and centrality of developing general skills in reasoning—skills that we hope all graduates possess. Yet, despite more than four decades of dedicated scholarly work “critical thinking” remains as elusive as ever. As a concept, it is, as Raymond Williams has noted, a ‘most difficult one’ (Williams, 1976, p. 74)

A Method For Developing Churchmanian Knowledge Management Systems

Some problems confronted by managers include ill-formulated wicked planning problems, a type of problem that is difficult to solve because, in part, it is difficult to know what the problem is. The Churchmanian Knowledge Management Systems (CKMS) (Richardson & Courtney, 2004) is comprised of design principles for aiding system designers, managers, and clients who make decisions pertaining to these ill-formulated wicked planning problems. Problemography theory is proposed as a method for developing a CKMS. The method aims to measure CKMS development by using development tools that enables stakeholders and theoreticians to clarify CKMS development. A study was conducted to test a proof-of-concept development tool. The tool tested is a proposed list of processes that occur during CKMS development, processes derived from Churchman\u27s (1971) Singerian inquiring systems theory. A gap analysis was performed whereby the proposed processes were compared with the processes found during a case study of people confronting issues related to the \u27wicked\u27 problem of Florida\u27s invasive plant problem. A second study was conducted to explore possible design principles for developing a CKMS. Two proposed design principles, Every Person Principle and Connectedness Caretaker Principle, were used to develop a Describe a Wicked Problem Inquiring System (DAWP), a Web site which aims to enable inquirers to confront wicked problems. Participants in the study formulated problems related to Florida\u27s native plants and suggested potential solutions. Using Wengraf\u27s (2001) theory-driven qualitative research, interviews with participants were analyzed and the results suggest that the Web site being developed enabled the consideration of the ethical ramifications of knowledge

On being a doctor in an acute NHS hospital trust: a classic grounded theory

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Johannesburg, November 2015The aim of this study was to give an account of what it means to be a hospital consultant in a national health service that has been undergoing change for almost three decades. Classic grounded theory was used to identify the main concern of hospital consultants sampled for the study and how they resolved this concern on a routine basis. Data were obtained from three sources: interviews, observation and document analyses. Classic grounded theory procedures of constant comparison and theoretical sampling were used and Rolling with the Punches emerged as the pattern of behaviour through which the hospital consultants dealt with their main concern, which was managerialism. Rolling with the Punches involves four modes: Stabilising Temporarily, Resisting, Limiting the Impact and Adjusting to/Living with. The mode of behaviour was contingent on a central and on-going Weighing-up process, in which the hospital consultants used their personal narratives, beliefs and commitment structures to make sense of what was happening and what they could possibly do about it. Hence, the mode of behaviour was contingent, historicised and in flux. The Weighing-up process can set off triggers that can lead to a change of mode that need not be linear. Key words: doctors, managers, grounded theory, weighing up, stabilising temporarily, resisting, subverting, quibbling, limiting the impact, lying low, faking it, living with, adjusting to, going with the flow, complying, waiting it out.MB201

A Dialectical Methodology For Decision Support Systems Design

As organizations continue to grow in size, reaching global proportions, they have ever increasing impacts on their environments. Some believe that a much broader array of concerns should be brought into organizational decision-making processes, including greater consideration of social, political, ethical and aesthetic factors (Mitroff and Linstone, 1993; Courtney, 2001). Decision environments such as these are decidedly wicked (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Designing decision support systems in such environments where there is a high level of interconnectedness, issues are overlapping and a multiplicity of stakeholders is involved, is a very complex task. In this dissertation a methodology for the development of a DSS for wicked situations is proposed using the design theory building process suggested by Walls et al. (1992). This proposed theory is based on dialectic theory and the multiple perspective approach suggested by Linstone and Mitroff (1993). The design process consists of identifying relevant stakeholders, their respective worldviews, and conflicts in these worldviews. A design (thesis) and counter design (antithesis) are created, and a prototype systems based on these designs are developed. These prototypes are then presented to the different stakeholder groups who engage in a dialogue which leads to the development of a synthesized design. The process is repeated until all conflicts are resolved or resources are exhausted, and a final system is produced. Using action research and system development research methodologies, the proposed design theory was applied to zoning decision process in Orange County, Florida. The results of this study led to the following: 1. It is feasible to implement the MPDP methodology proposed in this dissertation. 2. The MPDP methodology resulted in a synthesized design that accommodates the different views of the stakeholders. 3. The MPDP methodology is suitable for contentious situations and may not be feasible for structured decisions. 4. Most of the subjects did achieve a more understanding of the decision process. These results suggest that the MPDP design theory can be effective in developing decision support systems in contentious situations

Organizing for Societal Grand Challenges

"The ebook edition of this title is Open Access and freely available to read online. Societal grand challenges have moved from a marginal concern to a mainstream issue within the field of organization and management studies. Organizing for Societal Grand Challenges unpacks how diverse forms of organizing help tackle - or reinforce - grand challenges, while emphasizing the need for researchers to expand their methodological repertoire and reflect upon scholarly practices. This edited collection offers an organizational perspective on societal grand challenges in three sections: Diverse Forms of Organizing and Societal Grand Challenges; Scholarship and Societal Grand Challenges; Reflections and Outlook. The articles offer empirical and conceptual work that focus on a wide variety of regions including Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America, and engage with multiple grand challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, decent work, hunger, inequality, and poverty. Drawing on varied theoretical lenses, the authors take stock of recent developments in the literature, present an overview of the current thinking, and set a foundation for future research on grand challenges in organization and management studies. The articles provide inspiration, insights, and instruments for developing timely and relevant knowledge to engage with the pressing societal grand challenges of our time.

Sensitivity analysis in a scoping review on police accountability : assessing the feasibility of reporting criteria in mixed studies reviews

In this paper, we report on the findings of a sensitivity analysis that was carried out within a previously conducted scoping review, hoping to contribute to the ongoing debate about how to assess the quality of research in mixed methods reviews. Previous sensitivity analyses mainly concluded that the exclusion of inadequately reported or lower quality studies did not have a significant effect on the results of the synthesis. In this study, we conducted a sensitivity analysis on the basis of reporting criteria with the aims of analysing its impact on the synthesis results and assessing its feasibility. Contrary to some previous studies, our analysis showed that the exclusion of inadequately reported studies had an impact on the results of the thematic synthesis. Initially, we also sought to propose a refinement of reporting criteria based on the literature and our own experiences. In this way, we aimed to facilitate the assessment of reporting criteria and enhance its consistency. However, based on the results of our sensitivity analysis, we opted not to make such a refinement since many publications included in this analysis did not sufficiently report on the methodology. As such, a refinement would not be useful considering that researchers would be unable to assess these (sub-)criteria