The latest post by jsd on critical thinking included (along with more
fundamental ideas) two practical suggestions of great value. One
-
"If the students are working
a problem in class, don't let them stop at the point where they have
gotten the answer. Insist that the job is not done until they have
made some consistency checks. For instance, when resolving a vector
into components, if a = c sin θ and b = c cos θ, then
-- |a| had better be less than |c| (or equal in degenerate cases)
-- |b| had better be less than |c| (..)
-- |a| + |b| had better be greater than |c| (..)
-- a^2 + b^2 had better equal c^2"
-
directly enhances critical thinking in an immediately relevant situation
but often takes a bit of work on the part of the teacher. Everyone has seen
homework answers the magnitude of which are way off. Units should always be
checked. The instructor could suggest some more possible checks as did the
example.
The other one
-
"This is why
there should be a systematic long-term program to reward students for
catching errors in the textbook ... and for catching errors in what was
said in class. Catching errors like this is not quite the definition of
critical thinking, but it is one of the goals and one of the hallmarks."
-is an excellent suggestion taking little effort which everybody should
use. Regurgitation has its rewards. Critical thinking should have its (big)
rewards throughout the course. It even has potential utility in other ways.
Textbook publishers usually welcome errata. If your lectures are dinged at
least you will get another opportunity to go over the material with the
student again and at best you can modify your approach to more clearly express
your intent.