Review & Application
My Review
It’s pretty presumptuous of a book to say, “keep this book with you at each of your classes and in front of you for each of your assignments.” But after reading the book Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking, I’m a believer. It attempts to put forth essentially a formula of study that is akin to the scientific method. It is a reliable method of arriving and reliable information. It lays out a new standard in how our thought process should work. There is thinking, and then there is thinking about your thinking. The later is critical thinking, and that’s what this book gives us the roadmap to be able to do. This book was filled with application that sends the student off with a reliable trajectory.
Specifically, there were a few elements of the book that stood out to me.
First The pie chart of the elements of thinking was very good. This list of questions is powerful. Especially the pie piece of assumptions. It’s question of applications should accompany any sort of presentation. I think if all of the students who presented there Pecha Kucha’s had taken their presentations through this grid, some might have been a little more potent.
Second, was the explanation on what the highest level of thinking was. “Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows.”(Elder, 168) This is different a flavor from what we have read in books such as How to talk about books you haven’t read. This type of posture is especially important because “As humans, we live with the unrealistic but confident sense that we have fundamentally figured out the way things actually are, and that we have done this objectively.”(Elder, loc. 252) This is the classic psychological tendency that humans are more confident than they are accurate. Beyond just egocentrism, the idea of socio-centric thinking was a great point and another blind spot, that can prevent us from getting the whole picture. It is a speck that we need to take out of our own eye so we can help others.
Lastly, the concept of intellectual courage was powerful. We need to not be yes-men or fall into groupthink. This is how bad ideas get launched without anyone saying, “hey I think this is dumb.” Consider also the example of the tasting regions of the tongue. Many have seen this chart before and learned it school and simply agreed with in. The problem is that this is totally wrong, and any 5 year old could have realistically proved it wrong, but everyone went along with it pretending to see the emperor’s clothes. It takes intellectual courage to be true to your train of thought, even in something as simple as “actually I think I can taste everything all over my tongue.”
Although I don’t think one needs this entire resource to have handy always, I think printing out a list of the routine with a brief list of all of it’s parts, can help the researcher or student stay on task.
My Application
While I would have loved to apply this critical thinking to my dissertation study this week, I’ve recently began to shift my ideas to another topic altogether. This is because the original problem I want to solve (it’s really one of my life missions I believe) is far too big to answer in this paper. Furthermore, there already are people working on it, and the best way to achieve this would be to simply start working it, and not necessarily a huge research project. This book did, however, reaffirm my suspicions that I needed to adjust my topic.
To test out the effectiveness of this critical thinking guide, I will attempt to answer some of the questions from the elements of thought about my original particular topic of dissertation.
1.All reasoning has a PURPOSE.
Can you state your purpose clearly?
To find a way to bring ministerial education and training to remote areas.
Does your reasoning focus throughout on your goal? Is your goal realistic?
Probably not. The word remote is far to broad and the “remote” regions of the world contains a ginormous demographic. Also, with such a split in Christendom, this study is almost certainly duplicating efforts and it’s difficult to find what’s already being done.
2. All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some QUESTION, to solve some PROBLEM. What question are you trying to answer?
Are there other ways to think about the question?
I suppose another way to think about this question is just start with regions, or categorizations of remoteness.
Can you divide the question into sub-questions?
There is third world, remote, poor, access to phone but no internet, not electricity, and on and on. Each of those different levels of categorizations can determine what type of platform/program could be given for someone to train ministers.
Is this a question that has one right answer or can there be more than one reasonable answer?
Many answers. Additionally, the question of should it be solved? Suppose a platform could be developed that links the remotest part of the world with a satellite Wi-Fi connected tablet with access to a seminary worth of information. Is it the best to just drop that technology somewhere, when what is really needed is a person?
Does this question require judgment rather than facts alone?
Yes. But I think the best judgment leads to this should be done. It is a heroic thought to try and accomplish this, much like the Jesuits or other educator missionary did as they sought out across the known world.
3. All reasoning is based on ASSUMPTIONS.
What assumptions are you making?
I’ve realized I’ve assumed that what is needed is access to information. But perhaps what is more needed is a teacher or a guide, to bring people through the material. I also assumed that there wasn’t much being done. This was wrong. I also learned that a good amount of the “remote” education being done is not being publicized or written about because of the sensitivity of certain countries where it is illegal to be a missionary. This type of information is mostly just spoken about. I also assumed we could make some good curriculum here in the US and drop it overseas. I’ve learned that some countries like South Africa and Kenya have “recognition” standards that say a certain amount of classes have to be written by nationals. Of course this only matters if you care about accreditation.
4. All reasoning is done from some POINT OF VIEW.
What is your point of view?
My point of view is that technology could potentially multiply the ministerial education efforts across the mission field.
What are its weaknesses?
Many resources have been developed just to sit idly on a desk. How likely is it climb all the way up this pyramid?
What other points of view should be considered in reasoning through this problem?
The harvest is plenty but the workers are few. Pray for more laborers. In this study my emphasis is on providing the few workers with the best tools. Although this is noble, perhaps it is not as effective as bringing more laborers.
Are you fair-mindedly considering the insights behind these viewpoints?
I think so.
5.INFORMATION, and EVIDENCE.
To what extent is your reasoning supported by relevant data?
I think there is a real need and there is a real possibility based on some of the research, articles and stats I’ve seen.
Do the data suggest explanations that differ from those you have given?
The Data suggests that anyone doing this type of work should do it with Global University. There is no one doing what they are doing globally.
6. All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, CONCEPTS and THEORIES.
What key concepts and theories are guiding your reasoning?
This is an interesting question. I feel like this is the same as “what is your point of view.”
What alternative explanations might be possible, given these concepts and theories?
Focus only on areas that have reliable internet access. These are areas that will get your biggest ROI to use a business term. Of course, we will still need those called to venture out to the “bush” to reach and teach and raise up those who are not accessible. The internet will continue to make the world smaller. However, many 3rd world countries are being given internet by companies who are filtering their internet and guiding their accessible information.
Are you distorting ideas to fit your agenda?
I don’t think so! But I think this is what my advisor is there for too!
7.All reasoning contains INFERENCES or INTERPRETATIONS by which we draw CONCLUSIONS and give meaning to data.
To what extent do the data support your conclusions? Are your inferences consistent with each other? Are there other reasonable inferences that should be considered?
I’m not sure I’m far enough in my research yet to know this. But that’s a good observation to keep in mind!
8. All reasoning leads somewhere or has IMPLICATIONS and CONSEQUENCES. What implications and consequences follow from your reasoning?
If we accept your line of reasoning, what implications or consequences are likely?
I’m definitely not far enough in my research yet to know this. But that’s a good observation to keep in mind!
Works Cited
Elder, Linda, and Richard Paul. The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking – Concepts & Tools Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2011.
One response to “Review & Application”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Kyle,
Wow, adjusting your topic! That is a big decision. I respect you for that. That takes a lot of courage.
Here’s to discovering your new topic…