Words: 1537
Distinguish between traits and activities of critical and creative thinks. Critical thinking Is a common “buzz phrase” In educational, psychological, and Philosophical, circles today. Much work has been completed in the name of critical thinking in education to date that not only leaves one wondering how it is measured, but also leaves one groping for a cognizant definition of critical thinking. Part of this ambiguity lies in the existence of multiple definitions for critical thinking. Creativity is a complex construct and is most commonly expressed through a broad range of intelligences
Including linguistic, musical, mathematical, spatial, kinesthesia, Interpersonal, and perhaps even interpersonal . Len a classic study of creativity, Taylor proposed the existence of five typologies for creativity. These were expressive, productive, Inventive, Innovative, and emerge native. Expressive creativity Is the type of spontaneous creativity often seen in children and is exemplified in drawings and play. Scientists and artists illustrate productive creativity. An element of spontaneous production remains. Yet Is characterized by the need to create rather being restricted y the need to express.
The third classification is inventive creativity that may be described as a problem solving or a creation to improve an existing technology. An example would be an engine Invented to make farm tractors more fuel-efficient. Innovative creativity deals with the capacity to Improve or reinvent an existing organism or object through the utilization of conceptualization skills. An example is the recent movement to reinvent government, In which the existing governmental structure was redefined through recapitulation’s. The final type of creative skill is merging native.
Creative thinking involves searching for meaningful new connections by generating many unusual, original, and varied possibilities, as well as details that expand or enrich possibilities. Critical thinking, on the other hand, involves examining possibilities carefully, fairly, and constructively-?focusing your thoughts and actions by organizing and analyzing possibilities. Refining and developing the most promising possibilities, ranking or proportioning options, and choosing certain options. Generating many possibilities is not enough by itself to help you solve a problem.
Similarly, If you rely on focusing alone, you may have too few possibilities from which to choose. Effective problem solvers must think both creatively and critically, generating options and focusing their thinking. 2. Describe the difference between objective and subjective thinking. Objective means a mind-independent reality. That Is, an objective feature of the universe is something that does not rely on my own – or anyone else’s – personal beliefs or feelings on the matter. For example, gravity is an objective feature of the about it, when I leap unaided off the top of the building, I will come down.
That is an objective fact. The claim that “the world is round” is an objective claim, and would be true even if everyone thought the world was flat. Similarly, if I was standing on a main highway, and you saw a truck speeding towards me, you would perhaps yell out “Get off the road, a big truck is coming! ” If I then turned to you and said, “That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me,” it doesn’t really matter what I think, as the truck is an objective feature of the universe, unless circumstances change, I’ll soon be paste on the road.
So what is meant by objective moral virtues and duties is this: That it is bad ND wrong to kill Jews and homosexuals, and even if Hitler had won the war, and succeeded in killing off or brainwashing all his opposition so that the whole world believed it was right, it would still be wrong. No matter what you personally believed about the matter, it would be wrong in that objective sense. Likewise, there are some things that are genuinely good and right, like loving your neighbor as yourself, caring for people who are suffering, generosity to those who are in need, and Justice for the down-trodden, and these are all true in the objective sense.
Subjective, is precisely he opposite of objective. That is subjective belief relies on the individual. It is mind- dependent. For example, the statement “l am a man,” is an objective fact. The statement “l am here,” is a subjective fact as its truth relies on my own perspective. When morality is subjective, moral values and duties like “you should treat people with dignity and respect” become simply preferences of taste, equivalent to “l like chocolate over vanilla,” or “l hate television ads. Alt is clear then that subjectivism is an inadequate ethical system, not only practically but in truth as well. But that is for another time. . Distinguish between active learner and passive learner traits. Active learning is an umbrella term that refers to several models of instruction that focus the responsibility of learning on learners. Active learning has received considerable attention over the past several years. Often presented or perceived as a radical change from traditional instruction, the topic frequently polarize faculty.
Active learning has attracted strong advocates among faculty looking for alternatives to traditional teaching methods, while skeptical faculty regard active learning as another in a long line of educational fads. For many faculty there remain questions about what active learning is and how it differs from traditional engineering education, since this is already “active” through homework assignments and laboratories. Adding to the confusion, engineering faculty do not always understand how the common forms of active learning differ from each other and most engineering faculty are not inclined to comb the educational literature for answers.
This study addresses each of these issues. First, it defines active learning and distinguishes the different types of active learning most frequently discussed in the engineering literature. A core element is identified for each of these separate methods in order to differentiate between them, as well as to aid in the subsequent analysis of their effectiveness. Second, the study provides an overview of relevant cautions for the reader trying to draw quick conclusions on the effectiveness of active learning from the educational literature.
Finally, it assists engineering faculty by stream of literature on the links between the entrepreneurs’ experience and firm performance raises very interesting questions worthy of empirical attention: Is it rely the fact of starting more than one firm key to better performance, or are there certain types of learning and experience in the early firms that cue in better performance in later firms? Does it matter whether the first firm was a success or a failure? If the latter, is it more likely or less likely that the entrepreneur will start another firm? And even more important, who is most likely to become successful with the second firm?
The entrepreneurs that started up a second business within six years after the first start-up constitutes the sample of re-starters while those that did to start up again constituted the sample of one-time entrepreneurs. Econometric analyses of the data allowed us to test competing hypotheses about the role of learning from failure for re-entry and subsequent performance in the next venture. Results show that while failure of the first firm did not deter re-entry, performance was contingent on human and social capital and, furthermore, sometimes conditioned on previous failure.
In addition to the two characteristics discussed above, the third feature of Chinese learners” learning styles their passive learning, as appraised by Ballard “… Alignment, obedient, hardworking, passive and assessment- centered. They are anxious to cover the syllabus and they want to be sure of the correct answers. This also gives rise to the paradox that the teacher-student interaction is restricted in class where there is usually a dull and authoritarian studying atmosphere.
With respect to this misconception, studies have argued that Chinese students not only absorb knowledge transmitted by teachers, but also seek closer interaction with teachers. Most of them wait until after class to ask unknown questions rather than question directly in class. This is because the Chinese teacher- student relationship is casual beyond class. For example, it is common for teachers to visit students” parents to understand their students” needs and learning difficulties in class.
Teachers can invite parents to have formal regular meetings in school to let them know students” learning progress and performance. Students are encouraged to approach their teachers outside class to clarify what they have not fully understood in class. The family-like interaction pattern between teachers and students is not limited to the academic learning context. Pratt et al. Notes this “ling he yes you pattern in Chinese culture indicates that the relationships are made up of responsibility, authority, and morality.
Interestingly, the Chinese term “Cue went can be divided into two words with different meanings: “cue” and “went”. It stresses the importance of questioning and enquiring, so Chinese students also employ a deep approach to learning. As Cortez and Jinn (2001) suggest “Chinese students are not passive but reflective… Chinese student’s value thoughtful questions which they ask after sound reflection. The misconceptions of obedient passive Chinese students and non-participative-rote-learners are over-simplistic.