Shulman (2007) - “a competent teacher. Thinking critically about what students are learning Critical thinking of children and adolescents in the classroom
Coaching Plan
on the topic “Development of critical thinking”
Lesson topic: Module Development of critical thinking
General goals: To create conditions for familiarization with the concept of “critical thinking”. Prepare teachers to accept the ideas of critical thinking, understand its tasks, the ability to implement the basic principles of critical thinking in their activities, and know the list of basic critical thinking skills.
Learning outcomes: Teachers will know what critical thinking is and understand its tasks; A list of essential critical thinking skills that includes observation, interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, metacognition, what is Bloom's taxonomy.
They will form a positive attitude towards the development of students and the development of critical thinking, as thinking about thinking. Review their teaching methods to encourage students to participate in group work and consider alternative opinions and solutions, and to be imaginative. Teachers will learn to distinguish and formulate higher and lower level questions.
Key ideas:
Critical thinking can occur whenever the process of reasoning, drawing conclusions, or solving a problem occurs, i.e. - whenever it is necessary to establish what to believe, what to do, and how to do it in an intelligent and reflective way.
Critical thinking often involves a willingness to imagine or consider alternative solutions and introduce new or modified ways of thinking and acting; commitment to organized social action and developing critical thinking in others. The list of basic critical thinking skills includes observation, interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, metacognition.
Stages of the lesson Time
90 minutes Coach Actions and Participant Actions
Introduction 3 min Warm-up “Interview”.
Formation of a collaborative environment.
Seating in groups upon request
Goal setting 10 min 1. Formation of motivation
Intellectual game “Marmosets” (on slides)
Using leading questions, say what the word Marmosets means.
Are you familiar with this word? Who is this? What is this? Where did you see it? (assumptions)
Once I was lucky enough to visit a place with my parents where I saw marmosets. They were dark in color, with white, red and silver-brown hues.
Has your opinion changed?
I was amazed by their size (10-20 cm).
Is it a thing or a creature?
I wanted to buy them, but I don’t know where they are sold.
Can you advise where I can buy them?
The trip to Latin America was the most impressive. What I told you about is found in the Amazon, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. You have seen them, but they are larger.
They don't fly, maybe they crawl.
Is this a person or an animal?
I have not met them in Kazakhstan, but you can see them in the zoo or in the circus.
Have you guessed it? Who is this? What is this?
They are somewhat similar to us, people.
“Little children ask a lot of questions, especially with the word “why.” They explore the world and try to get to the bottom of the meaning of many objects and things. Over time, many begin to think stereotypically, according to a template. Some have their own vision of the surrounding space. An example is the drawings of a 14-year-old schoolgirl
Viewing pictures (slides) on KM
B) AOZ: In the T-table (technique “Logbook”) write down the definition “What is KM?”
-What definitions did you write down?
-Was it easy to formulate?
C) Determining your level of knowledge (the “Man on a Tree” technique).
D) Summing up the results to form a target space and motivation for activity.
— Do we have enough knowledge to develop critical thinking in practice?
-What questions do you want answered?
Study of theoretical issues 20 min Study of theoretical material - familiarization with the information on the sheets.
1) Read the text independently and make notes in the margins in accordance with the “Insert” strategy
2) Discussion after completing tasks:
-What information was familiar to you?
-What information has become new?
-What surprised you?
-What do you need to know more about?
Practical part 20 min Consolidation and deepening of what has been learned
1)Structure information about critical thinking in the proposed form:
1 group "Cluster"
Group 2 “Denotation graph”
Group 3 Table “Strength-weakness-risk-opportunities”
2) Defense of the work by the speaker. Information about the strategy used.
Warm-up
3) Summing up (answers to questions are discussed in the group, then general discussion):
—What does it mean to approach something critically?
— Why can’t CT be identified with memorization or creative thinking?
— What algorithm should be used to form a CM?
4) Identification of the main aspects of critical thinking (according to D. Kluster) and the structure of the lesson using critical thinking techniques (slides)
Exploratory conversation:
— Why is the development of memory not yet thinking?
— Why is understanding one of the preconditions for CM?
-How does CM differ from other types of thinking?
-What intellectual skills help to form CM?
— What five aspects distinguish CM from other types? (according to D. Kluster
5) Reflection
-Write down the definition of CM in the T-table.
- Compare your definition and what you wrote down. What are the similarities and differences?
— What does it mean to “think critically”?
Reflection 15 min 6 de Bono hats.
Task: present the relationship to the KM module through the position of the “hat”
Reflection on learning
-How has your understanding of critical thinking changed?
-What hindered you during the training?
Tree of our desires Five Fingers Technique
Summing up personal growth - determining the location of the “Man on the Tree” position
DEVELOPING CRITICAL THINKING
The category “critical” used in the concept of “critical thinking” means the focus of thinking on the process of solving an issue or problem. “Critical” in this context does not mean “disapproval” or “denial.” Critical thinking can occur whenever the process of reasoning, drawing conclusions, or solving a problem occurs, i.e. - whenever it is necessary to establish what to believe, what to do, and how to do it in an intelligent and reflective way.
Critical thinking can be thought of as “thinking about thinking.”
It involves the ability to reason about issues of principle and reflect on practical experience. It is assumed that teachers, as subjects who have a pedagogical education and are improving their qualifications, have developed these skills and use them in practical work.
Critical thinking is a leading modern pedagogical concept relevant for the development of teaching and learning in Kazakhstan.
Critical thinking is a disciplinary approach to understanding, evaluating, analyzing and synthesizing information obtained through observation, experience, reflection or reasoning that can further serve as a basis for action. Critical thinking often involves a willingness to imagine or consider alternative solutions and introduce new or modified ways of thinking and acting; commitment to organized social action and developing critical thinking in others.
The list of basic critical thinking skills includes observation, interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and metacognition.
At a basic level, the critical thinking process involves:
. collection of relevant information;
. evaluation and critical analysis of evidence;
. reasonable conclusions and generalizations;
. adjusting assumptions and hypotheses based on significant experience.
Along with more complex tasks such as critical thinking in teaching and learning, it may involve recognizing unstated assumptions and values, problems and discovering effective means of solving them, understanding the importance of setting priorities in solving various problems. In addition to having developed critical thinking skills, the student or teacher must be committed to using them practically.
Critical thinking in relation to students is understood as the ability to synthesize information and ideas, the ability to judge the validity and relative importance of information and ideas, the ability to make choices about one's own learning and to question the ideas of others.
Critical thinking skills include the following components:
. identifying problems and determining real means of solving them;
. understanding the importance of priorities, hierarchy and consistency in problem solving;
. collecting relevant information(s);
. establishing contextual premises and priorities;
. understand and use language with precision, clarity, and objectivity;
. interpreting data to evaluate evidence and argue;
. establishing the presence (or absence) of a logical connection between sentences;
. drawing conclusions and generalizations;
. examination of the obtained conclusions and generalizations;
. reconstructing the original model of one’s beliefs into a system of results of acquired experience;
. formation of adequate judgments about specific things (phenomena, etc.) in the context of the realities of everyday life.
Critical thinking is a type of thinking that involves an analytical approach to understanding, evaluating, and synthesizing information obtained as a result of observation, experience, reflection or reasoning, which can subsequently serve as a basis for action.
Main characteristics of students' critical thinking:
Rationality. Striving to find the best explanation, asking questions instead of looking for definitive answers; requesting and taking into account any evidence; reliance on reason rather than emotion (although emotion has its place and can relate to self-awareness, mentioned below).
Open-mindedness. Evaluate all findings; considering and acknowledging multiple possible points of view or perspectives; the desire to remain open to alternative interpretations.
Judgment. Recognizing the extent and significance of evidence; recognition of the relevance and merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives.
Discipline. Strive to be accurate, comprehensive and exhaustive (considering all available evidence and taking into account all points of view).
Self-awareness. Awareness of the subjectivity of our own assumptions, biases, points of view and emotions.
Overall critical thinkers
. are active in asking questions and analyzing evidence, consciously applying strategies to determine meaning;
. they are skeptical of visual, oral and written evidence;
. open to new ideas and perspectives.
Critical thinking of children and adolescents in the classroom
Critical thinking is traditionally associated with later stages of education: with students in high school and higher education institutions. However, the foundations of critical thinking can also be developed by working with young children, starting at a very early stage of their education, in order to develop the necessary skills. The best way to do this is to encourage children to respond to evidence based on their own experience.
We have ample examples of lifestyles in different parts of the world and during different periods of history that can be used to motivate children's curiosity and develop their critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking involves developing skills such as acquiring evidence through observation and listening, taking into account context, and applying appropriate criteria to make decisions. The critical thinking skills included can be described as:
. observation; . analysis; . conclusion; . interpretation.
The processes and skills used in learning, for example, history or geography may include:
. collecting and grouping evidence such as paintings, photographs, recording memories;
. assessing key sources and asking appropriate questions about them;
. comparison and discussion of main sources with situational conclusions and temporary generalizations;
. revision of assumptions and hypotheses as experience increases.
At a later stage of exploring their work, through further discussion with teachers, reviewing and revising temporary conclusions, children can be helped to build an understanding of their own learning processes, including:
. assessment; . explanation; . metacognition.
Algorithm for developing critical thinking
Steps that children can take with outside help and skills that they will use in classroom activities include:
1. Review information obtained from visual or oral evidence. The assignment can be applied to information obtained from reading primary primary sources, to data collected from a survey or questionnaire, and to information collected from several secondary sources, such as a textbook, encyclopedia, or website.
2. Identify the key points, assumptions, or hypotheses that structure the examination of the evidence or determine the later actions underlying the argument.
3. Analyze how these key components, visual and verbal evidence, connect and interact with each other.
4. Compare and explore similarities and differences between individual images or between different opinions and memories.
5. Synthesize by combining different sources of information to construct an argument or series of ideas. Make connections between the various sources that shape and support your ideas.
6. Assess the validity and reliability of the evidence from your research, and how the evidence supports or contradicts your assumptions and emerging ideas.
7. Apply the knowledge gained from interpreting the answers to the research questions.
8. Give reasons for the conclusions formulated and justify the relevance and significance.
Technique “Reading with INSERT marks”
This technique works at the stage of understanding the content
I—interactive interactive
N—noting marking
S—system system for
E - effective effective
R—reading and reading and
T—thinking reflections
This is marking text with icons as you read it.
“V” - already knew
“+” – new
“-” - thought differently
“?” - I don’t understand, I have questions
— After the first reading, students make notes in the margins
- After the second reading, fill out the table in which the icons are the headings of the columns. Information from the text is briefly entered into the table.
Logbook reception
(filling out a table consisting of two columns: known information, new information)
What do I know about this topic? What new did I learn from the text?
Six Smart Hats Method
Essence of the method
The method is used to activate various aspects of thinking to carry out a more detailed discussion and improve overall mental activity.
Method implementation algorithm
The six hats symbolize different aspects of thinking. Students are given a hat (real or fictitious), the color of which corresponds to a certain semantic load. Students need to carry out all mental operations (think, analyze, etc.) in the given context of the color of the hat. The purpose of using this method is to try to create a big picture that covers all aspects of the issue or thought. Students in the class are divided into groups, each of which is given a hat of a certain color. The teacher initiates the discussion.
Six Smart Hats (De Bono)
White hat: neutral position based on facts and objective information
Red hat: emotional position based on guesses, intuition, feelings
Black hat: critical, analytical position based on "negative" argumentation
Yellow hat: an optimistic position based on “positive” reasoning
Green hat: creative position, identifying perspectives, opportunities, new ideas
Blue hat: a cool-headed position that recognizes the priority of planned actions, clear organization, control and commitment to decision-making
CLUSTER
Isolation of semantic units of text and graphic design in a certain order in the form of a cluster. Clusters are a graphic technique for systematizing material. Our thoughts are no longer piled up, but “piled up,” that is, arranged in a certain order. The rules are very simple. We draw a model of the solar system: a star, planets and their satellites. In the center there is a star - this is our theme, around it the planets are large semantic units, we connect them with a straight line to the star, each planet has its own satellites, and the satellites have their own. Clusters help students if their stock of thoughts is exhausted during written work. The cluster system covers more information than you would get from regular written work.
Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Risk (SSIR) method
“Opportunities” and “risks” involve predicting potential consequences, while “strength” and “weakness” involve forming a list of positive and negative aspects, the actual state of the issue and the nature of previous actions.
Students are provided with information to discuss or evaluate. Emerging ideas are recorded under the appropriate subheading (S-S-V-R).
The teacher has the right to focus on one subheading and discuss it before moving on to the next. For example, students are given time to explore the “strengths” of an idea before moving on to its “possibilities.”
During feedback, the teacher can ask the following questions:
What's the best? What's the worst? What could happen at this time? What might hinder future progress?
STRENGTH WEAKNESS
RISK OPPORTUNITY
Denotation graph - [from lat. denoto - also denoted in Greek. — I am writing] is a way of isolating from the text the essential features of a key concept.
Method for creating a denotation graph:
. Highlighting a keyword or phrase
. Alternation of a name and a verb in a graph (a name can be one noun or a group of nouns in combination with other nominal parts of speech; the verb expresses the dynamics of thought, the movement from a concept to its essential feature)
. The exact choice of a verb that connects the key concept and its essential feature (verbs denoting the goal - guide, assume, lead, give, etc.; verbs denoting the process of achieving a result - achieve, implement; verbs denoting the prerequisites for achieving the result - be based, rely, be based; linking verbs, with the help of which one can determine the meaning of a concept)
. Splitting the keyword as the graph is built into words - “branches”
. Correlating each word - “twig” with a keyword in order to exclude any inconsistencies, contradictions, etc.
Reflective teaching involves thinking critically about what students have learned. This requires researching, recording and evaluating the behaviors and critical thinking skills they demonstrate. These skills will be evident in tasks that require them to review and discuss specific evidence. In this way they learn, for example, about travel and transport (as it reflects the needs of people and concerns their lives), about continuity and change in certain historical periods, about the relationship between technology and the environment and its impact on socio-economic life. Any aspect of sociology or the humanities can also be discussed, for example, childhood and family, cooking and food, clothing and shopping, leisure and sports, music and entertainment, and many more. etc.
Main characteristics of students' critical thinking:
Rationality. Striving to find the best explanation, asking questions instead of looking for definitive answers; requesting and taking into account any evidence; reliance on reason rather than emotion (although emotion has its place and can relate to self-awareness, mentioned below).
Open-mindedness. Evaluate all findings; considering and acknowledging multiple possible points of view or perspectives; the desire to remain open to alternative interpretations.
Judgment. Recognizing the extent and significance of evidence; recognition of the relevance and merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives.
Discipline. Strive to be accurate, comprehensive and exhaustive (considering all available evidence and taking into account all points of view).
Self-awareness. Awareness of the subjectivity of our own assumptions, biases, points of view and emotions.
In general, critical thinkers are active in asking questions and analyzing evidence, consciously applying strategies to determine meaning; they are skeptical of visual, oral and written evidence; open to new ideas and perspectives.
The following is a framework that can be used to think critically about your own teaching and your students' learning:
1. Review the evidence you have obtained from observing student learning.
2. Understand the learning objectives that structure the assignments.
3. Analyze the relationship between learning objectives, on the one hand, and students' ways of working and achieving, on the other.
4. Compare the different levels of understanding and skills demonstrated by individual
by students.
5. Synthesize, combine these sources of information and your observations to reflect on the results of the activity, in general, on the scale of the whole class.
7. Apply the understanding you gain from this critique to planning a subsequent assignment or project.
As former Central Intelligence Agency analyst Morgan Jones writes in his book Problem Solving the Secret Service, there are seven features of the mind that have the most negative impact on our ability to analyze and solve problems. Most of them cannot be controlled or changed, but knowing them will help you make fewer mistakes.
1. Emotional component
It's no secret that emotions prevent us from thinking logically. We often make rash decisions in the heat of the moment. So, for example, people get a dog: succumbing to a fleeting feeling, they get a pet, and then they realize that they are not ready to raise it. Man is an emotional being. Feelings inhibit our ability to think logically. You can fight this: if your emotions are tearing you apart, put off making a decision for a while.
2. The desire of the subconscious to simplify
We tend to think that if we focus all our attention on the problem, we will be able to control our mental processes and resolve the issue as constructively as possible. Unfortunately, it is not. Our subconscious strives for simplification, which negatively affects our rational thinking. The brain uses tricks that we don’t even notice. Psychologists call this action a reflex, and Morgan Jones calls it a subroutine, or a way of cutting corners. That is, the decision-making process is simplified and cannot be controlled. For example, when we hear that someone is on a diet, we reflexively evaluate them in accordance with our stereotypes about diets. We don't make decisions - the brain does it automatically, choosing the shortest path. It is impossible to “teach” the mind to work differently.
The desire of the subconscious to simplify based on stereotyped ideas is manifested in many ways: in prejudices, personal inclinations, hasty conclusions, insights and intuition.
3. Prism of templates
The human mind instinctively perceives the world through the prism of patterns, writes Morgan Jones. For example, people's faces are a pattern. We recognize those we have already seen before. The mind finds a familiar pattern and then transmits to our consciousness the name and other information associated with that pattern. Or when the lights suddenly go out in the apartment, we do not panic: we know that electricity will appear because we have already encountered this situation. We don’t control this process either; the subconscious does all the work.
On the one hand, this feature of consciousness helps us live, on the other hand, it makes us hastily grab onto a pattern that seems familiar and draw incorrect conclusions. This pattern defines racial, ethnic and all other forms of bigotry.
4. Prejudice and false assumptions
Prejudices are subconscious beliefs that set the tone for our behavior and determine our reactions. Prejudices are formed unconsciously, which is why we all have them. They are not as bad as they seem. Thanks to formed prejudices, we easily repeat familiar actions. For example, we cook soup or hold a spoon.
Thanks to habits, a person becomes smarter and more savvy. The problem is that we ignore new information that does not correspond to existing prejudices. Unbeknownst to us, prejudices destroy objective truth.
5. The desire to find an explanation for everything
We strive to explain everything that surrounds us. And although these explanations are not always correct, they help us cope with dangers and ensure the possibility of human survival as a species. When we have a goal, when we see meaning in something, then life becomes easier. But this same trait leads us to a dead end: having found an explanation for something, we no longer think whether it is true. We do not try to critically reflect on our version and compare available alternatives.
6. Ignoring contradictions
By focusing on one possible solution, we reject all others. We perceive only those facts that confirm our opinion. The brain works the same way in smart, educated people and their opposites. While defending our position, we are not always ready to consider the issue from other sides.
By focusing on one chosen position and defending it, we lose objectivity.
7. Tendency to hold incorrect beliefs
Many of the beliefs we hold most dear are wrong. If we do not want to perceive reality, then we convince ourselves that it is not true. The urge to cling to false beliefs has a destructive effect on our ability to analyze situations and solve problems.
Cognitive (memory and perception)
Jean Piaget (1960s)- intelligence is a single general ability
Howard Gardner (2006)-multiple intelligences
Robert Stenberg - " triple model “Intelligence shows how an individual copes with environmental changes. environment throughout life
Ridley genes don't control our behavior
Judith Harris- School plays an important role, even in the absence of family education
Main parts of the cerebral cortex
Back of the head-perception and storage of visual information
Temple-verbal information (speech)
Somatosensory area- receptors of the arms and torso
Short term memory-(several seconds - several minutes)
Maslow's pyramid (motivation )
biologist. and physical needs - security - sense of belonging and love - need for esteem - self-expression
"I" concept
-affective(recognizes himself as a student)
-cognitive(knowledge and skills)
-social(interaction with others)
Key: self-respect, self-control
ZBR- this distance is determined by the level of his actual development determined with the help of problems solved independently, and the level of possible development of certain problems solved under the guidance of an adult or in collaboration with more capable comrades
Scaffolding(Wood, Bruner, Ross) - this is a metaphor presented by the teacher for the student, allowing him to complete the task independently
Metacognition - the ability to monitor, evaluate, control the mental and individual. Process
Key factors of metacognition:
Understanding the learning process
Understanding what to learn
Idea about the structure of educational material
Evaluate the effectiveness of training
Learning Pyramid (national training laboratories)
Lecture, reading - 10% Audio-visual - 20%
Demonstration-30% discussion-50%
Practice-75% knowledge transfer-90%
Csikszentmihalyi - an end in itself (flows)
Ryan and Decky- self-motivation as a consequence of curiosity
Dialogue training
Mercer and Littleton dialogue on intelligence. school development
Vygotsky-speech is the main teaching tool
acquired knowledge by engaging the student in dialogue
the central role of speech in learning
Barnes-confirmed that the training was effective. as a result of the use of verbal means (talk, discussion, argument)
Alexander- conversation is not a one-way process, but a mutual one that moves the student forward
3 types of conversation : debate, cumulative, research
questioning techniques:
motivation- question to obtain factual information. specific Reply
testing-the full answer includes thoughts, ideas
reorientation I-redirected to other students (help)
Regg and Brown(reaction to student answers)
Ignoring, helping, directing the answer to the right one. direction
Confession
Repeat verbatim
Repeat part of the question
Praise, correct answer
The dialogue allows you to:
Feeling of empathy
Knowledge or ignorance of students
Interaction
Key success indicator - development of self-regulation and metacognition skills
Metacognition
Flewell (1976) - "metacognition" - it is knowledge, understanding, regulation of cognitive processes and reflection on them.
Components (dimensions) of metacognition:
Knowing yourself as a student
Knowledge, understanding, assessment of goals
Knowledge of strategies necessary to complete tasks
Flewell and Bronson- development of metacognition in young children. schoolboy.
Jerome Bruner - "scaffolding" - gradual reinforcing support pushing you to complete the task
Three elements of self-regulated learning (Perry2002)
1) - self-direction in the process of working on a task
2) - defining the problem and goal yourself
3) - choosing a strategy to achieve goals and solve problems
Changing the system of rewards and punishments
Annual planning
Genus. meeting and its conduct
-"teacher's territory"
Critical thinking
KM - a disciplinary approach to comprehension, evaluation, analysis of information obtained as a result of observation, experience, reflection or reasoning, which can subsequently serve as a basis for action.
The basic level of CM includes:
Collection of information
Evaluation and analysis of evidence
Conclusions and generalizations
Revision of proposals and hypotheses based on experience
The optimal way for the development of CM is to stimulate children respond to evidence based on their own experience
CM Skills:
Observation, analysis, conclusion, interpretation
Evaluation, explanation, metacognition (late stage)
Steps to complete class work:
Explore-define-analyze-compare and explore-synthesize-evaluate-apply-argue
5 types of dialogue (Alexander):
Rote memorization (learning facts)
Recitation (gaining knowledge and understanding through questions)
Instructions/presentation (explaining to the student what to do?)
Discussion (sharing ideas and solving problems)
Dialogue (achieving mutual understanding through questioning and discussion)
Discussion and dialogue- invites you to consider another person's point of view in ways that stimulate the development and deepening of your own understanding
Argumentation- promotion and coordination of ideas and perspectives
Dialogical pedagogy - children and teachers establish relationships of discovery and learning
Collective learning (teacher + student study a task together), promote mutual learning, listen to each other, share ideas, support each other
Three forms of argument (Mercer):
disputative conversation
Cumulative
Research
CM teachers to develop:
Theoretical basis for understanding the learning process
Methods and technologies for drawing conclusions
Book "Reflective Practitioner":like prof. think in action (Sean)
The book "How We Think"» Dewey
Reflective Teaching Skills:
Recognizing problems and finding solutions to solve them
Understanding the importance of meaning for problem solving
Collecting and sorting information
Accurate and clear description
Recognition of proposals
Interpretation of results
Formation of reliable conclusions and generalizations
Confirmation of conclusions
Adjusting Beliefs Based on Experience
Features of children's critical thinking:
Rationality (striving to find the best explanation)
Open-mindedness (considering multiple points of view)
Judgment (recognizing the extent and significance of evidence)
Discipline (striving to be precise)
Self-awareness (awareness of one's own sentences)
Critically thinking student:
Active
Open
Skeptical (not believing)
Assessment
“Assessment is not a technique”
(Alexander 2001)
1960s-installed differences between formative and summative assessment
Formative- assessment aimed at identifying opportunities for improving learning, methods and forms of implementing these opportunities
Summative- assessment for the purpose of summarizing training, grading, certification and recording progress of training
Assessment Objectives:
Identifying learning difficulties
Feedback
Motivation
Prediction and selection
Control and implementation of standards
The term “assessment” is (from Latin) “to sit next to”
Characteristic sign of assessment - one a person carefully observes what another person says or does
Self-assessment- reflection on one’s knowledge, understanding, behavior
Types of assessment:
Observation
Interpretation of the received data
Fame - 1999
New definition of ODO ( 2002)- is the process of searching and interpreting data used by students and teachers to determine the stage at which a student is in their learning process, the direction in which to develop, and determine how best to achieve the required level
OO-goal: summarizing what the student has learned so far
« Data"- scores and levels of student groups
By changing the assessment, the OO can be transformed into an ODO
Working inside the “black box” (developing teacher self-esteem)
Effective questioning
Discussing the criteria with students
Peer and self-assessment
Providing feedback
Conceptual framework for teacher training:
(2 approaches to training)
1) critical
2) competent
Competent teacher: theory + practice
the need to develop pedagogical knowledge
Areas of knowledge: 1) technological
3) pedagogical
Subject knowledge- current knowledge of the subject being taught
9 Key Principles of Teaching and Learning:
Equipping the student with lifelong knowledge
Promote knowledge
Take into account prior study and experience
Support learning
Apply ODO and OO
Promote active student activity
Promote social and individual process
Provide informal training
Based on teacher training
Pedagogical aspect of knowledge (PAK) (Shulman 1986)
This is the unity of learning content and pedagogical knowledge
This promotes demonstration and presentation of science in a way that is accessible to the student.
Pedagogical knowledge- is a deep knowledge of the processes, practices and methods of teaching and learning, based on knowledge of the general educational framework
Technological knowledge- this is knowledge about teaching aids (video, media, information)
Technological aspect of knowledge (TAK)- this is knowledge of the way technological knowledge and subject knowledge interact
Talented and Gifted
Teachers beginning classes must view themselves as “talented observers”, continually seeking expressions of ability (Eyre and Lowe 2002)
Case Study (British Teaching Academy)
1 project- an expanded program with cognitive tasks for labor. with hearing
2 project- father-in-law assessing the well-being of children
3 project- involving parents in the process of identifying talent. And gifted
"Raising Talented and Gifted Children at Key Stage 1" (Cauchy 2006)
Freeman and Montgomery (1991) - checklists for identifying children's success (criteria):
Memory and knowledge - problem solving
Self-education - flexibility
Fast thinking - love of complexity
Problem solving - concentration
Making tasks more difficult
IGGY project- expansion of the curriculum online
Acceleration– development of students in accordance with the curriculum at a faster rate
Air (curriculum change model)
- content change
Changing Method
Change training
Age characteristics
The behavioral direction considers the use of experimental procedures to improve behavior in relation to the environment.
Cognitive direction
Gestalt theory- mental process of personality
Consciousness as an action or process of acquiring knowledge
Jean Piaget admitted environmental influence, but studied in the internal cognitive structure
4 types of mental growth:
Sensorimotor
Preoperative
Operational
Postoperative
Jerome Bruner- explored the possibilities of the relationship between the mental and teaching, emphasizing the importance of learning through discovery.
Attention
Hagen and Hale (1973) - demonstrated the development of attention in children 5-6 years old
Memory
1-Short-term (working)-through working memory we enter information and can work with it
(Atkinson and Shifrin 1968)
2- long-term - Tulving (three components:
Procedural
Episodic
Semantic (memories, rules, etc.)
Speech language learning is a complex process where a word and a fragment of speech is learned as a sequence
Creativity (Barron 2002)
It is an interpersonal and intrapersonal process through which brilliant ideas are developed.
Shulman (2007) - “competent teacher”
Judicial evidence is the procedural activity of the court and the parties to establish the factual circumstances of the case. After the court, with the help of the persons participating in the case, has formed the subject of proof, the parties have fulfilled the burden of asserting certain facts (onus preferendi), the court, taking into account the provisions of the law, has distributed the burden of proof between the parties (onus probandi), the stage of submitting evidence to the case follows and their research.
Expert opinion in the forensic evidence system
Evidence in relation to the established circumstance acts as a trace left by the sought-after fact. Due to the principle of immediacy, the court must personally perceive and examine any evidence (Part 1 of Article 10 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). For this reason, initial evidence takes precedence over derivatives, and direct evidence over indirect evidence. However, in a number of cases, the court cannot directly establish the factual circumstances of the case without the help of an experienced person with special knowledge. According to the definition of A.A. Eisman, special knowledge is not among the generally known, publicly available, and widely distributed, that is, it is the knowledge that only a narrow circle of specialists professionally possesses. In these cases, the procedural law makes an exception to the principle of immediacy of judicial knowledge - a forensic examination is appointed. Expertise in itself is not evidence; it is a way of researching factual information in order to obtain evidence - an expert’s opinion. Eisman A.A. Expert opinion. M., 1967. P. 91. Resolutions of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation) dated March 27, 2012 N 12888/11, dated July 27, 2011 N 2918/11. According to D.V. Goncharov and I.V. Reshetnikova, the expert’s conclusion can be equally classified as personal (since a specific person - an expert) conducts the research and draws up a conclusion, and physical evidence (since the result of the research is materialized in the form of a written conclusion). Forensic examination in the arbitration process / Ed. D.V. Goncharova, I.V. Reshetnikova. M., 2007. We believe that an expert opinion is personal evidence, since the evidentiary value is not so much information about the sought facts identified by the expert, but rather the conclusions that, using his special knowledge, the expert makes about these facts. The written form of the conclusion is nothing more than a form of expressing these conclusions externally, although it has important procedural significance. In Russian courts, personal evidence such as explanations of the parties and testimony of witnesses traditionally does not enjoy much confidence. The exception, of course, is the conclusion of a forensic expert. This is explained not only by the fact that the expert is warned about criminal liability for giving a knowingly false conclusion (the witness is warned about the same), but also by the special procedural position of the expert, whom the court, apparently, perceives as a figure close in status to itself. Like the court (and, let us also note, lawyers specializing in judicial representation), the expert, unlike all other participants in the process, carries out his activities on a professional basis and, therefore, must value his reputation. The special procedural status of a forensic expert is confirmed by the provisions of Part 2 of Article 86 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation), according to which if the expert, during the examination, establishes circumstances that are significant for the consideration and resolution of the case, about which he was not informed questions, he has the right to include conclusions about these circumstances in his conclusion. In other words, the expert, not being a person participating in the case, is empowered, along with the court, to participate in determining the subject of evidence, which, in our opinion, is unnecessary, since, as shown below, the expert does not have the right to give legal qualifications to the circumstances of the case. Separately, we note that Part 3 of Article 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation contains a provision according to which, if a party evades participation in the examination, fails to provide experts with the necessary materials and documents for the study, and in other cases, if, due to the circumstances of the case and without the participation of this party, it is impossible to carry out the examination, the court, depending on which party avoids the examination, as well as what significance it has for it, has the right to recognize the fact for the clarification of which the examination was appointed as established or refuted. This provision was introduced into the Civil Procedure Code by Federal Law of November 30, 1995 N 189-FZ “On Amendments and Additions to the Civil Procedure Code of the RSFSR.” This rule contains a presumption of the existence or absence of a fact to establish which an examination is appointed, depending on the behavior of the party. (Note that a similar presumption is laid down in part 1 of Article 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, according to which if a party obliged to prove its claims or objections withholds the evidence in its possession and does not present it to the court, the court has the right to justify its conclusions with the explanations of the other party. - Author's note) There is no such rule in the arbitration process, however, since part 6 of article 13 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation allows for the application of rules of law governing similar relations (analogy of law), then the provisions of part 3 of article 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, we believe, can be applied in the manner analogies of procedural law in arbitration disputes. In the Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 09. 04.2002 N 90-O expressly states that the possibility of the court using, in the event of a party’s evasion from participating in the examination, a legal presumption of recognition of a fact unfavorable for it, is due to the task of suppressing actions (inaction) of an unscrupulous party that impede the administration of justice and ensure further judicial procedures to establish and investigate factual circumstances affairs. In civil (arbitration) proceedings, the presumption “the court knows the law” applies. Therefore, on issues of a legal nature - for example, the presence and form of guilt of one of the parties to the dispute, the presence or absence of a legally significant cause-and-effect relationship between the offense and the losses caused, the legal capacity of a citizen, and not the nature of his illness, etc. - an examination cannot be appointed. These questions relate to the sphere of legal qualification of certain circumstances, which is the prerogative of the court. Experts are “witnesses of fact.” The expert's conclusion is always connected with other evidence in the case, as it is the result of their special study. Despite this, an expert opinion refers to primary and not derivative evidence, since the expert does not simply reproduce the facts, but analyzes them on the basis of special knowledge, providing the court with his conclusions - primary information about the facts. These features of the expert opinion, coupled with the form of the expert’s conclusions (categorical or probable), determine its evidentiary value. Note that if the object of a forensic examination is a written document in respect of which a statement of falsification was made, then only the original should be presented to the expert. In accordance with paragraph 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 20, 2006 N 66 “On some issues in the practice of application by arbitration courts of legislation on examination” (hereinafter referred to as the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation N 66), duly certified copies of the relevant documents are provided to the expert by virtue of the provisions of Part 6 of the article 71 and part 8 of article 75 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation only if the object of research is not the document itself, but the information contained in it. As the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation indicated in one of the cases, if it is impossible to conduct an examination due to the absence of the original document in the case materials, disputed on the grounds of forgery, it, as judicial evidence, does not meet the requirements of admissibility and reliability. See: Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 6, 2012 N 14548/11.Reasons for challenging a forensic expert opinion
As evidence, the expert’s opinion is examined along with other evidence in the case (Part 3 of Article 86 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). From the point of view of the law, no evidence (including an expert opinion) has pre-established force and does not have an advantage over other evidence (Part 2 of Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and Part 5 of Article 71 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure of the Russian Federation). Moreover, in accordance with Part 3 of Article 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the expert’s opinion is not necessary for the court and is assessed by the court according to the rules established in Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, that is, along with other evidence. According to paragraph 7 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) dated December 19, 2003 N 23 “On the Judicial Decision,” courts should keep in mind that the expert’s opinion, as well as other evidence in the case, is not the exclusive means of proof and must be assessed in conjunction with all the evidence available in the case. However, the assessment of an expert opinion has its own specifics. Assessing evidence is the quintessence of justice, the reason for which the entire trial is started. The court evaluates the reliability of the expert’s conclusions, as well as the reliability of any evidence available in the case, solely according to its internal conviction. The inner conviction of any judge is formed, among other things, on the basis of his life experience (including work experience preceding his judicial career), as well as common sense. According to M.Z. Schwartz, before the court evaluates the evidence and establishes facts on its basis, it does not have any knowledge of reality, against which, as the legislator established in Part 3 of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the evidence could be checked, as a result of which recognition of the evidence as reliable means something else - that it is worthy of trust on the part of the court, that is, it is recognized as capable of serving as a means of forming the court’s knowledge of the circumstances of the case. And precisely because reliability is established on the basis of a free but motivated assessment of evidence, it cannot be determined through compliance with reality. Moreover, the well-known problem of the nature of the truth established by the court (objective or formal) is precisely that what was established by the court in the decision will be considered to have actually taken place. Schwartz M.Z. On the issue of falsification of evidence in the arbitration process // Arbitration disputes. 2010. N 3. P. 85. Due to the fact that judicial evidence, in addition to its external - procedural side, also has an internal side - the mental, epistemological activity of a particular judge, in reality, an expert opinion obtained in the framework of a court case with the help of a “qualified witness of fact" (as an expert is sometimes called) can (and, as a rule, has) decisive importance in the eyes of the court. This is due to the fact that in practice, the court and the parties, when assessing an expert opinion for its reliability, experience serious difficulties, since the court, which does not have special knowledge in the disputed area, has no other tool other than internal conviction. For example, Article 8 of the Federal Law of May 31, 2001 N 73-FZ “On State Forensic Expert Activities in the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as Law N 73-FZ) prescribes that the expert’s conclusion should be based on provisions that make it possible to verify the validity and reliability of the findings conclusions based on generally accepted scientific and practical data. However, it is problematic to establish the reliability of conclusions made by a knowledgeable person on the basis of his special knowledge to a court that does not possess such special knowledge. It will be difficult for the court to assess whether the expert was provided with appropriate and sufficient materials for the research, whether the research was carried out with the necessary completeness, whether it is based on the application of modern scientific knowledge, and how justified the choice of a particular research method is. It is obvious that without the help of another knowledgeable person (an expert or specialist) with the necessary special knowledge, it is not possible for the court to carry out such a check. Often, courts solve this problem by referring to the mandatory warning of a forensic expert about criminal liability for giving a knowingly false conclusion. In their opinion, the expert who signed the report is also responsible for the reliability of the conclusions contained in it, which, despite the direct instructions of the law and the explanations of the highest judicial authorities, gives the expert report a priori credibility in the eyes of the court. Taking into account the foregoing, as well as the fact that most forensic examinations are carried out by non-state experts, to whom the requirements of Law N 73-FZ apply only partially, in the event of incompetence or dishonesty of the expert, which, unfortunately, often occurs in our legal reality, we risk receive an unfair decision based on an unreliable expert opinion. Two factors are of decisive importance for establishing the objective truth of the case under such circumstances: strict adherence to the procedural order of appointing and conducting a forensic examination and active procedural behavior (in the literal sense of the word competition) of the disputing parties. The purpose of the procedural form is that it is a system of guarantees of confidence in the court. It is the observance of the procedural form that makes a judicial decision a special, unique act of law enforcement. We believe that procedural law gives both the court and the parties sufficient opportunity to achieve true knowledge of the circumstances of the dispute. T.V. Sakhnova points out that an expert’s conclusion is the unity of factual data (the expert’s conclusions contained in it) and the form of their external expression (compliance of the conclusion with the requirements of procedural law). At the same time, both form and content are equally important when determining the evidentiary value of an expert’s opinion. Sakhnova T.V. Expertise in court in civil cases. M., 1997. pp. 59 - 60. Procedural codes and Law No. 73-FZ impose a number of mandatory requirements for the conduct of a forensic examination, the candidacy of an expert and the content of the conclusion itself:- compliance with the procedural procedure for appointing an examination;
- compliance with the procedural order of the examination;
- requirements for the qualifications (competence) of an expert;
- requirements for ensuring the objectivity and impartiality of the expert;
- requirements for the content of the expert report, in particular, the report must contain information warning the expert about criminal liability for giving a knowingly false report, and the expert’s conclusions must not contradict other parts of the report, for example, its research part.
Procedural methods of challenging an expert opinion
There is no special procedural procedure for refuting the reliability of an expert's opinion. The parties have the right to refute the reliability of any evidence presented by the other party with the entire body of evidence available in the case. And here the determining role will be played by the procedural activity of the opposing parties, who have the right, by any means provided for by procedural law, to point out to the court the contradictions and shortcomings in the expert opinion. According to Part 2 of Article 9 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, persons participating in the case bear the risk of the consequences of their commission or failure to perform procedural actions. As judicial practice shows, if a party challenges an expert opinion only by referring to a violation of its procedural rights, or to the incompetence of the expert, or to the probable nature of his conclusions, etc., this is due to the above reasons, in particular the special attitude of judges towards expert testimony. conclusion as judicial evidence is clearly not enough. It is necessary to actively use your procedural rights and seek from the court to summon and interrogate at a meeting the expert who conducted the study, obtain explanations from another specialist with special knowledge, order an additional or repeated examination, and the repeated examination, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, can be a commission or complex . At the very least, such a petition must be filed in the court of first instance. Even if it is rejected by the court, the very fact of its application, by virtue of Part 2 of Article 268 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, gives the right to again submit a similar petition when the case is reconsidered already in the appellate instance. If you disagree with the expert’s conclusions, the court has the right to order an additional or repeated examination or resolve the case on the merits on the basis of other evidence, if taken together they allow a true conclusion to be drawn about the factual circumstances of the case. In the latter case, the court must provide convincing arguments in the reasoning part of the decision why it rejects the expert’s opinion and resolves the case on the merits without ordering a re-examination. However, it is quite difficult to implement the last rule in practice, since an expert opinion is a source of new factual data that cannot be obtained by other procedural means. The results of a re-examination conducted by another expert must be assessed by the court as independent evidence, and not as a revision of the results of the initial examination. In one of the cases, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the court was unlawfully guided by the conclusion of the forensic examination only on the grounds that it was not refuted in the prescribed manner by ordering a repeat or additional examination. Noting the fallacy of this approach, the Presidium explained that, by virtue of Part 3 of Article 86 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court had to examine the substance of the expert report as one of the evidence in the case. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 29, 2005 N 14076/04. The conclusion of a repeated examination will not have any procedural priority over the conclusion of the initial one, and the conclusion of a commission examination performed by several experts will not have any procedural priority over the conclusion of one expert. Their evidentiary strength, other things being equal, will be determined by the degree of probability of expert conclusions, validity, absence of contradictions in expert conclusions, etc. . Resolution of the Presidium of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated 06/05/2013 N 9-ПВ12. Thus, the procedural methods of refuting an expert opinion are:- calling an expert to court and obtaining his explanations on the submitted conclusion;
- challenging the reliability of an expert opinion by presenting a specialist (expert) opinion containing different conclusions;
- challenging the reliability of the conclusion by pointing out the contradiction of the conclusions with other parts of the conclusion, for example, the research part;
- challenging the reliability of the expert opinion by pointing out its contradiction with other evidence available in the case;
- filing a petition to order an additional or re-examination, including with reference to a violation of procedural rights.
Epatko M.Yu., managing partner of the St. Petersburg Bar Association "Dernburg".
