Ex. 2. Listen to the tape and complete these extracts

Why study critical thinking?

1. Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. The ability to think …….. and …….. is important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, …….., finance, management or the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously …….. . But critical thinking skills are not …….. to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and …….. …….. systematically is an asset for any career.

2. Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy. The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on …….. …….. …….., and the ability … …….. information and …….. diverse sources of knowledge … …….. …….. . Good critical thinking …….. such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.

3. Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills. Thinking clearly and …….. can …….. the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyze the …….. …….. of texts, critical thinking also improves …….. …….. .

4. Critical thinking promotes creativity. To come up with a …….. …….. to a problem involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being …….. are useful and …….. to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in …….. new ideas, …….. the best ones and …….. them if necessary.

5. Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection. In order to live a meaningful life and to …….. our lives accordingly, we need to …….. and …….. on our values and decisions. Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of …….. .

Script 8

Ex. 3. Listen to the tape and tick skills, which were not mentioned.

Critical thinking is an essential tool in both academic writing and reading. Good critical thinkers are able to do the following:

- understand the difference between facts and opinions;

- evaluate information generated by observation;

- understand a variety of viewpoints;

- think logically;

- summarize;

- detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning;

- analyze;

- interpret information;

- sort out general and specific points;

- support and defend an opinion;

- make judgments;

- solve problems systematically;

- make inferences;

- draw conclusions;

- understand the logical connections between ideas;

- ask questions;

- view a topic objectively (unbiased);

- synthesize information from a variety of sources.

Introduction

Writing critically

In 1956, Bloom developed a classification of levels of intellectual behavior which is considered important in learning. Bloom identified six levels within the cognitive domain, from the simple recall or recognition of facts, as the lowest level, through increasingly more complex and abstract levels, to the highest level which is classified as evaluation. Most university level writing needs to involve writing at this high level.

The six categories are listed in below. The categories can be thought of as degrees of difficulty. That is, the first one must be mastered before the next one can be taken.

Category	Key Words	Associated Questions	Typical Question Instructions
Evaluation: Makes judgments about the value of ideas or materials for a given purpose in a given context. Presents and defends opinions by making judgments about information, validity of ideas or quality of work based on a set of criteria. Compares and discriminates between ideas. Recognises subjectivity	e.g. appraises, compares, concludes, contrasts, criticizes, critiques, defends, describes, discriminates, evaluates, explains, interprets, justifies, relates, summarizes, supports	Do you agree with the actions/outcomes...? What is your opinion of...? How would you prove/disprove...? Evaluate the outcome...	advise assess estimate evaluate judge rate recommend
Synthesis: Puts parts together to form a whole, with emphasis on creating a new meaning or structure – compiles information together in a different way by combining elements in a new pattern or proposing alternative solutions. Generalises from facts	e.g. categorizes, combines, compiles, composes, creates, devises, designs, explains, generates, modifies, organizes, plans, rearranges, reconstructs, relates, reorganizes, revises, rewrites, summarizes, tells, writes	What changes would you make to solve...? What would happen if...? Can you elaborate on the reason...?	arrange compose construct create design formulate manage organize plan prepare set up
Analysis: Examines and breaks information into parts by identifying motives or causes; making inferences and finding evidence to support generalizations. Includes analysis of elements, relationships and organizational principles. Recognizes hidden meanings. Distinguishes between facts and inferences	e.g. analyses, breaks down, compares, contrasts, diagrams, deconstructs, differentiates, discriminates, distinguishes, identifies, illustrates, infers, outlines, relates, selects, separates	What are the parts or features of...? How is _______ related to...? Can you show connection between...? How would you compare/contrast...?	analyze calculate categorize compare contrast criticize debate differentiate discuss distinguish examine experiment inspect
Application: Uses a concept in a new situation. Applies what was learned in the classroom into novel situations. Applies general ideas to concrete situations. Applies what is discussed in one paper to another paper. Predicts probable effects. Solves problems by applying acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules in a different way	e.g. applies changes, computes, constructs, demonstrates, discovers, manipulates, modifies, operates, predicts, prepares, produces, relates, shows, solves, uses	How would you use...? What examples can you find to...? Can you relate this information to the present situation?	apply demonstrate dramatize employ illustrate interpret operate practice schedule sketch use
Comprehension: Demonstrates understanding of facts and ideas by organizing, comparing, translating, interpreting, giving descriptions and stating main ideas. States a problem in own words. Knows what is being communicated and can make use of materials or ideas without necessarily relating it to other materials or seeing further implications. It includes: translation of verbal material into symbolic statements; interpretation of data; extrapolation – trends and tendencies	e.g. comprehends, converts, defends, distinguishes, estimates, explains, extends, generalizes, gives examples, infers, interprets, paraphrases, predicts, rewrites, summarizes, translates	How would you classify the type of...? What was the text about? Can you summarize the author's point of view?	classify describe distinguish explain express identify illustrate locate recognize report restate review tell translate
Knowledge: Recalls data or information. Shows knowledge of previously learned material by recalling facts, terms, basic concepts and answers. Has knowledge of specific facts & terminology; knowledge of ways and means – conventions, trends and sequences, classifications and categories, criteria, methodology; knowledge of universals and abstractions – principles & generalizations, theories and structure	e.g. defines, describes, identifies, knows, labels, lists, matches, names, outlines, quotes, recalls, recognizes, reproduces, selects, shows, states	What is...? How is...? Where is...? When did _______ happen?	define list name recall record relate repeat state underline

Therefore, in most academic writing it is important to analyze and evaluate or to write critically. Simple description is usually not enough. This means making connections between theory and practice, drawing links between theories, as well as evaluating theories and research. It means giving your opinions (positive and negative) on the work of others and your own opinions based on what you have learned. Critical evaluation requires you to evaluate arguments, weigh evidence and develop a set of standards on which to base your evaluation.

When writing critically, you need to:

- Analyze and categorize theories and research;

- Evaluate theories and research;

- Compare and contrast theories and research;

- Select from theories and research;

- Synthesise from theories and research;

- Make logical connections between theory and practice;

- Give opinions (positive and negative);

- Provide evidence for these opinions;

- Indicate gaps in theories and research;

- Weigh evidence and come to conclusions.

The following questions may be usefully asked about any text or author you refer to or make use of:

A. Purpose and background:

1. Why are you reading this text? What is your purpose?

2. What type of text is it: research report, essay, textbook, book review?

3. What do you know about the subject of the text?

4. What else has been written on the subject of the text?

5. What controversies exist in this area? How does this text fit in?

B. The author and the text:

1. Who is the author? What do you know about the author? What authority does the author have?

2. Who is the intended audience?

3. What is the author's purpose? Why has the text been written?

4. What is the source of the text? Is it reputable? Who is the publisher? What reputation to they have?

5. What is the date of publication? Is it appropriate to the argument?

6. What is the writer's attitude towards the topic?

7. What conclusions are drawn?

C. Evidence used:

1. Is there a clear distinction between fact and opinion?

2. Is evidence used to support arguments? How good is the evidence? Are all the points supported?

3. In an experimental study, was the sample size adequate and are the statistics reliable?

4. Are there any unsupported points? Are they well-known facts or generally accepted opinions?

5. How does the writer use other texts and other people's ideas?

6. Are the writer's conclusions reasonable in the light of the evidence presented?

7. How do the conclusions relate to other similar research?

D. Assumptions made:

1. What assumptions has the writer made? Are they valid?

2. What beliefs or values does the writer hold? Are they explicit?

3. Look at the language that is used, e.g. active/passive verbs, nominalisations, pronouns, ergative verbs, articles, etc. Is it always possible to identify particpants and processes? e.g. compare: the government increased taxes; they increased the taxes, taxes were increased; taxes increased; the taxes increased, there was an increase in taxes

4. Look for emphatic words such as it is obvious, definitely and of course.

5. Look for hedges: possible, might, perhaps.

6. Look for emotional arguments, use of maximizes: completely, absolutely, entirely, or minimizes: only, just, hardly, simply, merely.

7. How else could the text have been written?

As always, all your points of view must be supported.

Language: Commenting on another point of view

Negatively

They X This	is/are may be seem(s) to be would seem to be	somewhat rather	mistaken. wrong. rigid. inadequate.
X's	approach position methods beliefs

Positively

I agree with X when he

writer says

that …

X is certainly correct X may be correct	when he	says	that …
in saying

Plus positive words: correct, right, accurate.

Ex. 4. Read the following book review by Olga Semnova:

In sadness

Leonard Schapiro was exceptionally well-qualified to write a book on 1917. A leading academic authority on the Bolsheviks (Professor at the LSE, author of The Communist Party of the Soviet Union etc.), he witnessed the Russian revolution as well. Schapiro completed 1917 in 1983, just before he died. His book is the distillation of a lifetime's teaching and reflection on the Russian revolution. It is both a concise and lucid narrative and a highly-charged piece of political analysis.

As narrative, 1917 fills a surprising gap in the literature on the subject. There are a large number of detailed studies of different aspects of the revolution, some of them brilliant works of scholarship. But no simple, comprehensive account of the two revolutions and the civil war exists. Schapiro's book is brief, but covers all the main points with absolute clarity. It also incorporates the conclusions of the most important recent research on the subject. The reader gets both an excellent introduction to the Russian revolution and an idea of how new material is causing thinking about it to change.

The value of Schapiro's analysis is more questionable. Schapiro was old and rigid, an adherent of the cold war/totalitarianism school. His interpretation of the Russian revolution is crude and unashamedly biased. He hates the Bolsheviks. He looks at the Russian revolution purely from the point of view of political power.

Schapiro's thesis goes roughly as follows. After the disintegration of the monarchy in February 1917, there was general support in the country for a broad-based socialist coalition. This quickly came to mean support for the Soviets, rather than for the Provisional Government. However, support for the Soviets did not mean support for the Bolsheviks, but for the 'traditional ideals of Russian socialism', represented by the SRs and, especially, the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks were a small band of disciplined fanatics. They were able to seize power in October because no one organized to stop them. They held on to it by annihilating their opponents, ruthlessly manipulating public opinion and militarizing the economy. Right up to 1924, they were 'a largely unpopular party'. The first choice of a majority of the population would have been 'some form of moderate socialism'.

While it is undoubtedly true that the Bolsheviks were unscrupulous in their choice of methods and that they were not supported by a majority of the population when they seized power. Schapiro's thesis is prejudiced, one-sided and out-dated.

Schapiro's hostility to Leninism (which he sees as the precursor of Stalinism) leads him to maintain a position on the Bolsheviks which has been shown to be wrong. He presents them as an autocratically run and conspiratorial organization, staffed by a group of men whose opinions were (with rare exceptions) uniform. Recent research, however, including that of Rabinowitch (whom Schapiro himself quotes), has shown that the Bolshevik party was not a homogeneous body, but a collection of committees. Each of these tended to run its own affairs independently and take initiatives of its own, regardless of the opinions and instruction of the Central Committee.

Other problems with Schapiro's work stem from the fact that he was an old-fashioned political historian. 1917 is based on the premise that it is possible to understand the Russian revolution purely in terms of political power, without reference to social or economic questions.

This, firstly, leads Schapiro into errors of interpretation. He concentrates exclusively on the mechanics of the Bolshevik seizure of power. This approach allows him to avoid discussing the appeal which the Bolsheviks' programme held for industrial workers and peasants. He seriously underestimates the degree of popular support which the Bolsheviks enjoyed: the strong power base which, by October, they had in the cities; and the enthusiasm generated by their land policy in the countryside, which was probably the crucial factor in their victory in the civil war.

Secondly, Schapiro's purely political orientation affects his choice of period. He picks the dates 1917–1924 because they delimit the transfer of political power. But, for any real understanding of the Russian revolution, one needs to go both further back and further forward. 1917 is not the right point at which to start. The events of that year make sense only if viewed in the context of the rapid industrialization of Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 1924 is not a good place at which to stop, because the most dramatic changes resulting from the Bolshevik takeover – the social and economic transformation of Russia undertaken by Stalin didn't happen until 1928–1933. Schapiro doesn't consider these events part of the Russian revolution. Younger historians, however, would argue that they were and that a revolution should he defined as the period of upheaval, social and economic as well as political, which intervenes between the fall of an old regime and the firm consolidation of a new one. This is the approach taken by Sheila Fitzpatrick, in her recent appraisal of the Russian revolution, a work which forms an interesting contrast to Schapiro's.

Schapiro's enduring advantage over more modern historians, however, is that he lived in Petrograd as a boy (from 19l7–920). This has helped him to bring what is essentially just a well written text book to life. He has managed to breathe into it something of the feel of the time – the euphoria, excitement and suffering of revolutionary Russia.

(New Statesman, 20 April 1984)

The review contains both positive and negative comments on the book. Look at the 10 paragraphs and decide whether or not they are positive or negative. Mark the parts of the text which give you this information.

Paragraph	Evaluation (+ or –)	Examples of language which give you this information

Ex. 5. Watch video aided instructions «Expressing yourself creatively», fulfill the given tasks.