Introduction
Human beings are characterized by a great plasticity of body and mind; however, this plasticity can be narrowed by habit and by the fears of the unknown. While the power of thought is threatened by trivia, by the enormous spill of information present today, such power is necessary for man’s survival as a species. As people approach the limits of the abundance of the earth people need to learn anew how to plan and construct a humane and lasting world. To do that people needs to mobilize fully the creative possibilities of the mind. But people’s knowledge of thinking is still limited. While one can be awed by the accomplishments of the gifted in the arts and sciences, man’s study of thought has largely ignored him (John-Steiner1997). The basic assumption that governs this work is that a powerful resource for the understanding of thinking is provided by the self-knowledge of the creative individuals in every person. Thought is embedded in the structure of the mind. One way to think of this structure is to view it as formed by networks of interlocking concepts, of highly condensed and organized clusters of representations. Some of these concepts are pulled rather easily into consciousness, while others become accessible only when an individual, confronted by new challenges, conjoins and transforms inner thoughts into overt and communicable forms that can be shared (John-Steiner1997). Thinking is needed in all aspects of living. The study of thinking has branched out to other things. This paper takes a look at critical thinking and how critical thinking becomes a tool for administrative managers. This paper will have discussions on sponge style of thinking and panning for gold thinking.
Main Discussion
The study of thinking
The study of thinking and problem solving is organized into fairly broad areas such as reasoning, planning, and decision making, and within each area into families of tasks such as syllogistic reasoning, decision making under uncertainty, and planning in move problems. Even within specific tasks it is clear that individuals vary in how they tackle them, and that individuals vary over time. Verbal protocols have proved useful for investigating the strategy repertoire for a variety of reasoning tasks. Unfortunately, people often cannot explain their thought processes, especially unconscious ones, and so instead they are asked to externalize what they are thinking about while reasoning (Roberts & Newton 2004). Failure to address the attitudinal and normative dimensions of thinking results in an imbalance in perspective. There are important differences between those features of thinking highlighted by philosophers working in the critical thinking movement and the general approach to thinking fostered by cognitive psychologists and educators influenced by them (Idol & Jones 1990).
And although there is much that each field is beginning to learn from the other, learning can fruitfully take place only if some of the significant differences between these two traditions are set out in clear relief and due emphasis is given to both traditions. Philosophers do not tend to approach the Micro skills and macro-processes of thinking from the same perspective as cognitive psychologists. Intellectual skills and processes are approached, not from the perspective of the needs of empirical research, but from the perspective of personal, rational control. The philosophical is a paragon-centered approach to thinking. Thinking is always the thinking of some actual person, with some egocentric and socio centric tendencies, with some particular intellectual traits, involved in the problems of a particular life. This need to understand one's own mind, thought, and action cannot be eliminated with information from empirical studies about aspects or dimensions of thought (Idol & Jones 1990). There are different dimensions of thinking and it includes cognitive processes such as conceptualizing, principle formation, comprehending, composing, oral discourse, scientific enquiry, problem solving, and decision making; core thinking skills such as representation, summarizing, and elaboration; critical thinking; creative thinking and the role of content knowledge (Woll 2001).
These dimensions were not conceptualized as a hierarchical taxonomy of mutually exclusive categories of thinking. From the outset, the dimensions were seen as providing a framework for conceptualizing research on thinking as well as curriculum and instruction. The thinking operations themselves were seen as frequently overlapping and nonlinear in their relations, often used in clusters that function recursively, and often engaged simultaneously. Thus, the learner could be thinking both critically and creatively at the same time or use a core thinking skill such as summarizing as a means to some comprehension monitoring or problem solving (Woll 2001). The study and understanding of thinking initiated the creation of critical thinking.
Critical Thinking
Critical systems thinking seeks to draw on the respective strengths of social theory and systems thinking. Social theory provides material for the enhancement of existing and the development of new systems approaches. Not all the theoretical distinctions drawn by social scientists make a difference when applied in the real-world, but some are of considerable importance and must be regarded as crucial for systems practice (Jackson 2001). Critical skills comprise the ability to reflect upon, to question effectively, and to suspend judgment or belief in the relevant knowledge. Simply, this conception is concerned with teaching students how knowledge works in a particular discipline. Knowledge tends to be viewed as personal, discipline-specific, complex, constantly evolving, and subject to reinterpretation and assessment from different perspectives (Bond & Phillips 2004). Critical thinking is a disciplined process of analyzing, synthesizing, or evaluating information resulting from observation, reasoning, or reflection, based upon intellectual values that apply to all areas of human experience (Olson & Smith 2000). Authentically critical thinking moves in an emancipatory direction with an omnipresent sense of self-awareness. Moving in an emancipatory direction implies a concern with the development of a liberated mind, a critical consciousness, and a free society. It has been in this epistemological context that psychologized critical thinking programs or uncritical critical thinking has been developed, Trapped within a modernist logic, uncritical critical thinking was hyper rationalized, reduced to a set of micro logical skills that promote a form of procedural knowledge. In its reductionism this uncritical critical thinking removed the political and ethical dimensions of thinking. The uncritical critical thinkers gained little insight into the forces that had shaped them, that is, their consciousness construction (Anderson & Weil 2000). In addition, the mainstream critical thinking movement was virtually unconcerned with the consequences of thinking, viewing cognition as a process that takes place in a vacuum. Thinking in a new way always necessitates personal transformation; indeed if enough people think in new ways, social transformation is inevitable. The nature of this social and personal change was not important to uncritical critical thinking advocates. Uncritical critical thinking advocates were unable to transcend the boundaries of formal thinking as they reduced thinking to the micro logical skills, they taught a fragmented version of scientific thinking (Anderson & Weil 2000). Although the ability to think critically has always been important, it is a vital necessity for the citizens of the 21st century. Every generation needs more education than the one that came before because the world is becoming increasingly technical and complex. There is an increased demand for a new type of worker, one who can carry out multi step operations, manipulate abstract and complex symbols and ideas, acquire new information efficiently, and remain flexible enough to recognize the need for continuing change and for new paradigms for lifelong learning. Workers in almost every job category can expect to face novel problems in a workplace that is changing repeatedly. Familiar responses no longer work, and even newly acquired ones won't work for long. The information explosion is yet another reason why people need to provide specific instruction in thinking (Halpern 2003).The sheer magnitude of the information glut is a good example of how much the world is changing because quantities of knowledge are no longer measured in number of words or pages, but in units that most people can only vaguely comprehend. The world now has an incredible wealth of information available, quite literally at man’s fingertips, via the Internet and other remote services with only a few minutes of search time on the computer and a few clicks of a mouse (Halpern 1996).The quantity of data that is available is overwhelming, creating a paralysis of analysis as people make choices about how to select information from the ever-expanding database. Relevant, credible information has to be selected, interpreted, digested, evaluated, learned, and applied or it is of no more use on a computer screen than it is on a distant library shelf. The twin abilities of knowing how to learn and knowing how to think clearly about the rapidly proliferating information that people must select from are the most important intellectual skills for the 21st century. The information glut and the constantly changing workplace are not the only reasons why critical thinking is more critical now than at any previous time in history. The decisions people make as individuals and as a society with regards to the economy, conservation of natural resources, and the development of nuclear weapons will affect future generations (Halpern 1996). Critical thinking is important because it helps businesses and society adjusts to the changes in advancements in technology, information availability and decision making. Critical thinking requires one to have an open mind that can accept all information needed by the society or organization one belongs to. Critical thinkers need to know how to use all their senses. Critical thinkers must have the will to think and have the ability to think clearly. The condition of critical thinking encourages the individual to explore and investigate the assumptions, biases, and end-results of the decisions of another, regardless of the critical thinking in organizations position or veracity of the individual within the society. This is of critical importance in organizations, as there is evidence that the informal and formal culture of an organization often preclude critical thinking in favor of belonging to a group of decision makers and their attending philosophical opinions (Natale & Ricci 2006).Reflection and reflective practice have been gaining validity in recent years within higher education and workplace learning generally, particularly in the fields of professional, management and more recently organization development. Through the process of critical reflection, adults come to interpret and create new knowledge and actions from their ordinary and sometimes extraordinary experiences. Critical reflection blends learning through experience with theoretical and technical learning to form new knowledge constructions and new behaviors or insights. Critical reflection confronts the client with a tension between a role of pleasing their internal members and a change agent role that asserts to participants that they cannot choose not to consume the product, and sets expectations that they fully engage. They need to have verbal and/or written expressions and have full use of the concepts of reflection, observation, experience and reasoning (Rigg & Trehan 2008). Critical thinking helps administrative managers to make decisions that will benefit the firm and make it competitive in these changing times. It helps managers determine which actions would give benefit to the firm.
Sponge style of thinking and Panning for gold thinking
By exploring the other style, one also gains deeper insights into oneself and begins to expand one's own perspective. One learns what it is like to experience things from a radically different point of view. This allows one to appreciate reality in a more coherent way, because one begins to see the world as both ordered and chaotic, instead of as one or the other. Usually, these explorations can be carried out without having to abandon the strengths of one's natural thinking style and without the risk of losing one's identity. In fact, it would be rare for a person to completely switch from being one type of thinker to the other. Ideally, one could achieve a more integrated thinking style by drawing on and combining the elements of both ordered and chaotic thinking. There are some risks in doing so, but for the most part trying to integrate the two styles can be beneficial. There are, in fact, many ways of trying to achieve a balance between ordered and chaotic thinking (Sternberg & Zhang 2001). For example, most ordered thinkers regard tools as having a specific purpose and tend to take them too seriously, whereas most chaotic thinkers tend not to take them seriously enough and fail to give them proper respect (Sternberg & Zhang 2001).
Whereas ordered thinkers usually want to use the right tool for the right task, chaotic thinkers often use whatever tool is handy, apart from its intended purpose, such as trying to use a screwdriver as a crowbar. A balanced perspective would say, in effect, that in many situations any tool will do, but hat there are certain situations in which one would only want to use certain tools. Part of achieving this integration is learning to recognize when a particular thinking style is most appropriate. This is another reason why it is helpful to actually practice the techniques of the opposite style (Bettle & Finke 1996). Most situations lend themselves more naturally to one style or the other; by combining the two styles, one gains the capacity to deal with a wider variety of situations. In general, one could work toward achieving long-range goals while appreciating and attending to the needs of the moment. If one were an ordered thinker, one might consider postponing or restructuring one's original plans if the context of the moment suddenly changed, without worrying that the plans were now ruined (Bettle & Finke 1996).
One could also strive to make one's principles and ideals more metaphorical. If one were a chaotic thinker, one might consider responding to the needs of the moment by thinking about possible plans for the future, without worrying about becoming inhibited by them. One could also strive to temper impulsiveness with foresight (Bettle & Finke 1996).Critical Thinking can have different approaches or styles for it to work well. Sponge style of thinking makes sure that all necessary information is acquired before processing and then making decisions based on the information and the thinking process. Sponge style of thinking takes some time before the effect is known. Panning for gold thinking focuses on identifying situations or information that will help in the thinking process. In this style the best information is integrated with the thinking process to try to come up with the best result as possible.
Conclusion
Thinking is needed in all aspects of living. The study of thinking has branched out to other things. The study and understanding of thinking initiated the creation of critical thinking. Critical thinking is important because it helps businesses and society adjusts to the changes in advancements in technology, information availability and decision making. . Sponge style of thinking makes sure that all necessary information is acquired before processing and then making decisions based on the information and the thinking process. Panning for gold thinking focuses on identifying situations or information that will help in the thinking process.
References
Anderson, H & Weil, D (eds.) 2000, Perspectives in critical
Thinking: Essays by teachers in theory and practice, Peter
Lang, New York.
Bettle, J & Finke, RA 1996, Chaotic cognition: Principles
and applications, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bond, C & Phillips, V 2004, Undergraduates' experiences of
critical thinking, Higher Education Research & Development,
vol.23, no.3, pp. 227-294.
Halpern, DF 2003, Thought & knowledge: An introduction to
critical thinking, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah,
N.J.
Halpern, DF 1996, Thinking critically about critical
thinking, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Idol, L & Jones, B (eds.) 1990, Dimensions of thinking and
cognitive instruction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Jackson, MC 2001, Critical systems thinking and practice,
European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 128, pp.234-
244.
John-Steiner, V 1997, Notebooks of the mind: Explorations
of thinking, Oxford University Press, New York.
Natale, S & Ricci, F 2006, Critical thinking in
organizations, Team Performance Management, Vol. 12, No.7,
pp.272-277.
Olson, I & Smith, RA (eds.) 2000, The arts and critical
thinking in American education, Bergin & Garvey, Westport,
CT.
Rigg, C & Trehan, K 2008, Critical reflection in the
workplace: is it just too difficult?, Journal of European
Industrial Training, vol.32, no.5, pp.374-384.
Roberts, MJ & Newton, EJ (eds.) 2004, Methods of thought:
individual differences in reasoning strategies, Psychology
Press, Hove, England.
Sternberg, RJ & Zhang, L 2001, Perspectives on thinking,
learning and cognitive styles, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ.
Woll, S 2001, Everyday thinking: Memory, reasoning, and
judgment in the real world, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ.
0 comments:
Post a Comment