• Like
  • Save
Contextual practice2033
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Contextual practice2033

on

  • 1,216 views

a study of practice for contextualization. please contex

a study of practice for contextualization. please contex

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,216
Views on SlideShare
1,216
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
29
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Contextual practice2033 Contextual practice2033 Presentation Transcript

    • Contextual Practice DCC 2033
    •  
    • Week1
      • Introduction to contextual Thinking
      • Overview
      • Definition – Types of definition
      • Logical Thinking- discussion
      • contextual thinking-  a method of diagnosis in which the practitioner evaluates a patient's symptoms as an individual segment in a complex continuum rather than an effect of a specific cause or influence.
    •  
      • Types of Definition  ©1999 Edward G. Rozycki
      • edited 2/14/09in Israel Scheffler  The Language of Education  (Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1968)
      • Descriptive- purporting to capture the common usage of the termStipulative- specifying a particular formulation as the meaning for a particular purpose with no concern for common usage.
      • Programmatic - a combination of the descriptive and stipulative for argumentative purposes
      • in Dagobert D. Runes, (ed.)  Dictionary of Philosophy  (New York: Philosophical Library, 1960)A. Syntactical (nominal) Definitions- primarily in logic, mathabstract: via relationships, e.g. integers from cardinalsrecursive: generated via reflexive application of relationships, e.g. successors to natural numbers
      • compositional: via multiple recursions, e.g. well-formed formulas
      • semantic: definiendum = definiens.
      • B. Real Definitions - attempt to capture "essence" of definiendum.in Paul Edwards (ed.)  The Encyclopedia of Philosophy  (New York: Free Press, 1967). Particularly, Raziel Abelson,  Definition , pp.314-324A. Essentialist Definitional Types - (Plato, Aristotle, Kant) distinguish between description and definition; seek "essential" characteristics, specifying genus and differentia.B. Prescriptive Definitional Types- (Hobbes, Russell) Formalisms, e.g.  soup = x+water - detergent B , or  zx = mRb.
      • C. Linguistic Definitional Types - (Mill, Moore, early ideal language analysts) - identifying "meaning" of term, e.g. phrase substitutions for terms or (EGR) operational definitions.
      • D. Pragmatic Definitional Types - look to context and usage.
      • oun1. logical thinking  - thinking that is coherent and logical
      • abstract thought ,  reasoning
      • cerebration ,  intellection ,  mentation ,  thinking ,  thought process ,  thought  - the process of using your mind to consider something carefully; "thinking always made him frown"; "she paused for thought"
      • analytic thinking ,  analysis  - the abstract separation of a whole into its constituent parts in order to study the parts and their relations
      • line of reasoning ,  logical argument ,  argumentation ,  argument ,  line  - a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning; "I can't follow your line of reasoning"
      • conjecture  - reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence
      • deductive reasoning ,  synthesis ,  deduction  - reasoning from the general to the particular (or from cause to effect)
      • illation ,  inference  - the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation
      • prediction ,  anticipation ,  prevision  - the act of predicting (as by reasoning about the future)
      • ratiocination  - logical and methodical reasoning
      • reasoning backward ,  regress  - the reasoning involved when you assume the conclusion is true and reason backward to the evidence
      • synthetic thinking ,  synthesis  - the combination of ideas into a complex whole
    • Week2
      • Fallacies
      • Fallacies of relevance
      • Group discussion
      • Assignment practice 1 :
      • In  logic  and  rhetoric , a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect  reasoning  in  argumentation . By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g.  appeal to emotion ), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g.  argument from authority ). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.
    •  
      • Description of Fallacies
      • In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more  premises  and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either  true or false ) that is offered in support of  the claim  being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).
      • There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that thepremises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
      • A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
      • Fallacies of Relevance
      • Informal Fallacies
      • Appeal to Force ( argumentum ad baculum )
      • Appeal to Pity ( argumentum ad misericordiam )
      • Appeal to Emotion ( argumentum ad populum )
      • Appeal to Authority ( argumentum ad verecundiam )
      • Personality is irrelevant to truth.
      • Ad Hominem  Argument
      • Again, personality is irrelevant to truth.
      • Appeal to Ignorance ( argumentum ad ignoratiam )
      • Irrelevant Conclusion ( ignoratio elenchi )
      • Finally, the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering an argument that actually provides support for an entirely different conclusion.
    • Week 3
      • Fallacies of Ambiguity
      • Arguments by Analogy
      • Group discussion
      • Fallacies of Ambiguity
      • Ambiguous Language
      • Equivocation
      • Really exciting novels are rare.
      • Amphiboly
      • Accent
      • The fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or written emphasis.
      • Composition
      • The fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to every individual member of a class (or part of a greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole).
    • Arguments by Analogy
      • In an argument by analogy it is claimed that if two things have certain characteristics (A) in common, then they are also probably have one or more additional traits (B) in common.  When done well the argument can lead to an increase in knowledge.  For example, Charles Darwin noted the similarities between animal and plant breeding (artificial selection) and natural selection in developing his theory of evolution.  But when done poorly or deceptively it can mislead, and is a leading  propaganda  tool.  Here is the basic form:
    • Week 4
        • Deductive and inductive reasoning, syllogism
      • Deductive and Inductive Thinking
      • In logic, we often refer to the two broad methods of reasoning as the  deductive  and  inductive  approaches.
      • Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approach. We might begin with thinking up a  theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses  that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect  observations  to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a  confirmation  (or not) of our original theories.
      • Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, we sometimes call this a "bottom up" approach (please note that it's "bottom up" and  not "bottom s  up" which is the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he's trying to close for the night!). In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.
      • These two methods of reasoning have a very different "feel" to them when you're conducting research. Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning. Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses. Even though a particular study may look like it's purely deductive (e.g., an experiment designed to test the hypothesized effects of some treatment on some outcome), most social research involves both inductive and deductive reasoning processes at some time in the project. In fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we could assemble the two graphs above into a single circular one that continually cycles from theories down to observations and back up again to theories. Even in the most constrained experiment, the researchers may observe patterns in the data that lead them to develop new theories.
    • Week 5
      • Creative thinking- Intro
      • Lecture and relevant class exercises.
      • Discussion in group/ pair
    •  
    • Week 6
      • Creative thinking
      • Practical on the creative thinking application
      •   Michael Michalko  unveils the secrets of creative genius and brings life-changing creative techniques within everyone's reach.  His arsenal of powerful creative thinking tools can be used to tackle virtually any type of technical problem and to create new ideas.  Without a doubt, his tools are the closest thing there is to a tactical instruction manual for thinking like a genius.  His tools will help you approach problems with new vision, and you will discover a world of innovative solutions to everyday, and some not-so-everyday, challenges.  Take this opportunity to explore and study Michael's creative thinking techniques, exercises, articles, and experiments.  A trip to your local library was never this worthwhile... or so much fun.
    • Week 7
      • Method of thinking
      • Group discussion 
      • Basically, this section is Part 2 of  Thinking Skills in Education  because problem-solving methods (like Design Method and Scientific Method) are just strategies for effectively combining familiar thinking skills in order to achieve a goal, to solve a problem.        ERIC Digests give tips for parents helping their children with problem-solving homework and summarize research about problem solving in science courses.
    • Week 8
      • Intro to mind mapping
      • Hand on for mind mapping
      • The background of mind mapping study
      • Research on Mind mapping
      • Mind map
      • The mind map can be contrasted with the similar idea of concept mapping. Mind maps and concept maps are different in that mind maps focus on  only  one word or idea, whereas concept maps connect multiple words or ideas.
    •  
    • Week 9
      • Practical in mind mapping  
      • Mind mapping software  can be used effectively to organize large amounts of information, combining  spatial  organization, dynamic hierarchical structuring and node folding. Software packages can extend the concept of mind mapping by allowing individuals to map more than thoughts and ideas with information on their computers and the internet, like spreadsheets, documents, internet sites and images.
      • Mind Maps
      • Popularized by Tony Buzan, Mind Maps abandon the list format of conventional note taking. Mind Maps are also useful for:
      • Summarizing information.
      • Drawing Simple Mind Maps
      • The original Mind Tools site was planned and researched using Mind Maps. To make notes on a subject using a Mind Map, draw it in the following way:
      • Improving your Mind Maps
      • Excess words just clutter the Mind Map.
      • It also makes your Mind Map easier to remember.
      • Mind Mapping is an extremely effective method of taking notes.
    • Week 10
      • Mind mapping discussion
      • History
      • Pictorial methods for recording knowledge and modelling systems have been used for centuries in learning,  brainstorming , memory,  visual thinking , and  problem solving  by educators, engineers, psychologists, and others. Some of the earliest examples of such graphical records were developed by  Porphyry of Tyros , a noted thinker of the 3rd century, as he graphically visualized the concept categories of  Aristotle . Philosopher  Ramon Llull  (1235–1315) also used such techniques.
      • The  semantic network  was developed in the late 1950s as a theory to understand human learning and developed further by  Allan M. Collins  and  M. Ross Quillian  during the early 1960s.
      • British  popular psychology  author  Tony Buzan  claims to have invented modern mind mapping. He claimed the idea was inspired by  Alfred Korzybski 's  general semantics  as popularized in science fiction novels, such as those of  Robert A. Heinlein  and  A.E. van Vogt . Buzan argues that while "traditional" outlines force readers to scan left to right and top to bottom, readers actually tend to scan the entire page in a non-linear fashion. Buzan also uses popular assumptions about the  cerebral hemispheres  in order to promote the exclusive use of mind mapping over other forms of note making.
      • The mind map continues to be used in various forms, and for various applications including learning and education (where it is often taught as "webs", "mind webs", or "webbing"), planning, and in engineering diagramming.
      • When compared with the  concept map  (which was developed by learning experts in the 1970s) the structure of a mind map is a similar radial, but is simplified by having one central key word.
    • Week 11-13
      • Hand on and tutorial
      • Good Luck and happy thinking…
    •