@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix skos: . @prefix ns0: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Non UBC"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; dcterms:contributor "Investigating Our Practices Conference (14th : 2011 : Vancouver, B.C.)"@en, "University of British Columbia. Faculty of Education"@en ; dcterms:creator "Fazal, Noorin"@en ; dcterms:issued "2011-09-16T23:24:51Z"@en, "2011-05-07"@en ; dcterms:description """[Conference Program Abstract] Why should educators teach their students the skills of critical questioning and what are possible pedagogical practices? As an educator at the secondary level, I constantly attempt to facilitate the processes of student inquiry. At IOP, I wish to share my research experiences in teaching critical thinking, particularly student questioning. My presentation aims to understand student questioning as a process, and to gain insight into student perceptions of this process and its purpose in the learning space. Through a five-week action research project, students engaged with critical questioning of video content using a framework called SEADS. Through co-teacher modeling and subsequent individual and collaborative practice, students explored the processes of critical questioning in the Religious Education context. As part of my presentation, I hope to interrogate definitions of critical thinking. I will share findings relevant to teaching and learning in the following areas: student curiosity, the nature of questioning, experiences using a critical questioning framework, and the process of questioning our own questions. Critical thinking—and questioning—must involve personal experience, it must be meta-cognitive and constructive in purpose. It must be approached with compassion, respect, and commitment. I propose a conceptualization of critical thinking that will inspire fellow educators to engage with critical questioning processes in their classrooms. These processes, though complex, are invaluable in providing spaces for learners to transform and be transformed by their own inquiry and that of others."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/37436?expand=metadata"@en ; skos:note "INVESTIGATING OUR PRACTICE:TEACHING AND LEARNINGPROCESSES FOR CRITICALQUESTIONINGNoorin Fazal, 2009INSPIRATION FROM A GERMAN POET“… try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language…”- Rilke, 1903 THE RESEARCH STUDY: 2009Context: A Grade 9/10 classroom in North Vancouver, BCResearch Question: How can I engage students in the process of critical questioning in the Canadian RE context?Sample Size: 10 studentsDuration of Study: 5 Weeks Qualitative, Action Research AIMS OF THE STUDYAs summarized by Dillon (1988) who writes, “the first pedagogical act is to understand. Practice follows, inspired by an appreciative and informative understanding of student questions—their service to learning and teaching, their place in the classroom, the conditions under which they emerge or hide, the process they follow from initial perplexity through to eventual learning” (p.7).CRITICAL THINKING AND CRITICALQUESTIONING IN THE LITERATURE “Critical thinking is skilled and active interpretation and evaluation of observations and communications, information and argumentation” (Fisher and Scriven 1997, p.21) Dillon (1988) suggests that “just as asking precedes answering in the questioning process, so do student questions precede teacher questions in the learning process … Students create a relationship between their question and the answers that are constructed” (p.7) Frameworks can aim to “identify the component processes, skills and abilities” involved in critical thinking (Moon 2008, p.41). CHOOSING A FRAMEWORK From Barell (2003)S Source What is the source? Who said it? In what setting or context? Is it believable?E Evidence What evidence is presented to support the claim? Is it objective, accurate, reliable, and representative?A Assumptions What assumptions are being made or implied? Are they realistic and valid?D Definitions What definitions of key terms are being used? Is the language clear, unambiguous, and specific?S Slant What is the slant, bias, or special interest reflected in the statement? What might be the motivation of the people who made the statement?DATA COLLECTION METHODS Observations, personal and collaborative reflections, audio recording, and student workPhase 1: Diagnostic (Purpose of Questions)Phase 2: Modeling and Practicing (SEADS Framework)Phase 3: Gaining Student Feedback (Good Question?)Phase 4: Metacognition (Reframing the Question) Phase 5: Reflection (Experience)* Please Note: Phases Overlapped INVESTIGATING OUR PRACTICE Students judge their own questions Student A: “A good question is almost everything”  Student A also mentioned the possibility of the ‘stupid’ question Students benefitted from a framework Student B: SEADS helped to think “deeper”  Student C: “Last week, I had said that SEADS “didn’t generate any Qs [questions] better than what I am capable of”. However, during this week’s family chat, SEADS did generate Qs, very very good Qs I believe”. Students need modeling and practice Co-teaching INVESTIGATING OUR PRACTICEStudents can meta-question Student D: “What governments are actually working & have been working at their MDG promises and plan to keep their 2015/2025 goal?” After SEADS, Student D: “ARE THERE ANY governments working towards their MDG promise & plan to keep their 2015/2025 goal?”INVESTIGATING OUR PRACTICEStudents expressed frustration Student E: “I feel it limits me to the questions I can ask and how to phrase them”Framework as a tool for learning Student E learned “about different situations people find themselves in” and that she “had more empathy towards them” as a result. She also wrote, “the videos meant the most to me because it helped me experience people’s lives and emotions” RECONCEPTUALIZING CRITICAL THINKING Modifying Scriven’s Definition:  “critical thinking is skilled and active interpretation and evaluation of experiencesand communications, information and argumentation, situated in a paradigm of compassion, respect, and commitment”. Modifying Barell’s Framework:  SEADS-P(ersonal) QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AS WE TEACHAm I creating space for my students to ask questions? How? Am I supporting the process of student questioning in the classroom? How?What is the role of emotion and experience in critical thinking?LAST THOUGHTS…“Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer.- Rilke, 1903REFERENCES Barell, J., 2003. Developing more curious minds. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.  Dillon, J.T., 1988. Questioning and Teaching. London: Croomhelm. Fisher, A & Scriven, M., 1997. Critical thinking: its definition and assessment. Edgepress and Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia. Moon, J., 2008. Critical thinking – an exploration of theory and practice. London: Routledge. "@en ; edm:hasType "Presentation"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0076552"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:peerReviewStatus "Unreviewed"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:rights "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International"@en ; ns0:rightsURI "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"@en ; ns0:scholarLevel "Unknown"@en ; dcterms:subject "Critical Thinking"@en ; dcterms:title "Investigating our practice : teaching and learning processes for critical questioning"@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/37436"@en .