http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ For Argument's Sake en Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:14:35 +0000 http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=57#post-148 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:39:12 +0000 David 148@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>That would certainly seem to clarify this point and it does represent a change from the old specification. Thank you for spotting it.</p> <p>I noticed today that appeals were also conflated with Flaws on the Summer 2006 paper. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=57#post-147 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:31:47 +0000 FajrC 147@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>thanks for this Roy</p> <p>Whilst marking the Jan 09 Unit 2 I have found the following in the examiners report which clarifies the situation regarding the specification..</p> <p>"It is wrong to conflate appeals with flaws, and the specification treats them as separate." </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=57#post-146 Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:27:10 +0000 Royvdbb 146@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Appeals are flaws only when the nature of the appeal is irrelevant or inadequate for the inference drawn. Thus the argument 'The majority of the UK population does not believe that climate change is as a result of human activity. Therefore climate change is not caused by human activity' is flawed because the appeal to popularity is irrelevant to the truth of whether climate change is caused by human activity. However the argument 'The majority of the UK does not believe that climate change is caused by human activity. Therefore the Government will find it difficult to get people to change their behaviour in order to reduce the impact of climate change' is not flawed. In this second example, the appeal to popularity is relevant to the inference being drawn. Thus appeals in themselves are not flaws. They are the source of a flaw only when they are used irrelevantly. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=56#post-145 Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:40:38 +0000 FajrC 145@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Aside from the definition...</p> <p>I would hope (as I tell my students) that if it isn't in the specification then it will not be asked. I teach AS in a lesson a week and can just about cover what is in the specification. I can't start adding things that aren't!</p> <p>I've found another issue with a bought resource that they list/name flaws that aren't in the spec. I find this a little naughty as they claim to be endorsed by OCR and it becomes confusing for students and for myself. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=57#post-144 Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:36:33 +0000 FajrC 144@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Working on the OCR Legacy May 09 paper qu 32 asks for a flaw in the text.</p> <p>However the markscheme identifies an appeal as the answer.</p> <p>I appreciate this is legacy but I have 2 questions:</p> <p>1. Can appeals be classed as flaws, as they don't always weaken arguments?</p> <p>2. If the new spec outline lists them seperately and does not say that appeals should be recognised as flaws in some contexts, should we be telling students to consider appeals when asked to identify a flaw?</p> <p>Thanks </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=56#post-143 Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:58:46 +0000 Royvdbb 143@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>You make a very useful point, David. If the term 'report' is being used as having an agreed meaning, then this meaning should appear in the spec (and in any relevant glossaries). A report can be an explanation, and also include an argument and a dispute, so the waters start getting muddy. </p> <p>The Shorter OED includes the following in its lengthy account of the word used as a noun: 'an account brought by one person to another'; 'a formal statement of the results of an investigation...'; 'a statement made by a person...'; 'a formal account of a case argued and determined in any court' [hence 'The Times Law Reports]; 'an account...of the statements made by a speaker or speakers (as in a debate...)...'.</p> <p>Unfortunately, in this example, you arrive at the answer, not by having a measured definition to use, but by excluding (a), (c), and (d). </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=56#post-142 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:12:19 +0000 David 142@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>This multiple choice question comes from the sample multiple choice exam in the current Heinemann pack:</p> <p>Most of the best band names - The Beatles, The Clash, Oasis, U2, Coldplay, The Arctic Monkeys - have been taken. Lawyers advise new bands to use the MySpace website to check if someone else has already taken their name. There are many names that can easily be confused - Joe Lean and the Jing Jang Jong, for example, is not only quite a strange name, but easily confused with the Jing Jings and the Ting Tings.</p> <p>The passage above can best be described as:</p> <p>a) a dispute<br /> b) a report<br /> c) an argument<br /> d) an explanation</p> <p>The mark scheme insists that the answer is B - a report. The commentary on the mark scheme says that the passage is not an argument "because it does not give reasons to support a conclusion." and that it is not an explanation "because it is not telling us how or why somethins is the case. It is just telling us some facts about band names."</p> <p>My main problem with this question is that the word "report" does not appear anywhere in the unit content section of the specification.</p> <p>Page 13 of the specification says: "Candidates should recognise and be able to explain the difference between an explanation and an argument." No mention of "a report."</p> <p>If candidates are expected to be able to identify a passage as "a report", would anyone like to offer a definition of a what a report might be and a reliable way of distinguishing a report from an argument and an explanation? </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=27#post-141 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:36:15 +0000 David 141@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>I have uploaded a copy of this. The link is: <a href="http://www.thekjs.essex.sch.uk/yates/Documents/images/OCR%20News.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://www.thekjs.essex.sch.uk/yates/Documents/images/OCR%20News.jpg</a></p> <p>If it is not true that Critical Thinking improves attainment elsewhere, then I would argue that there is no point in the subject being taught! Like you, I have anecdotal evidence from students and other staff that there is a transferrable benefit but I would agree that there is a need for further research. Critical thinkers, more than anyone, should be prepared to question the validity of such claims.</p> <p>First of all, the research was conducted by OCR's parent organisation. OCR clearly have a vested interest.</p> <p>There are several aspects of the study, as it is reported, that look convincing. The sample size would appear to be good and the comparison was apparently made between students of similar ability. Because of these positive factors, my conclusion is that this is a reliable study to quote in argument, although it is important to acknowledge the need for further research.</p> <p>As we all know, correlation does not, on its own, prove causation. Therefore, just because there is a link between taking CT and getting good A Level results, it does not necessarily follow that it was the taking of CT that caused the good results. A question I would like to see answered is whether or not there is any other factor at work. For example, is there an important difference between the schools/colleges that offer CT and those that don't which might have an influence? </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=27#post-140 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:48:33 +0000 FajrC 140@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>CT students themselves have told me that their CT studies have 'helped' in a variety of other subjects ( I teach them AS at KS4 so it helps them with their GCSEs).</p> <p>How to prove that it then improves their grade is a different matter.</p> <p>David - do you have a link to this claim? </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=55#post-139 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:41:13 +0000 par1704 139@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Hello,</p> <p>Does anyone have the specimen exam materials (2008 spec - resource booklet, exam paper, mark scheme) for Unit One (F501)? If so, I would be very grateful to receive them by e-mail as .pdf files. OCR's site is experiencing some technical problems and so I can't download the items that I need.</p> <p>Many thanks,</p> <p>Paul Richardson<br /> (prichardson@svlp.org.uk) </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=27#post-138 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:34:05 +0000 Coruscator 138@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>'and a hook I use to persuade bright kids to take up Critical Thinking' -- if there's no good evidence for CT's ability to raise results in other subjects, aren't you being disingenuous? I teach CT and, while I love the subject, can't bring myself to deploy such a suspect arguent to sell the course to students. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=54#post-137 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:57:58 +0000 David 137@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>The following analogy is reported in today's Telegraph:</p> <p>"Unsupervised surfing is like letting them roam the streets, says No 10 adviser"</p> <p>The professor, who was commissioned by Gordon Brown to investigate the harmful effects of video games and websites, said parents needed to think more about the dangers of the internet.</p> <p>Because they had not grown up with such technology many did not know the threats and felt unprepared to deal with them, she argued.</p> <p>Speaking in London at the annual conference of the organisation The Voice of the Listener and Viewer, she said: "A lot of parents don't realise that it's the same as opening the door and going out into the street, opening that [internet] browser."</p> <p>Because children were often not allowed outside the real front door, due to dangers she felt in many cases were overstated, they were increasingly turning to the internet for their thrills instead.</p> <p>"An integral part of development is risk taking," she said. "Children are taking risks online because we live in a risk-averse culture."</p> <p>For example, said Prof Byron, who has two children, it was "crazy" that some children were now banned from playing conkers at school.</p> <p>Just as her parents generation had to be told to put on seatbelts in the car, so today's parents had to be educated about the dangers the internet held for their children, she said.</p> <p>"I remember 'Clunk-clip' when I was a child. Now we need 'Clunk-click," she said, referring to clicking a computer mouse.</p> <p>Prof Byron, who is Chancellor of Edge Hill University in Lancashire, described parents and other adults as "digital immigrants" who were unfamiliar with the new media world, in which children were the "natives".</p> <p>Parents "not born with this technology" needed to think about what exactly their children were watching, surfing, or playing online, she said.</p> <p>Children should only be free to roam the internet when they were prepared for it.</p> <p>"It's analogous to deciding when to let my kids go to the sweetshop or make their way to school on their own," she said.</p> <p>Professor Sonia Livingstone of the London School of Economics told the conference that the dangers were "considerable".</p> <p>An EU-wide study found 40 per cent of teenagers had been exposed to pornography online, 20 per cent had been bullied and 10 per cent had met someone in the real world they had 'met' in a chatroom or a social media site.</p> <p>In addition, the numbers of children able to surf the internet unsupervised is growing fast.</p> <p>In the last two years the proportion of 12 to 15-year-olds with internet access in their bedrooms has almost doubled, from 20 to 35 per cent.</p> <p>Facebook is the sixth most popular site among six to 11-year-olds, she discovered hidden in a report by Ofcom, the media regulator.</p> <p>She commented: "I'm intrigued that Facebook is there given that you are not allowed to be on Facebook until you are 13."</p> <p>YouTube was the eighth most popular site for children that age and eBay the ninth. The only site specifically aimed at children in the top ten was Disney - at number 10.</p> <p>In early December the UK Council for Child Internet Safety delivers its recommendations on how industry, Government and parents can best protect children online.</p> <p>It was launched in March to answer questions raised by Prof Byron's report, Safer Children in a Digital World, which she was asked to write by Gordon Brown. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=53#post-136 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:22:10 +0000 David 136@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>This is a good example for Unit One, from today's Daily Telegraph.</p> <p>I know that today's children know less about History than we would wish but I really think the claims of their ignorance in this study are going too far.</p> <p>Students should pick up on the fact that the organisation carrying out the study have a vested interest but the sample size and the age range of the children surveyed are reasonable.</p> <p>What we can't tell from the article is how the survey was conducted. My guess is it was either a multiple choice or true/false questioning.</p> <p>From the Telegraph (05 Nov 2009):</p> <p>One in 20 schoolchildren thought Adolf Hitler was a coach of the German football team, a survey said.</p> <p>And one in six youngsters said they thought Auschwitz was a Second World War theme park while one in 20 said the Holocaust was a celebration at the end of the war.</p> <p>The survey for a veterans' charity also found one in 10 thought the SS stood for Enid Blyton's Secret Seven, and one in 12 believed the Blitz was a European clean-up operation following the Second World War.</p> <p>Scottish-based charity Erskine, which provides nursing and medical care for veterans, said it would now take part in a nationwide scheme to educate schoolchildren about the two world conflicts.</p> <p>The charity questioned 2,000 children between the ages of nine and 15 about their knowledge of the key people and events of the two wars.</p> <p>While a quarter admitted they did not think about the soldiers who died in the conflicts, and 40 per cent said they did not know when Remembrance Day was, 70 per cent of all those surveyed said they wanted to learn more about the two wars in school.</p> <p>Major Jim Panton, chief executive of Erskine, said: ''Some of the answers to this poll have shocked us and it has shown that Erskine, amongst others, has a part to play, not just in caring for veterans but in educating society as a whole.</p> <p>''As we approach Remembrance Day it is hard to believe that 40 per cent of our children do not know when it is. Schoolchildren are the future of the country and it is important that we help them to learn about our history.''</p> <p>The charity said it wanted some of the 1,350 veterans it cares for every year to share their experiences of the war with younger generations.</p> <p>Erskine will work in partnership with Their Past Your Future (TPYF) project, a partnership of the Imperial War Museum, the Museums, Libraries and Archives England, the Northern Ireland Museum Council, the National Library of Wales and the Scottish Museums Council, to help schoolchildren learn more about the conflicts.</p> <p>Andrew Salmond, a project manager for TPYF in Scotland, said: ''This initiative offers a fantastic opportunity to inform young people about the experiences of war - both at home and abroad.</p> <p>''Some, we know, will convey wartime loss and suffering, others will speak of daring and inspiration. However, all will be of great educational value, offering an insight to what previous generations have endured in times of conflict.'' </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=49#post-135 Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:01:32 +0000 pam 135@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>The book 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies is a fascinating read, detailing many of the things that have gone wrong with journalism : too few staff chasing too many stories, so no time to check facts; huge increase in PR feeds to newspapers; the Murdoch effect ; analysis of how The Mail chooses its stories, etc, etc. I would wholeheartedly recommend this book. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=51#post-134 Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:30:59 +0000 pam 134@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>The same researcher (in Los Angeles Times article) also claims/acknowledges "The more that corporal punishment is used against teenagers in a country, the less the average IQ of that country". Interesting cause/effect discussion? </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=52#post-133 Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:17:19 +0000 pam 133@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>I was going to invest in the Heinemann textbook for the new spec but luckily had the opportunity to read it in some detail before the time came for ordering it, and decided not to buy. </p> <p>I am using the Philip Allan workbooks and finding them quite useful for homeworks. I'll certainly get them next time around too, unless anything really good comes on the market. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=52#post-132 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:24:59 +0000 FajrC 132@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Just wondering if anyone has invested in any of the Philip Allan...</p> <p>*Workbooks<br /> *exam revision notes book<br /> *A2 new spec resource pack</p> <p>for the new spec.</p> <p>And if so, are they any good?<br /> Thanks </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=51#post-131 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:16:31 +0000 David 131@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Smacking makes your child less intelligent:<br /> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1215985/Smacking-makes-child-intelligent.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1215985/Smacking-makes-child-intelligent.html</a></p> <p>Smacked children are less intelligent than those who are not smacked.</p> <p>The more often a child is smacked, the less intelligent s/he is likely to be.</p> <p>Therefore smacking your child makes the child less intelligent! </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=50#post-130 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:13:49 +0000 David 130@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>School girl, 14, dies hours after being given cervical cancer jab and NHS trust halts vaccination programme:<br /> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216714/Schoolgirl-14-dies-given-cervical-cancer-jab.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216714/Schoolgirl-14-dies-given-cervical-cancer-jab.html</a></p> <p>A girl who was vaccinated against cervical cancer died from a malignant tumour of the chest and not from a reaction to the jab, it has emerged:<br /> <a href="http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/health/8284517.stm" rel="nofollow">http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/health/8284517.stm</a></p> <p>Why did the second report receive so much less coverage than the first? </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=47#post-129 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:07:31 +0000 David 129@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Finally they have appeared</p> <p>Legacy:<br /> <a href="http://www.ocr.org.uk/download/rep_09/ocr_35248_rep_09_l_gce_jun.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ocr.org.uk/download/rep_09/ocr_35248_rep_09_l_gce_jun.pdf</a></p> <p>New Spec:<br /> <a href="http://www.ocr.org.uk/download/rep_09/ocr_35197_rep_09_gce_jun.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ocr.org.uk/download/rep_09/ocr_35197_rep_09_gce_jun.pdf</a> </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=49#post-128 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:04:27 +0000 David 128@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Our librarian found this one for me:</p> <p>'Celebrity journalism is nonsense' ? tabloids duped in fake stories hoax</p> <p>Filmmakers dreamed up gossip about Amy Winehouse and Girls Aloud in stunt to show up lack of newspaper fact-checking</p> <p>Paul Lewis<br /> Thursday October 15 2009<br /> The Guardian</p> <p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/14/tabloid-fake-celebrity-stories-hoax" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/14/tabloid-fake-celebrity-stories-hoax</a></p> <p>For the tabloid editors responsible for giving celebrity stories the green light, they must have seemed like an unremarkable batch of moderate scoops.</p> <p>Over a two-week period earlier this year, Amy Winehouse's hair was said to have caught fire, the enthusiasm of a member of pop group Girls Aloud for quantum physics was uncovered, and Pixie Geldof, the socialite and daughter of the anti-poverty campaigner Bob Geldof, was found padding out her bra with sweets.</p> <p>If the stories seemed far-fetched, it was because they were part of a series of fabrications about celebrities ? made up and fed to tabloid newspapers by a documentary team that wanted to prove that journalists don't check facts.</p> <p>Some of Fleet Street's top newsrooms ? including those of the Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Star and Daily Express ? were duped in the hoax, which is contained in the film, Starsuckers, opening in cinemas across the country later this month.</p> <p>Other celebrity victims of the project include the Canadian singer Avril Lavigne and the comedian Russell Brand.</p> <p>"I wanted to show that celebrity journalism is nonsense and this has infected all parts of journalism," said Chris Atkins, the director of Starsuckers, which previews at the London Film Festival on 28 October. "I thought that quite a fun way to illustrate this was to see if we could invent some stories ? utterly fabricated stories ? and try to sell them to the newspapers."</p> <p>The Guardian is previewing exclusive clips from the film. The footage shows how Atkins' team called the newsrooms of several daily tabloids posing as members of the public seeking to sell tabloids gossip about celebrities.</p> <p>Atkins said he deliberately chose outlandish stories ? one printed in the Sun suggested that the director Guy Ritchie received a black eye while juggling cutlery ? that could be easily checked with a quick telephone call to a celebrity or their agent. He did not receive payment for the fake stories, but was offered up to ?600 in return for the information.</p> <p>Atkins and his team, who were Bafta-nominated for their last documentary, on civil liberties, have spent almost two years in the United States and eastern Europe exploring the psychology of fame culture. Their film is a polemic that attacks what it claims are attempts by media organisations to exploit celebrity.</p> <p>The tabloid stunt, which forms one part of the film, was run from a small office in Brick Lane, east London. Using false names and telephone numbers, the documentary team said they did not give the tabloid reporters evidence to corroborate their stories, which typically appeared in the following day's edition.</p> <p>The Daily Mail was the only newspaper that was approached by the filmmakers but did not print any of their fabrications. Only one fabricated story ? about an anarchist plot against Alan Sugar ? failed to make any newspaper.</p> <p>When the stories were published, Atkins said they at times appeared with embellished details that he assumed had been added by reporters.</p> <p>He said he was most concerned about how, once published, his fake stories spread across the internet "like wildfire", making unexpected appearances in media publications that seemed to have recycled the stories without first checking them.</p> <p>This way their fake stories unintentionally popped up in publications as diverse as Cosmopolitan, the Scunthorpe Telegraph, New York Post, Turkish Weekly and Times of India. The Daily Express, Daily Star and Sun declined to comment on their publication of the fake stories.</p> <p>Atkins argues in his film that tabloid newspaper stories about celebrities often contain serious inaccuracies, which, within hours, are picked up and republished across the media without corroboration.</p> <p>"Stories that are not true spread across all news media, from the BBC to Channel 4 News to the Guardian, I'm afraid to say, to all sorts of places where you expect responsible, serious, ethical journalism," he said. "They have now almost [all] been infected by the celebrity style of reporting, where everything is about entertainment, making people laugh and selling newspapers." </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=41#post-127 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:14:28 +0000 andys 127@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>I only received the notice just this week! What would help is a mark scheme for the new specimen questions - the material on the website seems not to have changed. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=41#post-126 Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:03:55 +0000 David 126@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Thank you for drawing this to my attention. Although the notice to centres was dated July, it appears that it has only just been sent out.</p> <p>The big difference for question three is that there may longer be a requirement to refer to the documents.</p> <p>The big difference for question 4 is that it will not necessarily require a resolution of a dilemma, although there will still be a requirement to argue about the issue. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=41#post-125 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:36:29 +0000 FajrC 125@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Found it</p> <p><a href="http://www.ocr.org.uk/download/kd/ocr_32154_kd_gce_notice.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ocr.org.uk/download/kd/ocr_32154_kd_gce_notice.pdf</a> </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=41#post-124 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:29:25 +0000 FajrC 124@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>andys</p> <p>Have you received the 'notice to centres' from OCR regarding this? Dated July however I just got mine.</p> <p>I will try and find the link to the appropriate place on the website </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=48#post-123 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:33:15 +0000 David 123@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>If anyone is desperate for a copy of the papers and mark schemes, please feel free to send me an email. I have everything except the AEA paper. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=48#post-122 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:28:42 +0000 David 122@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Legacy spec A2 results were excellent.</p> <p>New Spec AS Units 1 and 2 were just very strange. Students who I thought would get As ended up getting Cs. Students who I thought would get D/C grades got A/B grades. The weakest students did much better than expected and the best students did worse than expected.</p> <p>For the past 5 years, my predictions for Critical Thinking have proved to be very accurate. Students have got the grades I expected them to get and which I thought they deserved. That was not the case in this session and I am concerned about that. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=48#post-121 Sun, 06 Sep 2009 21:05:21 +0000 FajrC 121@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Hello All<br /> Hope you had a lovely summer and are ready for a new year!</p> <p>How did everyone get on in the exams. I had a mixed bag and I wondered if others experienced the same.</p> <p>New unit 2 - I had some poor results. I clearly missed something in my teaching on this one. I'm going to try and recall some scripts to see what happened.</p> <p>I too will be looking for the examiners report and for the papers I didn't have students sitting, once I'm allowed access....... </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=47#post-120 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:10:43 +0000 David 120@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Has anyone found the Chief Examiner's Report for the June 2009 examinations, either on OCR Interchange or on the main OCR site? </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=43#post-119 Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:41:07 +0000 Vivienne 119@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>I also think there are several claims made without evidence, and the instructions clearly day you must provide 'sufficient grounds'. The claims made (eg marijuana is not as addictive as tobacco, a legal market would reduce sales ....) are fine - but they need supporting evidence. </p> <p>Sentence 4 I don't understand. How can a drug be 'too expensive for our justice system'? I believe you mean that if the drug were legalised, it could be taxed as is alcohol and so the government would gain money from taxation rather than spending money on prosecution. As it stands, this doesn't say that.</p> <p>good luck </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=46#post-118 Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:29:21 +0000 pam 118@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Googling various combinations of the words you have used reveals the fact that Unesco have produced a board game called Disaster Master which teaches school children about preparation for natural disasters but also, in the words of preventionweb.net, improves their critical thinking skills. </p> <p>I wonder if this was the tool that was used, David?</p> <p>Unfortunately, according to the Unesco website, it is too expensive for them to produce. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=46#post-117 Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:26:03 +0000 David 117@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>I read somewhere that a local council had used a table-top disaster planning scenario with secondary school students to develop/test their critical thinking skills and decision-making. Does anyone know of any links or contacts for such a thing as it sounds pretty interesting. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=43#post-116 Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:21:52 +0000 David 116@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>I think these reasons are pretty good, but the argument would be stronger if it considered and responded to counter-arguments, such as:</p> <p>1. If marijuana were legalised, is it not likely that consumption would increase?</p> <p>2. Just because marijuana is non-addictive and non-toxic, it does not follow that marijuana is harmless. There is, for example, evidence to suggest that it is associated with mental illness.</p> <p>3. Your argument seems to rely a great deal on comparing marijuana with alcohol and tobacco. There are, of course, historical reasons why alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs. If alcohol or tobacco were discovered today, they would surely be prohibited. Furthermore, many people would like to see greater legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco, so there is some evidence of tu quoque reasoning (arguing that two wrongs make a right).</p> <p>4. I think there is also something of a false dichotomy here because there isn't a simple choice between consuming marijuana or consuming alcohol/tobacco. Many people consume marijuana and tobacco and alcohol. </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=45#post-115 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:00:47 +0000 TheIrishSideOfTheMoon 115@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>Hi Guys,<br /> My Name is Shane and I am one of the Co Founders of The Irish Side Of The Moon. My Other partners being Gabriel and Michael. This is a Thought-provoking discussion podcast on fringe-related matters, From an Irish perspective. We are currently running weekly podcasts interviewing some of the big names on fringe topics. We have interviewed Stanton Friedman, Marc Seifer and Patricia McKenna (No Campaigner on The Lisbon Treaty). We have an interview with James Randi coming up on Monday 20th. James is a well known proponent of Critical Thinking. So if any of you would like us to ask James a question reply with it on this thread. Check us out on the below links and let us know what you think (good or bad). We hope to be stopping by these forums on a regular basis to offer an Irish perspective on popular topics.</p> <p>Regards</p> <p>Shane</p> <p><a href="http://irishsideofthemoon.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://irishsideofthemoon.blogspot.com/</a><br /> <a href="http://twitter.com/IrishSideOfMoon" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/IrishSideOfMoon</a> </p> http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/topic.php?id=44#post-114 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:23:17 +0000 aarden 114@http://forum.criticalthinking.org.uk/ <p>I have set up a 2 year AS course which covers also History of Ideas and current affairs as well as pure CT and am planning to enter our first students for AQA Paper 1 in January 2010. Has anyone actually put pupils in for this specification this year? I'd be grateful for feedback. </p>