Trends in education, 2020 (vol. 13), issue 2

TVV 2020, 13(2):78-88 | DOI: 10.5507/tvv.2020.019

CRITICAL THINKING IN TECHNICAL ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

BĄK Mirosław, KALINICHENKO Antonina
Instytut Inżynierii Środowiska i Biotechnologii, Uniwersytet Opolski

Critical rationalism is one of the dominant trends in contemporary philosophy and the scientific method is not radically different from the rational approach in other areas of human activity. The social belief in the conclusions drawn from scientific theories is based on the coherence of individuals’ experience and the well-established knowledge obtained from the education process. The attitude that everything proven at a given moment can be questioned is the base of the critical thinking. The willingness to consider problems in a thoughtful way, supported by the ability to use methods of logical reasoning, plays an extremely important role in the education process. The critical thinking allows to get a logical consensus, not only by recognizing positions, arguments and conclusions presented by other people, but also by the skillful recognition of manipulation techniques and not succumbing to them. In view of the growing importance of informal education, multithreaded and scattered content in social media, unfair marketing strategies, the critical thinking can be a kind of barrier protecting the message based on scientific paradigms, it can allow to preserve individual identity and it can help to focus on individual’s goals and may make new technology not an exogenous force over which we have no full control. In particular, this applies to the objectives of environmental education. It requires from the education system the new redefinition of educational goals and setting the new ones.

Keywords: critical thinking, environmental education, educational goals

Prepublished online: February 19, 2021; Published: February 1, 2021  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Mirosław, B., & KALINICHENKO, A. (2020). CRITICAL THINKING IN TECHNICAL ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION. Trends in education, 13(2), 78-88. doi: 10.5507/tvv.2020.019
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Bąk, M. (2017). Tożsamość jednostki wobec innowacji cyfrowych i globalnego postępu technologicznego. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej, Seria "Organizacja i Zarządzanie", Nr 1990/(112), ss. 9-20. Go to original source...
    2. Bee, H. (2004). Psychologia rozwoju człowieka. Poznań: Wyd. Zysk i S-ka wyd. 1, 723 s.
    3. Carr, N. (2012). Płytki umysł: jak Internet wpływa na nasz mózg, Gliwice: Helion, 280 S.
    4. Cottrell, S. (2017). Critical thinking skills:Efective Analysis, Argument and Reflection, London: Red Globe Press, 296 p. Go to original source...
    5. De Bono, E. (1982). De Bono's Thinking Cource. London: BBC Book, 158s.
    6. Erickson, E.H. (1968). Identity, Youth and Crisis, New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 338 s.
    7. Fedrich, W. & Sikora, J. (2016). Wspieranie krytycznego myślenia jako cel w edukacji specjalistycznej z zakresu psychologii. Prace Naukowe Akademii im. Jana Długosza w Częstochowie, Pedagogika, Nr XXV, ss. 175-185. Go to original source...
    8. Feyerabend, P.K. (1993). Against Method, wyd. 3. London: Verso, 339 s.
    9. Glaser, E. (1942). An experiment in the development of critical thinking, In: The Teachers College Record, Volume 43, Number 5, pp. 409‑410. Go to original source...
    10. Habermans, J. (1986). Pojęcia działania komunikacyjnego (uwagi wyjaśniające) Kultura i Społeczeństwo, Nr 3, ss. 23-44.
    11. Jodkowski, K. (1989). Kontemplatywny vs. performancyjny model wiedzy, a Feyerabendowska krytyka nauki (miejsce nauki w hierarchii wartości różnych tradycji i form życia), Studia Filozoficzne, Nr 10, ss. 99-113.
    12. Kalabarczyk T. (2014). Nauka krytycznego myślenia, Cele ksztalcenia filozoficznego, "Analiza i Egzystencja" 25, ss.7-17.
    13. Kuhn, T.S.R. (2011). Struktura rewolucji naukowych. Warszawa: ALETHEIA, 356 s.
    14. O'Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0., Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html Piketty, T.(2015). Kapitał w XXI wieku. Warszawa: Wyd. Krytyki Politycznej, 749 s.
    15. Popper, K. R.(2016). Logika odkrycia naukowego. Warszawa: ALETHEIA, 503 s.
    16. Risen, J. L. & Gilovich T. (2007). Critical Thinking in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 110-130. Go to original source...
    17. Schwab, K. & Davis, N. (2018). Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. New York: The Crown Publishing Group, 172 s.
    18. Sokal, A. & Bricmont J. (2007). Modne bzdury. O nadużywaniu pojęć z zakresu nauk ścisłych przez postmodernistycznych intelektualistów, Prószyński i S-ka, Warszawa, s.18-24.
    19. Spitzer, M. (2015). Cyfrowa demencja. Słupsk: Wyd. Dobra Literatura, ss. 5-6.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content