如何理解和翻译“Critical&Thinking”？
如何理解和翻译“Critical
Thinking”？
我虽然以前就听说过在国外很流行的“Critical
Thinking”（以下简称CT，在中国通常翻译成“批判性思维”）这套思维体系，但对此并没有深入的认识和了解，最近在接触西三一大学的“商业领导力”课程（第一门课程就是有关CT的）时，才开始认真琢磨到底什么是CT和我们该怎样很好地运用CT。
一、CT的起源。CT是1941年作为美国教育改革的一个主题由美国学者Edward Glaser提出来的，但其后由于美国出现了麦卡锡主义思潮，所以CT没有得到足够的重视。到1970年代，CT再次成为美国教育改革运动的焦点，这期间，美国洛克菲勒基金会还曾在一项美国生活人文研究报告中强调：美国教育部门应该把CT作为个人的一项基本能力加以训练和培养。又自1980年代开始美国与苏联展开太空竞赛而大力推动科学研究，因此CT大受推崇，真正成了气候。1994年，美国总统克林顿签署“美国教育法案”，正式将critical thinking列入全国性的教育教学目标。
1987年的“CT与教育改革国际会议”上，英国人Michael Scriven与美国人Richard Paul（当代美国CT领域的权威人士）共同发表声明，指出CT并非单一的思想方法，而是一系列思想方法的综合体，包含科学思维、数学思维、历史思维、人类学思维、经济思维、道德思维、哲学思维。没有一种CT适用于任何人，任何人都可能出现非理性的想法。因此，每个人都要终生努力培养CT的技巧和习惯。
二、CT的定义。CT这个概念本身经过大半个世纪的发展和实践，也在不断地充实和完善，大致有这几个很重要的概念定义和内涵：
1941Edward GlaserThe ability to think critically, as
conceived in this volume, involves three things: ( 1 ) an attitude
of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and
subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2)
knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3)
some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a
persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the
further conclusions to which it tends.123CT
1987Michael ScrivenRichard PaulCritical thinking is the
intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully
conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or
evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation,
experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to
belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal
intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions:
clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound
evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
第三，1987年，另一位美国CT测评方面的权威人士Ennis,R.H给出一个很简明的定义。Critical thinking is reasonable
reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or
第四，1990年，美国哲学家协会通过《德尔斐报告》（是由45位美国和加拿大知名哲学家、科学家和教育家于1987年开展的名为“德尔斐项目”（Delphi Project）的研究成果），给出了有关CT的一致性定义。We understand critical thinking to be
purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in
interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as
explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological,
criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that
judgment is based.
我们认为CT是一种有目的的、自我调整的判断，以解读、分析、评价、推断和阐明这些证据上的、概念上的、方法论上的、标准厘定上的和互为关联的考量因素，从而做出判断。在他们研究中，还对CT括认知技能和情感倾向的两个维度，这对CT的发展很有意义。情感倾向虽属非认知范畴，但的确非常重要。英国哲学家罗素在其《西方的智慧》一书中说道：埃及人和巴比伦人都曾为后来的希腊人提供了某些知识，但却没能像希腊人一样发展出哲学和科学；是“长盛不衰的好奇心以及热烈而不带偏见的探索，使古希腊人在历史上获得了独一无二的地位”。兴趣、动机、情感、性格等非认知因素可以在思辨能力的运用和发展过程中起到补偿和促进作用。
The Critical Thinking
CommunityCTCritical thinking is that mode of
thinking&— about any subject, content, or
problem&— in which the thinker improves the
quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing,
and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed,
self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It
presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful
command of their use. It entails effective communication and
problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our
native egocentrism and sociocentrism. 思考者要通过技巧性地分析、评估和重建这种思维方式来提高自己的思维品质。群体中心主义
这个概念主要得益于美国Linda Elder的贡献，概念中的核心，一是To Analyze
Thinking，Identify its purpose, and question at
issue, as well as its information, inferences(s), assumptions,
implications, main concept(s), and point of view.
二是To Assess Thinking，要，Check it for clarity, accuracy,
precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, logic, and
fairness. 在2006Richard PaulLinda Elder目的、推论、问题、概念、观点、涵义、信息、假设谦恭、坚持、自主、移情、公正、正直、勇气、信心
三、CT的翻译。以上列举这几种缘于英文原意的有关CT的概念定义，可以有助于我们更好地理解其内涵，以及找寻合适的中文翻译和释义。Critical Thinking进入中文语境后被直译成“批判性思维”，但从上述这些定义的内涵来看，显然这种翻译是不贴切的。“批判”一词在中文CT
“Critical”这个词在英文里面有多个意思。根据我手边这本词典（Collins Essential Canadian English
Dictionary & Thesaurus），有这5个意思：①
very important and dangerous.
② very seriously ill or injured.
③ fault-finding.
④ able to examine and judge
carefully.
⑤ of a critic or
criticism.而“critic”主要有：①
professional judge of any of the arts.
② person who finds fault.
根据上文对CT几个概念的分析，不难看出，“critical”在其中的主要意思应该是其④（认真仔细地检查和评判），还有一点③（发现错误或质疑），而与中文“批判”的主要涵义差异很大。
香港也较早地引进和倡导CT这种教育理念，在其课程改革短期目标中（年），提出优先培养学生的共通能力（即沟通能力、批判性思考能力（CT）及创造力），并将之融入各个科目或学习领域中，以提高学生建构知识的独立学习能力。但当时和其后，有很多专家和知名人士都质疑对CT的译名是否恰当和准确的问题。其中，2008年，香港立法会议员和安保局局长叶刘淑仪女士就为此专门上书教育部门，建议翻译成“明辨性思考”或“分辨性思考”。
《中庸》里面关于治学之道有一句非常著名的话：“博学之，审问之，慎思之，明辨之，笃行之”。其中“审问、慎思、明辨”，就是所谓的“critical
thinking”，与CT的定义和内涵是高度的吻合，所以有很多学者都据此认为CT应该翻译成“明辨性思维”，或“审辩式思维”（维基百科就有对此专门的解释）。台湾著名学者龙应台女士把CT翻译成“思辨能力”。
总之，因为Critical Thinking有着丰富的内涵，已经成为一个专门的词汇，所以要准确翻译成中文着实不容易，或许需要专门创造一个中文词语。我个人认为取自“慎思明辨”的“思辨”二字是最为恰当的翻译，而且还有一种积极的情感倾向，但“思辨式思考”有点拗口，“明辨”或“审辩”也是很不错的翻译。不管怎样，我们一定要明白CT的真正涵义，而不能从不准确的“批判性思维”上望文生义，妄加使用。
四、CT的理解。以上对Critical Thinking的定义和内涵讨论比较多，也显得有些复杂，这主要是因为西方知识体系中对概念本身都有着非常严谨的解释，不像中国文化中往往对概念本身似是而非。简而言之，按照我们习惯性的理解，可以这样认识Critical Thinking：CT包括认知技能和情感倾向两个维度，其中认知技能有较低和较高层次之分；这种思维在形式和内容上都应达到相关标准和质量要求。换言之，具有CT的人不但愿意和喜欢（情感倾向）进行思考，而且善于进行深层次思考（认知技能+智力标准），能够提出有价值的问题和有见地的观点（智力标准）。
对CT的理解，核心就是两个方面，第一，逻辑严谨，清晰周全，这是指认知和分析的视角；第二，真诚平等，客观公正，这是指评价和态度的视角。对于我们而言，做到严谨的逻辑分析不容易，而做到客观公正地去讨论和交流就更难了。所以说，Critical Thinking不仅仅是一种认知能力，更是一种人生态度。
主要参考资料：
2.审辩式思维：维基百科
3.任文，再论外语专业学生的思辨能力：“缺席”还是“在场”？中国外语，2013年第1期。
已投稿到：
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。Critical Thinking_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
Critical Thinking
阅读已结束，下载文档到电脑
想免费下载本文？
定制HR最喜欢的简历
下载文档到电脑，方便使用
还剩4页未读，继续阅读
定制HR最喜欢的简历
你可能喜欢NurseEducationToday32(20；Contentslistsavailableat；NurseEducationToday；journalhomepage:www.else；Astudyofthedevelopmentof；Lesley-JaneEales-Reynold；barticleinfosummary；Background:Heal
NurseEducationToday32(ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirectNurseEducationTodayjournalhomepage:/nedtAstudyofthedevelopmentofcriticalthinkingskillsusinganinnovativeweb2.0toolLesley-JaneEales-Reynoldsa,?,DavidGillhamb,CarolGrechc,ColinClarked,JacquelineCornelleaPro-ViceChancellor(Education),KingstonUniversity,Greater,London,UnitedKingdomSchoolofNursingandMidwifery,FlindersUniversity,Adelaide,AustraliacSchoolofNursingandMidwifery,UniversityofSouthAustralia,Adelaide,AustraliadUniversityofWestminster,London,UnitedKingdomeWRAPproject,SchoolofNursingandMidwifery,UniversityofSouthAustralia,Adelaide,AustraliabarticleinfosummaryBackground:Healthcareeducatorsfacenumerouschallengesincludingtechnologicalchange,informationoverload,andtheneedtomaintainclinicalexpertiseandresearchknowledgeacrossmultiplespecialities.Studentsalsoneedtodeveloptheircapacityforcriticalthinking,usinganddiscriminatingbetweendiversesourcesofknowledgeinordertoadvancetheirownpractice.Objectives:Toinvestigatestudentperceptionsoftheaffordancesofanovelweb2.0-basedtoolCtheWebResourceAppraisalProcess(WRAP),designedtosupportthedevelopmentofcriticalthinkingskills,andtoidentifyhowstudent'sunderstandingofcriticalthinkingandtheiruseofweb2.0resourcesmightinformthecross-disciplinarydevelopmentoftheWRAP.Design:Atwophase,actionresearchstudyofstudentperceptionsoftheWRAPandtheirabilitytosourceandidentifyvalidinformationsources.Settings:ImplementedattheUniversityofSouthAustralia,developmentoftheWRAPisaninternationalprojectwiththeUniversityofWestminster,UK.Participants:Studentsfrominternationallocationsparticipatedintheproject.Methods:Amixedmethodsapproachwasadoptedinvolvingatwophaseactionresearchstudy.Inphaseone,studentperceptionsoftheWRAPwereobtainedusingamodi?edcoursefeedbackquestionnaire.Thisinformedthedevelopmentofasubsequentquestionnaireusedtosurveystudentperceptionsoftheirusageofonlineresources,theeaseofaccessofsuchresourcesandtheirapproachestodeterminingtheirvalidity.Results:Resultssuggestthatstudentsmainlyusetraditionalresourceswhenpreparingworkforassessmentandtheyeitherdonotunderstandtheconceptof,ordonotexercise,criticalthinkingskillsinsuchactivities.How-ever,thefeedbackfromstudentsusingtheWRAP,demonstratedthattheyfounditinstructiveanduseful.Conclusions:Toensurethatpracticedevelopmentsarebasedonauthoritativeevidence,studentsneedtodevelopcriticalthinkingskillswhichmaybefacilitatedbytoolssuchastheWRAP.CrownCopyright?2012PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.Articlehistory:Accepted20May2012Keywords:Web2.0CriticalthinkingHighereducationE-pedagogyWebresourceappraisalprocessWRAPIntroductionAswithall?eldsofeducation,technologyisrevolutionisingthewaywelearn.Itisprovidingfasteraccesstoamuchwiderthelegitimacyofwhichmaybequestionable.Weallneedtodevelopinformationliteracyskillsbutthisisparticularlyimportantin?eldssuchasnursingandmedicine,wheredevelopmentofpracticeisexpectedtobebaseduponevidence(Sackettetal.,1996).Findingevidenceandestablishingitslegitimacy,authorityandrelevancerequirethedemonstrationofarangeofcognitiveskillsoftencommonlyreferredtoascriticalthinking.Innurseeducation,programmespeci?cationsoftenrefertotheneedforstudentstodemonstrate‘criticalabilities’,‘criticalanalysis’,‘criticalevaluation’andthesetermsmeandifferentthingstodifferentpeopledependingupontheirdisciplinarybackgroundandpersonalexperience.However,thereisnodoubt,thatevidence-basedpractice,whichisanunderpinningtenettomanynursingprogrammes,de-pendsuponanindividual'sabilitytodiscriminatebetweenauthorita-tiveresources,toanalysetheargumentstherein,judgethevalidityofthemethodsandconclusionsandtoformtheirownopinionsandpre-senttheminanauthoritativemanner.Itistheseskillsthatarechal-lengingtodevelopinatraditionalcontentdrivencurriculumanditisthischallengethatpromptedthecurrentstudy.BackgroundGlobalisationandtechnologicalchangehavetransformedlearninginsideandoutsideofuniversities.Studentsarelikelytospendsub-stantialleisuretimeaccessingandexchanginginformationonlineastechnologicalconvergencepromotesincreasedintegrationoftelevision,?Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+.E-mailaddress:l.ealesreynolds@kingston.ac.uk(L.-J.Eales-Reynolds)./$Cseefrontmatter.CrownCopyright?2012PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.doi:10.1016/j.nedt.L.-J.Eales-Reynoldsetal./NurseEducationToday32(753mobilephonesandtheweb.Atthistime,universitiesarealsoincreasingtheiremphasisononlinedeliverywithweb2.0developmentsprovid-ingaccessibilitytoanincreasingrangeofprofessionalandeducationalresources(LearningSpace,2009;LOREnet,2009;Acro,2009).Asnewpedagogiesemergethatembracetheopportunitiesofferedbytheweb,itisevidentthatoneofourbiggestchallengesistoguidestudentsinhowtousethisreadilyavailableinformationandtoteachthemtobediscriminating.Manyinstitutionsarenowbeginningtotalkaboutstudentsas‘co-creatorsofknowledge’Cifthisistobethecase,theyneedtobeabletodiscriminate,evaluateandjudgetheinformationsourcestheyuse,tosynthesisetheinformationandcreatenewknowledge.Theseareskillsthatareexplicitlytaughtinsomedisciplines,butnotinothers.Clearlythereisaneedtoidentifywaysinwhichwecanteachtheseskillsparticularlyinrelationtotheuseofonlineresources.Ingeneral,pedagogyunderpinningonlinelearninginuniversitieshasnotyetfullycapturedtheimmenselearningopportunitiesofferedbytheweb‘studentsneednotonlytobeabletochooseandperson-alisewhattoolsandcontentareavailable,butalsotohaveaccesstothenecessaryscaffoldingtosupporttheirlearning’(McLoughlinandLee,2010).TheWebResourceAppraisalProcess(WRAP)wasdesignedtoprovidestructureandsupporttostudentsusingonlineresourcestoinformtheirlearningaboutasubjectoftheirchoiceandtoproduceacriticalappraisalofthesubject,whichmightsub-sequentlyinformtheirpracticeashealthcareworkers(includingnurses).Thusitallowsthemthechoicewhilstprovidingthestruc-turedsupportidenti?edbyMcLoughlinandLee(2010).Inthetraditionallearningenvironmentcurriculahavebeenin?uencedbytheworkofBiggs(1996)andhismodelforconstructivealignmentwherethelearningoutcomes,assessmentmethodsandteachingstrategiesareallalignedanddesignedtoencouragestudentlearning.Particularlyinhighschools,butalsomorerecentlyinhighereducation,therehasbeenamovementtowardswhatisgenerallyknownas‘authenticassessment.’Thismeansthattheassessmentmethodsarenotonlyalignedwiththeteachingapproachesbutalsore?ectthetypeofactivitythatonemightbeexpectedtoperformintherealworldwhendemonstratingtheattainmentofaparticularlearningoutcome.‘Authenticassessment’asde?nedinthisway,hasbeenshowntoencouragere?ectionandcriticalanalysisaswellasenhancedlearning(SaveryandDuffy,1995;BirenbaumandDochy,1996;Darling-HammondandSnyder,2000;HerringtonandHerrington,1998;Gulikersetal.,2007).ThustheWRAPwasdesignedtofacilitatethedevelopmentofinformationliteracyandcriticalthink-ingskillsthroughthedevelopmentofanauthenticassessmentitem,inthisinstanceacriticalreviewoftheliterature,ausefulinformationsourcefornursingprofessionalsengaginginevidence-basedpractice.Acriticalreviewmaybede?nedasanevaluationofanacademictexte.g.:anarticle,report,essayorbook[wherestudents]areaskedtomakejudgments,positiveornegative,aboutthetextusingvariouscriteria(http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/quickrefs/26-critical-review.xml).Generally,acriticalreviewinvolvesadescriptionofthefocusofthearticlebeingexamined,anevaluationofthereliabilityandvalidityofthematerial,anditsrelevancetoadisciplineand/orpractice.Oneofthedrawbacksofthisapproachtoacriticalreviewisthatitisopentobiasbythereviewerowingtotheirownbeliefsandexpe-riences.Recommendingachangeinpracticethathasimplicationsforpatientwelfarebasedonsuchareviewisnotparticularlysound.Thisproblemwasidenti?edbyCochrane(HigginsandGreen,2011)whorecognisedinsteadtheneedforasystematicapproachtolitera-turereviewinginordertoeliminatebiasandincreasethereliabilityoftheoutcomes.Thusasystematicreviewisanarticlethatdrawsinferencesfromarangeofliteratureandmakesconclusionsbasedonjudgementsaboutthesourcesstudiedinrelationtoaparticulartopicorquestion.Whilstthesystematicreviewprocessisthorough,itistimecon-sumingandusuallyreliantonanumberofparticipantsevaluatingtheliterature.Acompromiseistoteachstudentsthepremisesofsys-tematicreviewingandtoguidetheminchoosingkeyarticlestoreview.Inthisway,studentscanlearnthebasicsandimprovetheircriticalthinkingskillsbyundertakingareviewofarangeofliterature,ratherthanmerelycritiquingasinglearticle.ThiswasthepremiseuponwhichtheWRAPwasdevelopedforusebynursingstudents.Sincethemajorityofresourcesusedforsuchcritiquesareonline,acomputer-basedapproachwassoughtthatwhilstteachingstudentsthebasicskillsrelatedtoliteraturereviewingandcritiquing,italsodevelopedtheirunderstandingoftheneedforinformationmanage-mentandtakingasystematicapproach.TheWebResourceAppraisalProcess(WRAP)ThepedagogythatinformedthedevelopmentofWRAPwasdis-tinct,combiningcomponentsfromarangeoftheoreticalperspectivesincludingconstructivism(ModritscherandSpiel,2006),authenticas-sessment(HerringtonandHerrington,1998),andevidence-basedpractice(Sackettetal.,1996).WRAPwasdesignedtoprovidebothaninformationbaseandguidanceonaspectsofcriticalthinkingandappraisaltoenablestudentstoidentifyspeci?ccollectionsofauthor-itativeresources.TheearlyversionoftheWRAPsoftwarefacilitatedtheproductionofacriticalreviewofatopicusingonlineresourcesasprimarysourcesofinformation.Itincludedthefollowingfeatures:?theabilitytoestablishatopic-relevant,virtual,library?onlinenotetakingandpromptedsummarisingofresearchpapers?automatedcomparativetableandreportgeneration?detailedcriticalappraisalreportsbaseduponaspeci?ctemplate.Thecombinationofonlineformsandabackenddatabasepro-videsthestructureforthedevelopmentofcriticalreviewsofre-searchevidenceontopicsofprioritytoprofessionalpractice.TheWRAPguidesstudentsthroughtheprocessesofsummary,interpre-tation,re?ectionandcriticalappraisalinordertoproduceanoutput,ofwhichtheycanseetheprofessionalrelevance.Productionofacriticalappraisaldesignedtomeetthestudent'sassessmentneedsandtobeofuseinpracticemeetsthecriteriadescribedaboveofanauthenticassessmentitem,thussuggestingthattheuseoftheWRAPmightencouragethedevelopmentofcriticalthinkingskillsinthosewhouseit.TheaffordancesoftheWRAPwereinvestigatedthroughanActionResearchStudywhichinformeditsdevelopmentandmodi?cationtoallowmultidisciplinaryuse.Italsohighlightedtheneedforabetterunderstandingofhowstudentsaccess,useandcriticallyevaluatewebresources.Thus,thisstudyexploredtheassumptionswhichunderpinnedthedesignoftheWRAPthroughinvestigatingstudents'perceptionsoftheiruseofonlineresourcestosupporttheirproduc-tionofassessmentitemsandthechallengestheyfacedinsourcingrelevantinformation.EthicalapprovalforthestudywasobtainedfromboththeUniversityofWestminster(UW)andtheUniversityofSouthernAustralia(UniSA).MethodThe?rstphaseofthestudyoccurredatUniSAbetween2003and2010.UseoftheWRAPbynursingandhealthsciencesstudentswasevaluatedthroughstandardstudentfeedbackquestionnairesandthe-maticanalysisofresponses(n=76).Thisinformedthesecondphaseofthestudy,whichcomprisedatenitem,onlinequestionnairethatincludedbothqualitativeandquantitativequestions.Theseexaminedhighereducationstudents'experiencesofassessment(notdirectlyrelevanttothisstudy),theironlineresourceuse,onlinesearchingpractices,andhowtheydeterminetheauthorityofaresource.Priortodistribution,thequestionnairewasassessedbytheprojectteam,754L.-J.Eales-Reynoldsetal./NurseEducationToday32(whichresultedinchangingsomewordingtoenhancecomprehensionbyaninternationalaudience.The?nalinstrumentwasdistributedtoacollectionofHigherEducationInstitutionsinAustralasia,EuropeandNorthAmerica,aswellastomultidisciplinaryandprofessionalgroupsthroughestablishednetworks.StaffmemberswererequestedtoencouragetheirstudentstocompletetheonlinequestionnaireviaSurveyMonkey().Acopyofthequestion-naireisavailablefromthe?rstauthoronrequest.Responseswerestatisticallyanalysedorsubjectedtothematicanalysisinvolvingtheidenti?cationofkeythemesusingthemindmappingsoftware,Freemind(www.sourceforge.net).ResultsFirstPhaseThepreliminaryevaluationoftheWRAPbynursingandhealthsciencesstudentsatUniSAoccurredoveraperiodbetween2003and2010usingastandardcourseevaluationinstrument.StudentsfoundtheWRAPtobehighlyrelevanttoprofessionalpracticee.g.‘Highlyrelevanttoclinicalpracticeonaneverydaybasis,somethingweallshouldbeendeavouringtodobetter’and‘veryrelevant!Itmakesyouappreciatetheresearchthatisgoingonincurrentdaypracticeandallowsyoutojustifytheevidenceforoptimalpatientoutcomes’and‘TherelevanceofthissubjectisthatInowwillbeabletoconstructivelycriticallyanalyseevidencebasedresearchbeforeapplyingresultsandinformationtomypractice’.StudentsalsoindicatedhowtheymightusetheWRAPintheirprofessionalpracticee.g.‘IwillbeapplyingthetechniquesoftheWRAPprocesstothedevelopmentofpracticeguidelines’.Theyalsoclearlyappreciatedtheskillstheyhadlearnedthroughitsusee.g.‘Veryuseful.Nowhaveasearchingstrategyfor?ndingotherevidenceonotherhealthissues’and‘Inowfeelcon?dentinmyabilitytowriteresearchpaperstoaprofessionallevel’.Ingeneral,respondentsindicatedthattheWRAPwasparticularlyusefulforthemwhentheydidnothaveastrongbackgroundinre-searchorcriticalreviewdevelopment.StudentsindicatedthattheWRAPimprovedtheircriticalappraisalskillsandquestioningoftheresearchevidencebasisforpractice‘Learningmethodsofseekingqualityevidencerelatingtopracticenomatterwhereorwhat’.How-ever,theyalsoindicatedthattheworkloadwasratheroverwhelmingandthisrelateddirectlytothewayinwhichtheWRAPworkede.g.‘Theworkloadisexcessiveandmorethantriplethe2C3hoursofworkperweeksuggested.Itishardtodofromthesheerworkload.Thereadingandlinksneedtobereducedastoabsorbthereadingandlinkstakesalotoftime’.Inaddition,studentsreportedissuesinaccessingonlineresources‘Ifoundlimitedaccesstoresearchpublica-tionsveryfrustrating’.Finally,somestudentsdidnotseetheneedforthetool‘IdidnotusetheWRAPtool.Ifounditquitedif?culttofollow.Isitnecessarilyneeded.’StudentsalsoprovidedextremelyvaluabletechnicalsuggestionsforimprovingtheWRAPsuchas?exibilitywithorderingentries,updating,editingandnavigationalchangese.g.‘Needstobe?exibleingivingalternativewaysoforderingentries,e.g.journaltitleetc.’and‘Toseeexampleof?nishedprod-uctpriortocommencingwouldhelpplanprogressionthroughWRAP.Ifatallpossible,usingWordthroughWRAPwouldbemosthelpfulbothpriorandfollowingcompilationof?nalreport(forformatting)’.Phase2CStudentQuestionnaireFourhundredandeighteenstudentsloggedintothesurveyques-tionnaire,therewasa62.7%(n=281)completionrate.StudentscompletingthesurveyrepresentedninedifferentcountriesalthoughthemajoritywerestudyinginAustralia(n=182)ortheUK(n=65),whilst4.6%(n=13)didnotprovidedetailsoftheircountryofstudy.Tenseparatedisciplinaryareaswererepresentedpredominantlyfromnursingandhealthsciencestudents(n=191),businessstudies(n=32)andcomputing(n=29).Inordertoanalysethedatainameaningfulway,disciplineswereallocatedtothefollowingcategories:Business,Computing,Education,Health,SocialScienceand‘Others’.Initially,resourceusewasexaminedasapercentageofthecom-pletesampleasshowninFig.1andsubsequentlyChiSquareanalysiswasusedtodeterminesigni?cantdifferencesbetweendisciplines.Freetextresponsesunderwentathematicanalysis.Initialre-sponseswereexpandedtoidentifytheindividualtopicsi.e.‘IonlyuseWikipediaasthebeginningofmyresearch,butnevertobecitedinanactualresearchpaper.Igenerallytrustgovernmentwebsites(perhapstomydetriment)andthesitesofnon-pro?tsandsuch.Ialsoalwaystrustjournals.’wouldbecomethreeseparatetopics,(i)IonlyuseWikipediaatthebeginningofmyresearch,butnevertobecitedinanactualresearchpaper,(ii)Igenerallytrustgov-ernmentwebsites(perhapstomydetriment)andthesitesofnon-pro?tsandsuch,and(iii)Ialsoalwaystrustjournals.Thesetopicswerethencodedtoidentifytheresponsethemes.ComparisonoftheTypesofResourcesUsedasSourcesofInformationThereportedratesofresourceusearepresentedinFig.1.Themostcommontypesofdocumentstudentsreportedusingtosupporttheirworkwere.pdf(publishedpapers)(61%),bookchapters(57%),Worddocuments(49%)andPowerPointslides(43%).Whereaselec-tronicmediasuchasZines(0%),blogs(3%),andmailinglists(5%)wererarelyused.Whentheresultswereanalysedwithrespecttothedisciplines,thereweresigni?cantdifferences,particularlyinrelationtothelessobviousresources.StudentsfromHealthsciencesweresigni?cantlymorelikelytoreporttheuseofPodcastsc2(5,294)=12.65,pb.05thanotherdisciplines.WhereasstudentsfromstudyingBusiness,orComputerandinformationsciencesweresigni?cantlymorelikelytoreporttheuseofSpreadsheetsc2(5,294)=29.40,pb.01andProjectreportsc2(5,294)=12.94,pb.05.StudentsstudyingComputerandinformationsciencesorEducationweresigni?cantlymorelikelytoreporttheuseofVideoor?lmc2(5,294)=12.04,pb.05;whilstthosestudyingComputerandinformationsciencesorSocialsciences,HumanitiesandLanguagesweresigni?cantlymorelikelytoreporttheuseofinformationfromBlogsc2(5,294)=26.07,pb.01,Socialnetworksc2(5,294)=12.35,pb.05,andVirtualLearningEnviron-mentsc2(5,294)=22.48,pb.01.Thisindicatedacleardistinctioninresourceusebydiscipline.DeterminationoftheValidityofResourcesUsedThevalidityandauthorityofresourceswerepredominantlydeter-minedbyreferencetoitssource(Fig.2;49.3%respondents)e.g.‘Source-isitavalidprofessionalwebsite,journal,institutionetc.’Respondentswroteaboutresourcesfromtrustedwebsitesandinsti-tutions(15.7%),authoritativewebsites(16.8%),library(6%),journals(8%)orsimply‘source’(4%).Othersfocussedontheauthor(14%),whotheyare,theirquali?cationsanddateofpublishingtheresourcee.g.‘authornames,andifpossibleresearchthem’,andhowrecentlyasourcewaspublished(10%)e.g.‘publishedinthelast5years’.Anoth-ercommonthemewaspeerreview(24.3%)e.g.‘Throughuseofpeerreviewedarticles’.Avarietyofotherthemesemergedfromthedatainsmallnumbersincluding,universitydatabases,Wikis,provisionofareferencelist,copyrightandtutore.g.‘isrecommendedbymylecturer/tutor’.Onlyfourrespondentsmentionedcriticalappraisale.g.‘Reasonthroughunderlyinglogic,i.e.premise'sandconclusions’suggestingthattheexerciseofcriticalthinkingskillsislimitedwhenstudentsareseekinginformationtoinformtheirwork.L.-J.Eales-Reynoldsetal./NurseEducationToday32(755Fig.1.Identi?cationofonlineresourcesusedbystudentsincreatingassessmentartefacts.Studentswereasked‘Whattypeofresourcesmightyouusetoinformworkthatyouwillsubmitforassessment?’ThechoiceswereWorddocuments(unpublishedinformation),.pdf?les(web-unpublished),podcasts,images,?gures(e.g.graphs),excelspread-sheets,powerpointpresentations,.pdf(publishedpapersinjournals),bookchapters,projectreports,casereports,publishedcatalogues,video/?lm,blogs,wikis,socialnetworkingsites,mailinglists,zines,virtuallearningenvironment(Blackboard,Moodle),UTube,other.Responsesareexpressedaspercentageofrespondentsindicatingtheuseofaparticularresource.ChallengestoDiscoveringRelevantInformationontheWebThemajorthemesandsubthemesidenti?edbystudentsinre-sponsetothequestion‘Whatarethemajorchallengesyoufacewhentryingtodiscoverrelevantinformationontheweb?’were:?Information(41%n=260)whichincludedanumberofsubthemes(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)?nding(4%);(v)relevance(7.5%)e.g.‘wadingthroughthelargeamountofoftenirrelevantandnotusefulinformation’;(vi)(vii)and,(viii)volume(8%)e.g.‘Thesheervolumeofinformationavailable.Sometimestryingto?ndspeci?callywhatyouarelookingforisamine?eld’.?Identifyingkeywords/searchphrases(11%respondents)e.g.‘Some-timesit'shardtochooseappropriatesearchtermstolocalisethetypeofinformationI'mlookingforandImaynotbeawareofallpossiblealternateterms’.?Journalaccess(9%respondents)e.g.‘itisdif?culttogetaccesstosomeinformationwhichisreallyrelevant,butyouhavetopaytogetit’.?Time(8.5%respondents)e.g.‘Time-longexhaustingprocessusuallyforlittlereward,manyhourscanbespendlookingandreadingforonlyoneortworeferences’.Numerousotherthemesemergedthatwereonlycitedbyasmallnumberofrespondents,thesethemesincluded:(i)aneedforguid-(ii)(iii)limitedresearch(onaparticularsubject);(iv)theneedforpayment(forresourcesandwebsiteaccess);and,(v)searchengine/databaseidenti?cation.DiscussionTheresultsofphaseoneofthisstudy,whichfocussedonnursingandhealthsciencestudents,demonstratedtheusefulnessoftheWRAPindevelopingtheskillsrequiredtoundertakeacriticalreview.Fig.2.ValidityauthorityWordle.Freetextresponsestothequestion‘Howdoyouknowthattheonlineinformationyouuseisvalidandauthoritative?’wasanalysedforwordfre-quencyandthewordpicturewascreatedusingWordle(www.wordle.net).756L.-J.Eales-Reynoldsetal./NurseEducationToday32(Evidencefromtheliteraturedemonstratesthatnursingstudentsandthoseinpracticehavedif?cultyinaccessingrelevantinformationresourcesandevenwhentheycanlocatethem,theylacktheskillsandtechniquestocriticallyappraisetheevidence(Younger,2010p7).Theresultsofphasetwoofthecurrentstudysupportedthese?ndingsdemonstratingthatthisisnotlimitedtonursesandhealthsciencestudentsalone.Thissupportstheneedforfurtherdevelop-mentoftheWRAPanditsapplicationacrossdisciplinesforeducationandpracticewiththeaimtodeveloptheinformationmanagementandcriticalappraisalskills,particularlyinrelationtotheuseofinter-netresources.Previously,highereducationstudentslocatedresourcesinlibrariesintheformofhardcopyacademicjournalsandbooks.InMill,2008,Millun-dertookabibliographicalstudywhichshowedthatwrittenassignmentswerepredominantlysupportedwithreferencestojournalarticles(47.6%)andbooks(29.9%)althoughthereweresomedisciplinarydiffer-ences.Forexample,scienceandsocialsciencestudentscitedmorejournalarticles(66.2%,46.7andrespectively)thanbooks(17.3%,25.2%respec-tively)whilststudentsofthehumanitiescitedmorebooks(60.7%)thanjournalarticles(24.5%).Inthepresentstudy,similarresultswereob-servedbutwithbooks(61%)beingcitedmorefrequentlythan.pdf?les(57%).DisciplinarydifferencesweredistinctwithBusiness(51%v43%),Education(80%v60%)andSocialSciences(77%v73%)stu-dentsreportinggreateruseofbookchaptersthan.pdf?les(respectively).ThisdifferencebetweenthecurrentstudyandthatofMill,maybeduethedistinctmethodologicaldifferencesbetweenthestudies.Withtheadventofweb2.0technology,thereareawealthofotherresourcesopentothecuriousbuttheboundariesbetweenacceptableandunacceptableresourceshasbecomesomewhatblurredbecauseofinstitutionalanddisciplinarypreferences(LeaandJones,2011).Whenstudentswereaskedtoidentifyhowtheyensuredthevalidityoftheinformationtheyobtainedfromthewebthemajoritymen-tionedthesourceoftheinformation(e.g.validprofessionalwebsites,journalsetc),theauthor,therecencyofthepublicationandwhetherornotithadbeenpeerreviewed.Othersmentionedreadinglistsoradviceoftheirtutorofferingcon?rmationoftheworkofLeaandJones(2011),whosuggestthatthequestionofreliabilityofaresourceisdrivenbyinstitutionalrequirementsandstudentperceptionsoftheirtutor'sexpectations.However,Grif?thsandBrophy(2005)sug-gestthatstudent'suseofresourcesisdependentupontheirknowl-edgeofsearchengines,andthatstudents'viewsofqualityrelatetoreliability,recencyandaccuracyratherthancomingfromarefereedsource.Ourdatawouldsuggestthatatleastsomestudentsidenti?edtheimportanceofpeer-reviewindeterminingthevalidityofasource.Somerespondentsinphasetwoofthecurrentstudyidenti?edauthorshipasanimportantfactorinrecognisingtheauthorityofaresourcebutfewindicatedthattheyconductedanydetailedcriticalap-praisal.Thissupportsthe?ndingsofGrimesandBoening(2001)whofoundthatstudentsattemptedtolocatetheauthors,consideredthepub-licationdate,andlookedforcon?rmationviadi‘Moststudentsconsideredauthortobethemostimportantfeatureofahigh-qualitywebsite,givingnothoughttothequali?cationsofanypartic-ularWebauthor’(GrimesandBoening,2001,p.18).Allofwhichsuggeststhatstudentsareunlikelytoappraiseresourcesonthelogicoftheargu-ment,themethodology,content,referencesetc.,i.e.critically.Arecent?veyearstudyofinformationretrievalbystudentsfoundasubstantialincreaseintheuseofGoogleandWikipedia,whereaslibraryandGoogleScholarsearchesremainedstatic(JuddandKennedy,2010).Interestingly,inrelationtotheresourcesthattheycite,wefoundthatinphasetwoofthecurrentstudy,fewrespon-dentsmentionedtheuseofGoogle(orGoogleScholar)orWikis.Bycontrast,LeaandJones(2011,p.385)foundthat‘whenquestionedabouttheirpracticesaroundtheuseoftheWebintermsofaccessingsourcesfortheirassignments,studentsnearlyalwaysbeganthedis-cussionsbynamingaspeci?ctechnologicalapplication,suchasGoo-gle,Wikipediaortheuniversitylibraryportal’.Whetherornotthesedifferencesareduetoinstitutionalordisciplinaryconditionedre-sponseswouldbene?tfromfurtherinvestigation.ThechallengesfacedwhentryingtodiscoverauthoritativeonlineresourcesaretosomeextentaddressedwithintheoriginalversionoftheWRAP,althoughinphase1,studentfeedbackhighlighteddif?cul-tiesinrelationtoidentifyingkeywordsandsearchphrases.However,theoriginalversionwascon?nedtoprofessionallyrelevantsearchengines,alimitationofthetoolwhenoneexploresthedatafromphase2andthetypesofresourceidenti?edbystudents.Ourresultssupporttheneedforfurtherdevelopmentofcriticalappraisalskillsofstudents,particularlyinrelationtothediscoveryanduseofInternetresources.TheWRAPwasoriginallydesignedtosupportthedevelopmentofsuchskillsinrelationtothecriticalreviewofliteraturefornursingandhealthsciencestudents.ConclusionThispaperdescribesatwophaseactionresearchstudytodevelopandmodifyaweb2.0basedapplicationCtheWebResourceAppraisalProcess.PhaseoneinvestigatedtheaffordancesoftheWRAPinrela-tiontothedevelopmentofcriticalthinkingandappraisalskillsinnursingandhealthsciencestudentsinthehighereducationsector.Phasetwoinvolvedaninternational,multidisciplinarystudyofstudentperceptionsoftheuseandvalidityofonlineresources.OurresultsdemonstratethepotentialoftheWRAPtosupportthedevelopmentofcriticalthinkingandappraisalskills.Theyhavealsodemonstratedstudents'lackofunderstanding,andimplementationof,thoseskillsinarangeofstudentsacrossdisciplinaryandinterna-tionalboundaries.ReferencesAcro.http://www.cds-web.net/acro_index.html(Lastaccessed,September20th,2009).Biggs,J.,1996.Enhancingteachingthroughconstructivealignment.HigherEducation32,1C18.Birenbaum,M.,Dochy,F.J.R.C.,1996.Alternativesinassessmentofachievements,learningprocessesandpriorknowledge.KluwerAcademicPurbishers,Boston,MS.Darling-Hammond,L.,Snyder,J.,2000.Authenticassessmentinteachingincontext.TeachingandTeacherEducation16,523C545.Grif?ths,J.,Brophy,P.,2005.Studentsearchingbehaviorandtheweb:useofacademicresourcesandGoogle(Retrievedon30March2012from)http://hdl.handle.net/5.Grimes,D.,Boening,C.,2001.WorrieswiththeWeb:AlookatstudentuseofWebresources.CollegeandResearchLibraries62,11C23.Gulikers,J.,Bastiaens,Th.,Kirschner,P.,2007.De?ningauthenticassessment:?vedi-mensionsofauthenticity.In:Havnes,A.,McDowell,L.(Eds.),Balancingdilemmasinassessmentandlearningincontemporaryeducation.Routledge,NewYork.Herrington,J.,Herrington,A.,1998.Authenticassessmentandmultimedia.Howuni-versitystudentsrespondtoamodelofauthenticassessment.HigherEducationalResearchandDevelopment17(3),385-322.Higgins,J.,Green,S.(Eds.),2011.CochraneHandbookforSystematicReviewsofInter-ventionsVersion5.1.0[updatedMarch2011]:TheCochraneCollaboration(Avail-ablefromwww.cochrane-handbook.org).Judd,T.,Kennedy,G.,2010.A?ve-yearstudyofon-putersinEducation55(4),.Lea,M.,Jones,S.,2011.Digitalliteraciesinhighereducation:exploringtextualandtechnologicalpractice.StudiesinHigherEducation36(4),377C393.http://dx.doi.org/10..LearningSpace.http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/(lastaccessed,September20th,2009).LOREnet.http://www.surffoundation.nl/en/themas/elearning/onderwijsrepositorieslorenet/Pages/Default.aspx(lastaccessed,September20th,2009).McLoughlin,C.,Lee,M.,2010.Personalisedandself-regulatedlearningintheWeb2.0era:internationalexemplarsofinnovativepedagogyusingsocialsoftware.AustralasianJournalofEducationalTechnology26(1),28C43.Mill,D.,2008.Undergraduateinformationresourcechoices.CollegeandResearchLibraries69(4),342C355.Modritscher,F.,Spiel,S.,2006.AssessmentinE-LearningEnvironments:AComparisonofthreeMethods./papers/paper_moedritscher_et_al_eassessment_2006.pdf2006(lastaccessedJanuary3rd,2012).Sackett,D.,Rosenberg,W.,Gray,J.,Haynes,R.,Richardson,W.,1996.Evidencebasedmedicine:whatitisandwhatitisn't.BMJ312(.Savery,J.,Duffy,T.,1995.Problem-basedlearning:aninstructionalmodelanditscon-structivistframework.EducationsTechnology35,31C38.Younger,P.,2010.Internet-basedinformation-seekingbehaviouramongstdoctorsandnurses:ashortreviewoftheliterature.HealthInformationandLibrariesJournal27,2C10.三亿文库包含各类专业文献、行业资料、外语学习资料、应用写作文书、幼儿教育、小学教育、critical thinking 怎样训练批判性思维70等内容。　
　如何培养批判性思维 批判性思维是英语 Critical Thinking 的直译。Critical ...如何培养大学生的批判性思维,我认为应该从以下几个方面进行训 练: 1.求真 对... 　On the importance of critical thinking批判性思维的重要性_英语_高中教育_教育专区。批判性思维的重要性On the importance of critical thinking Critical thinking ... 　Critical Thinking-批判性思维 作者:杨建锋 记得前些年,在某次教育方面的会议上,我第一次听到了‘批判性思维’这个词,可能是作 为一个典型东方人的原因吧,对这个... 　但这 东西神龙见尾不见首,貌似还没人解释清楚过,尤其要让 批判性思维 批判性思维,英文叫 Critical Thinking,在讲究标准化答案、 唯一性答案的中国教育体系里,... 　什么是批判性思维 通过阅读 Stella Cottrell 的 Critical Thinking Skills--...为学生提供批判性思维的途径,使学生在学习过程中都能有效地训 练自己的批判性... 　TED-ed五个技巧养成批判性思维(带批注)_英语学习_...这是一种走进问题本身的 方法,可以让我们仔细地抽丝...critical thinking 使用批判性思考的人 subjects all ... 　批判性思维_社会民生_生活休闲。批判性思维(critical thinking)笔记 启蒙 1 思维需要专门训练 思维是重要的资源。 在所有的经济资源当中,思维是最重要的资源。别的... 　现在有一个批判性思维基金会(Foundation for Critical Thinking)和咨询产业来帮助...让他们更好地理解这些价值观如何被立为正统并得以留存下来, 用文化的和社会的...}