The correlation between the flaws students define in an argument and their creative and critical thinking abilities


KADAYIFÇI H. , Atasoy B., AKKUŞ H.

Cyprus International Conference on Educational Research (CY-ICER), CYPRUS, 8 - 11 February 2012, vol.47, pp.802-806 identifier

  • Publication Type: Conference Paper / Full Text
  • Volume: 47
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.738
  • Country: CYPRUS
  • Page Numbers: pp.802-806

Abstract

Chemistry laboratory courses in which students design their researches in order to solve the problem related to the phenomenon addressed, make claims based on available data and reasons, defend the arguments they produce and refute the arguments they oppose will be more effective in rendering them learners who think critically and produce ideas. There exist studies that give rise to the thought that defining flaws in an argument is linked to a certain extent to creative and critical thinking. The aim of this study is to examine the correlation between the number of flaws students produce about an opposed argument and their creative and critical thinking abilities. To this end, the Chemistry Laboratory course was taught according to the Argument Driven Inquiry model to 30 freshmen for ten weeks. After the application, students' argumentation skills, number of flaws they produced for an argument and their creative and critical thinking abilities were measured. It was determined after the application that most of the students suitably employed argumentative operations of claim, warrant, rebuttal and backing by using given data. A medium-level significant correlation was found between the number of flaws students defined about an argument related to the Boyle Law and their scores from the creative thinking dimensions of fluency and flexibility and from critical thinking This finding is in parallel with the findings of other studies in the literature. Studies might be conducted to demonstrate the nature of the relationship between high-level thinking abilities and rebuttal, which is an argumentative operation. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.