|
oleh Linda Elder and Richard Paul
Piawaian intelek sejawat ialah piawaian-piawaian yang
mesti diaplikasi kepada pemikiran apabila seseorang ingin menyemak
kualiti penalaran (reasoning) mengenai sesuatu masalah, isu, atau situasi.
Penguasaan piawaian-piawaian ini merupakan syarat untuk berfikir secara
kritis. Untuk membantu pelajar menguasainya, guru perlu mengajukan
soalan-soalan yang mencabar pemikiran pelajar dan soalan-soalan yang
menyebabkan pelajar bertanggungjawab kepada penalaran sendiri. Soalan-soalan
yang digunakan secara konsisten oleh guru dalam bilik darjah dapat
diinternalisasikan oleh pelajar lalu digunakan oleh pelajar untuk memeriksa
penalaran sendiri.
Universal intellectual standards are standards which must
be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the quality of
reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically entails
having command of these standards. To help students learn them, teachers
should pose questions which probe student thinking, questions which hold
students accountable for their thinking, questions which, through consistent
use by the teacher in the classroom, become internalized by students as
questions they need to ask themselves.
Matlamat terakhir ialah supaya soalan-soalan ini
disebatikan dalam pemikiran pelajar; membina sebahagian daripada suara
dalaman yang mempandunya ke arah penalaran yang lebih baik. Antara
piawaian-piawaian yang paling ketara ialah:
The ultimate goal, then, is for these questions to become
infused in the thinking of students, forming part of their inner voice,
which then guides them to better and better reasoning. While there are a
number of universal standards, the following are the most significant:
- KEJERNIHAN:
 | Bolehkah anda menghuraikan isi dengan lebih lanjut
lagi? |
| Bolehkah anda menjelaskan isi dengan cara lain? |
| Bolehkah anda memberikan misalan atau ilustrasi? |
Kerjenihan adalah lawang ke piawaian. Sekiranya
kenyataan tidak jelas, kita tidak dapat menentukan sama ada ianya tepat
atau relevan. Sebenarnya, kita tidak dapat berbuat apa-apa dengannya
kerana kita tidak tahu apa yang dinyatakan. Contohnya, soalan, "Apa
boleh dilakukan tentang sistem pendidikan Amerika?" adalah tidak
jelas. Untuk menjawab soalan itu dengan baik, kita perlu memahami dengan
lebih jelas lagi masalah yang dimaksudkan oleh penyoal. Soalan yang lebih
jelas mungkin berbentuk "Apakah yang boleh dilakukan oleh para
pendidik agar pelajar mempelajari kemahiran dan kebolehan yang boleh
membantu mereka berfungsi dengan berjayanya dalam pekerjaan dan proses
membuat keputusan?
CLARITY: Could you elaborate further
on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you
give me an illustration? Could you give me an example?
Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot
determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell
anything about it because we don't yet know what it is saying. For
example, the question, "What can be done about the education system
in America?" is unclear. In order to address the question
adequately, we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the
person asking the question is considering the "problem" to be.
A clearer question might be "What can educators do to ensure that
students learn the skills and abilities which help them function
successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?"
- KETEPATAN:
| Adakah ia benar? |
| Bagaimanakah kita boleh memeriksa dan menyemaknya? |
| Bagaimanakah kita boleh menentukan sama ada sesuatu itu
benar? |
Sesuatu kenyataan boleh bersifat jelas tetapi kurang
tepat; contohnya "Kebanyakan anjing mempunyai berat badan melebihi
300 paun" Maksudnya, kelebihan boleh seberat 1 atau 100 paun atau
angka yang lain.
ACCURACY: Is that really true? How
could we check that? How could we find out if that is true?
A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are
over 300 pounds in weight."
- KEJITUAN
| Bolehkah anda memberi butiran yang lebih lanjut? |
| Bolehkah anda menyampaikan dengan lebih spesifik atau
khusus? |
| Sesuatu kenyataan boleh berbentuk jernih dan tepat,
tetapi kurang jitu seperti - "Jack is overweight." Kita tidak
mengetahui sama ada berat badan Jack melampau 1 atau 500 paun. |
PRECISION: Could you give more
details? Could you be more specific?
A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in
"Jack is overweight." (We don't know how overweight Jack is,
one pound or 500 pounds.)
- RELEVAN:
| Apakah kaitannya dengan pokok soalan? |
| Apakah kesannya terhadap isu? |
| Sesuatu penyataan berkemungkinan jelas, tepat dan jitu
tetapi tidak releven kepada soalan yang dikaji. |
| Contohnya, pelajar sering berpendapat bahawa jumlah
usaha yang dicurahkan dalam sesuatu kursus patut dipertingkatkan untuk
memperbaiki gred kursus berkenaan. Biasanya "usaha" tidak
tidak menentukan kualiti pembelajaran pelajar, dan lantaran itu, usaha
tidak releven demi mendapat gred yang dikehendaki. |
RELEVANCE: How is that connected to
the question? How does that bear on the issue?
A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the
question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of
effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a
course. Often, however, the "effort" does not measure the
quality of student learning, and when this is so, effort is
irrelevant to their appropriate grade.
- KEDALAMAN:
| Bagaimanakah jawapan anda menyambut konpleksiti dalam
persoalan? |
| Bagaimanakah anda menjelaskan masalah-masalah dalam
persoalan? |
| Adakah jawapan anda menangani faktor-faktor yang paling
signifikan? |
| Sesuatu penyataan berkemungkinan jelas, tepat, jitu,
dan relevan, tetapi berbentuk superficial iaitu kurang mendalam. |
| Contohnya, penyataan "Just say No" Katakan
Tidak yang digunakan untuk menjerakan kanak-kanak dari penyalahgunaan
dadah adalah jelas, tepat, jitu dan revelen. Bagaimanapun, ia kurang
mendalam kerana penyalahgunaan dadah merupakan isu yg kompleks dan
besar. Penyataan demikian tidak dapat menggambarkan kerumitan dan
keseriusan masalah tersebut. |
DEPTH: How does your answer address
the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the
problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant
factors?
A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but
superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement "Just
say No" which is often used to discourage children and teens fro
using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it
lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive
problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal
with the complexities of the issue.
- KELEBARAN:
| Adakah anda perlu mempertimbangkan sudut pandangan
lain? |
| Apakah terdapatnya cara lain untuk melihat persoalan? |
| Apakah pandangannya dari kedudukan konservatif? |
| Apakah pengertiannya jika dilihat dari segi ... ? |
| Seseuatu penyataan berkemungkinan jelas, tepat, jitu,
releven, dan mendalam, akan tetapi kurang luas. |
| Contohnya, penerangan pendirian dari segi konservitif
yang mendalam tetapi mengabaikan pandangan lain malah hanya mengakui
satu pandangan sahaja. |
BREADTH: Do we need to consider
another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question?
What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would
this look like from the point of view of...?
A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep,
but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the conservative or
liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes
the insights of one side of the question.)
LOGIK:
| Adakah ia masuk akal? |
| Adakah ia mengikuti apa yang dikatakan? |
| Apakah kaitannya. Apakah implikasi dan inferens
bercanggah? |
| Penalaran adalah logik jika apabila kombinasi idea dan
hujah adalah saling menyokong |
LOGIC: Does this really make sense?
Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before
you implied this and now you are saying that; how can both be true?
When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order.
When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense
in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the
combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense,
or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical.
|
