Sarah Edelsohn: Evaluation Questions

Evaluation Questions

1.     Were the participants honest with themselves?

Always. I believe for the most part the she was honest with herself,

2.     Were their opinions bases on facts or personal experiences?

Kayleigh relied on facts as well as personal opinions

3.     Did they revise judgment when new evidence arose?

Sometimes.

4.     Were they an emotional debater following their feelings and acting impulsively?

Sometimes, she was passionate, but knew how to use it to make a point, but not overly so, that she couldn’t see other opinions.

5.     Did they hold a firm stance on their position or was it weak?

Firm. She knew what she was talking about but used additional information to her advantage

6.     Was participant willing to listen to both side of the story?

Sometimes. She was willing to listen to up until a point, but usually reverted back to her own opinion.

7.     Did they dismiss problems as a nuisance and a threat to their ego or not?

Never. She seemed able to take the conversation into a pleasant(ish) area.

8.     Are they interested in other people ideas?

Sometimes. She would listen to the question, and sometimes-new information or opinions would change her view.

9.     Do they seek a fair balanced view striving for understanding?

Always.

10. The participant demonstrates the three values of critical thinking interpretation, investigation, and judgment?

Sometimes. She had her own (positive) view on the average person’s ability to have a gun but was able to listen to other opinions although most of the time “stuck to her guns”

Overall I think that Kayleigh is a Critical thinker but could stand to take more opinions into consideration. 

Sarah Edelsohn: Are You a Critical Thinker?

Through out this field day experiment I interviewed two completely different people: a complete stranger, Melissa, and my Best friend, Kayleigh. When interviewing these two completely different people I found that I quickly made opinions on these girls. I already knew how my friend Kayleigh was to react to my pushy questions, but Melissa was a completely different story. I saw that I was quicker to judge my friend, Kayleigh, instead of the stranger, Melissa. I knew how Kayleigh acted while under duress; typically she is quick to anger and gets extremely passionate about debating topics she finds interesting as well as doesn’t bother to listen to additional information that might discredit her argument. I think that she is a very smart person but doesn’t stop to think about new opinions or solutions. I never really thought she was a critical thinker…until today. I was extremely surprised by Kayleigh. When given new information, she stopped to think about what I was saying and would respond to the new information given. When she was given a tidbit that she didn’t like however, you could tell that she didn’t like it and didn’t keep her thoughts to herself and would sigh dramatically as if to say,” I don’t like this, but…” I think that she has grown up quite a bit and can think for herself. While my original thoughts of Kayleigh where disproved, so where my thoughts of the Moorpark student, Melissa. When I first saw Melissa, I thought she was going to be very loud and have big opinions. When she started talking however, I found a soft-spoken girl who was quick to please our interviewer, Chase. I didn’t really see original ideas being formed, but merely a pleaser who wanted to keep Chase happy with her. While this opinion was formed, I was quickly forced to re-evaluate her when she refused to acquiesce on the topic of carrying a concealed handgun at the age of twenty-one. She was firm on her first impulsive opinion. I say impulsive because this number was pulled out of thin air. She came up with a number first, and then tried to explain it even thought she was mostly trying to explain it to herself. I think that while it is great that Melissa had her own opinion, she should have tried to understand the opposite side’s argument to be a true critical thinker instead of letting her passion get the better of her.

Sarah Edelsohn: Non-Verbal Notes from the on Campus Interview

Melissa was a very quiet girl who seemed to want to please our interviewer and really didn't form many opinions of her own, instead, agreeing with everything our interviewer, Chase, said. Melissa tended to cross her arms a lot as well as use her hands as a point when passionate about something, such as the age to cary gun. She also tended to shrug her shoulders when there was a topic she wasn't particularly passionate about as well as topics she didn't know much about. The only time our interviewer, Chase, was able to get a rise out of her was when he asked her about the age to own, and cary a gun. Her passion, although interesting to watch, did not (in my opinion) make her into a critical thinker.

Chase Ruesga: Critical Thinking Evaluation

Critical Thinking Evaluation

Throughout this field day assignment I conducted a total of 2 interviews one with a random Moorpark College participant Melissa and another random, my younger sibling Kianna; featuring Mario (the boyfriend) who unknowingly made a special appearance. I realized separately unique characteristics from both interviews. Unfortunately my sister, who was a bit preoccupied the time had to be the furthest away from a critical thinker as you could possibly get. She was busy, I’ll give her that, however that doesn’t take away from the fact that through out her interview she was dismissive and didn’t truly hold down a strong opinion regarding gun control. Contradicting herself a numerous amount of times and unwilling to understand other ideas and contrary beliefs she came off very defensive and impatient basing a lot of her ideas on personal preference and emotion. Giving her an official rating of 3 out of 10, 10 being the highest. On the other hand I have concluded that my first interviewer at Moorpark College Melissa contributed more established attributes of a critical thinker, but I would not categorize her as one. Both participants agreed that 25 was a suitable age to hold carry a weapon, however Melissa was a bit more optimistic about opposing views but still lenient about people owning gun if they were fully informed such as the military or police officers. Overall the greatest thing I took away from this interview is that to be a critical thinker you must know the subject and if not acknowledge it, make a decision about where you stand on the issue, but mostly importantly out of all things combined you must strive to understand and listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lecl6KY47Mc

Chase Ruesga: Evaluation Questions

Evaluation Questions

1.     Were the participants honest with themselves?

Always. I believe for the most part the she was honest with herself, however undecided about her official position on the matter.

2.     Were their opinions bases on facts or personal experiences?

Always personal experience. During the interview she relied mostly on personal experiences referencing people in her life.

3.     Did they revise judgment when new evidence arose?

Sometimes. When presented with different ways to handle gun control and situations but was not very optimistic about opposing evidence.

4.     Were they an emotional debater following their feelings and acting impulsively?

Always. When I started questioning her views she became very dismissive and started questioning me.

5.     Did they hold a firm stance on their position or was it weak?

Weak. Her position on the issue was very mixed and at various times started contradicting herself.

6.     Was participant willing to listen to both side of the story?

Sometimes. She was willing to listen to up until a point, but sort of instantly went against the ideas presented.

7.     Did they dismiss problems as a nuisance and a threat to their ego or not?

Always. Became very defensive and started questioning my stance on the issue.

8.     Are they interested in other people ideas?

Sometimes. She would listen to the question, but that was new information did not change her opinion.

9.     Do they seek a fair balanced view striving for understanding?

Never. Went straight to arguing every point presented and was pretty bias and one sided.

10. The participant demonstrates the three values of critical thinking interpretation, investigation, and judgment?

Never. Went straight to judgment every time voicing her values, views and belief on gun control.

Over all I would give this individual a 3 out of 10 in critical thinki

Kristina Medeiros: Paragraph

After conducting two interviews on two different people about the topic of gun control, I feel as if my understanding of Critical Thinking is much more clear.Critical Thinking is the ability of a having a mind of your own while still allowing yourself to take in the ideas and beliefs of others and respecting those ideas and beliefs.  It is being honest with yourself and knowing when you're right and more importantly, knowing when you're wrong.  Critical Thinking is also wanting to understand things you don't yet know and now conducting judgments until those misunderstood topics are understood.  Overall, I would say Critical Thinking is having a mind of your own and allowing your mind to always be open to the views of others and being continuously interested in gaining an understanding the ways in which different people think.

 

Kristina Medeiros: Evaluation Sheet for Independent Interview

Evaluation Sheet:

1. Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don't know, recognizing their limitations, and being watchful of their own errors.

-Always.  As much as this man supports the right to bear arms, he is still willing to understand the point of view that not all people are responsible enough

to handle themselves with a weapon.

2. Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges.

-Never.  This man had his point of view but at the same time, he didn't seem to be very enthusiastic about the topic.  He doesn't seem to like that kind of

pressure of discussing controversial topics.

3. Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity, and are ready to invest time to overcome confusion.

-Sometimes.  I do believe that he took the time to think about the way others would think of this topic before he spoke.  He took long pauses and thought

before he spoke every time.

4. Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences, deferring judgment whenever evidence is insufficient.  They revise judgments when new

evidence reveals error.

-Sometimes.  A lot of his decisions were based on personal preferences, but he provided evidence to support his evidence.  He was able to revise his

evidence a little bit when I asked him about campus carry.

5. Are interested in other people's ideas and so are willing to read and listen attentively, even when they tend to disagree with the other person.

-Always.  He always remained calm and patient even when I tried to instigate.  He never cut me off when I was talking.  That might just be his normal 

demeanor but still, I think he always had this critical thinking trait.

6. Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct, so they avoid them, practice fairmindedness, and seek a balanced

view.

-Always.  He was quite conservative in his views but he was willing to understand why liberals would want stronger gun control, even though he didn't agree

with it.  This goes back to the whole topic of campus carry and understanding that some people just aren't responsible enough to carry concealed 

weaponry on a school campus.

7. Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them, and thinking before acting.

-Always.  He didn't show a lot of emotion and he was patient in hearing me talk before he spoke himself.  His answers seemed pretty thought out when he

spoke and his hand gestures seemed to show that he was calm and at ease.