The collapse amazing and I have a great time reading both pieces. Such important work you're doing here and I love it when writer's feature other writers in their work it's actually what I do and this makes me feel so proud of the community.
One key danger is that we stop noticing the difference between AI shortcuts and our own reasoning. It may not feel dramatic in the moment, but over time it may reshape how we even define “thinking”.
In Alan Turing’s 1950 essay, the genesis of his “test” came about because he found the word “thinking” impossible to define. Part of the challenge of AI I’m finding is coming to deeper understanding of what humans mean by “thinking.”
Great point. Turing sidestepped the definition of thinking because it was so slippery, and maybe that’s still the heart of the issue today. AI forces us to look at whether we count thinking as the results or as the process. We seem to value the results in the short run. But that’s likely because we’re constantly over optimizing these days.
I'd be curious if there are any thoughts on a personal measure/process to analyze my own critical thinking in addition to a framework for assessment that's external.
Is there a measure I can use on myself to self evaluate my own critical thinking? (Full disclosure, I am finding it harder and harder to contend with the constant onslaught of information and increasing emotional when trying to reconcile what and how I think about change. Maybe I'm asking too much).
Great question, Joseph.. I've seen websites that purport to measure critical thinking, but ai've not been impressed by any that I can think of. There is a website that lists a myriad of standardized and semi-standardized assessments which you could use, but whether they would serve your purposes depends on how you define "self-assessment." As near as I can tell, most psychometrically validated scales are built from comparisons with other people rather than one's location in a construct of behaviors without reference to ranking according to behaviors of others. Here's a site you might consider. Let me know what you find out. https://www.adea.org/home/ADEAevents/teaching-resources/critical-thinking-skills-toolbox/pages/cts-tools-for-assessment.
I must be missing something: Your introduction seems to present a piece much different than the one that follows. For example, where is the impassioned case for writing…?
Don’t get me wrong, this is an interesting discussion of the limitations of Blooms and the general lack of understanding of what critical thinking is despite being a buzz word. My own feeling is that synthesis or creation is higher than evaluation, and that materialist attempts to quantify learning will always be limited. We still seem to know so little about how humans learn.
I agree with Heith that there is a bit of a dissonance between the commentary in the forward and the content of the article. Regardless, it was an insightful and constructive read.
Nick, I also share your sentiments about the AI in Ed discourse. Like so much public exchange, this issue has become myopic and polarised; 'this or that', rather than 'this and that'. I'm far more interested in 'how' than 'if'.
Terry, I use portfolios in all my classes, so I was intrigued by your body of work. To be fair, I use them begrudgingly as a tool for assessment, only because such is required of me, but enthusiastically as 'proof of work' and a method for creative self-expression.
I struggle with the whole idea of assessment as it currently stands (as per your definition of critical thinking), as it's largely subjective and its functional relevance is mostly as a tool for comparative performance. I'm a person that prefers collaboration over competition, diversity over standardisation, creation over competition, and I would like to see most competition removed from education. I love a good battle, but it should be an opt in, rather than an opt out. I understand assessment as a valuable tool for progression (perhaps), but not for validation. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, as you're a person who has spent a great deal of time considering assessment in the context of education and admissions.
Thanks for sharing Nick.
We are lucky that you and your colleagues are engaging in such important work.
The collapse amazing and I have a great time reading both pieces. Such important work you're doing here and I love it when writer's feature other writers in their work it's actually what I do and this makes me feel so proud of the community.
One key danger is that we stop noticing the difference between AI shortcuts and our own reasoning. It may not feel dramatic in the moment, but over time it may reshape how we even define “thinking”.
In Alan Turing’s 1950 essay, the genesis of his “test” came about because he found the word “thinking” impossible to define. Part of the challenge of AI I’m finding is coming to deeper understanding of what humans mean by “thinking.”
Great point. Turing sidestepped the definition of thinking because it was so slippery, and maybe that’s still the heart of the issue today. AI forces us to look at whether we count thinking as the results or as the process. We seem to value the results in the short run. But that’s likely because we’re constantly over optimizing these days.
I'd be curious if there are any thoughts on a personal measure/process to analyze my own critical thinking in addition to a framework for assessment that's external.
Is there a measure I can use on myself to self evaluate my own critical thinking? (Full disclosure, I am finding it harder and harder to contend with the constant onslaught of information and increasing emotional when trying to reconcile what and how I think about change. Maybe I'm asking too much).
Great question, Joseph.. I've seen websites that purport to measure critical thinking, but ai've not been impressed by any that I can think of. There is a website that lists a myriad of standardized and semi-standardized assessments which you could use, but whether they would serve your purposes depends on how you define "self-assessment." As near as I can tell, most psychometrically validated scales are built from comparisons with other people rather than one's location in a construct of behaviors without reference to ranking according to behaviors of others. Here's a site you might consider. Let me know what you find out. https://www.adea.org/home/ADEAevents/teaching-resources/critical-thinking-skills-toolbox/pages/cts-tools-for-assessment.
Thank you @Terry, I appreciate the thoughtful response!
Misfired this post. Here is the piece I meant to introduce. https://open.substack.com/pub/terryu/p/looking-for-the-next-world-possible?r=2l25hp&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I must be missing something: Your introduction seems to present a piece much different than the one that follows. For example, where is the impassioned case for writing…?
Don’t get me wrong, this is an interesting discussion of the limitations of Blooms and the general lack of understanding of what critical thinking is despite being a buzz word. My own feeling is that synthesis or creation is higher than evaluation, and that materialist attempts to quantify learning will always be limited. We still seem to know so little about how humans learn.
Great post! Thank you Nick and Terry.
I agree with Heith that there is a bit of a dissonance between the commentary in the forward and the content of the article. Regardless, it was an insightful and constructive read.
Nick, I also share your sentiments about the AI in Ed discourse. Like so much public exchange, this issue has become myopic and polarised; 'this or that', rather than 'this and that'. I'm far more interested in 'how' than 'if'.
Terry, I use portfolios in all my classes, so I was intrigued by your body of work. To be fair, I use them begrudgingly as a tool for assessment, only because such is required of me, but enthusiastically as 'proof of work' and a method for creative self-expression.
I struggle with the whole idea of assessment as it currently stands (as per your definition of critical thinking), as it's largely subjective and its functional relevance is mostly as a tool for comparative performance. I'm a person that prefers collaboration over competition, diversity over standardisation, creation over competition, and I would like to see most competition removed from education. I love a good battle, but it should be an opt in, rather than an opt out. I understand assessment as a valuable tool for progression (perhaps), but not for validation. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, as you're a person who has spent a great deal of time considering assessment in the context of education and admissions.