Rustamova shaxnoza ilxomovna shaping creative and critical thinking skills through the english literature

Phase 5. Writing phase. Tell the students to be open to everyone to predict, to withhold criticism until one hears what has been said during a class discussion. Suspension of judgment pending review problem is an important critical thinking skill. A prediction that seems unlikely at first may come true reasonable. All the proposed predictions are written on the board. Tell me that students want to engage in dialogue rather than debate. The purpose of the upcoming discussion is to listen and learn from each other by sharing ideas. Explain in more detail that it is the task of the members of the class to determine whether each prediction is present or not well-founded; so listen and understand before making any critical comments.
Phase 6. Dialogue phase. Here the class discusses its advantages each prediction until they are all covered. Do not express your thoughts during the conversation, because these may affect students. Sometimes differences in perspective Both sides offer because students are not reconciled between valid evidence. In such cases, each side can be generalized and class members can decide for themselves. Such unresolved issues actually useful because they show students that right and false not always clear cut. There is a place for honesty disagreement. People should think for themselves through justice and careful consideration. Student predictions vary depending on how good people understand the character and how well they review themselves answers. According to the instructions, I also enter the game. Little students, for example, predict how they would react instead. Predicting how Madame Loisel will react. These students can identify where they may have been confused through class discussion own values with the character's values. Sometimes readers’ make predictions that just don't come true up because it assigns attributes to characters that aren't there fits the evidence in the story. In other words, the predicted behavior is actually out of character. Other errors in thinking also appear. Motivating students Identify mistakes when discussing various issues. For example, a student may base an event on something that never happened in the story. Another student might point out that the argument does not change because the supporting evidence the story is wrong. The teacher acts as an observer and leader debate. In the above case we can ask: "Can you prove that supporting evidence is not factual?" The then the student can refer to the actual text to prove the point. Give students a chance to change their minds. The preponderance of evidence is against their opinion: "Charlie, given what Carol just said, how do you argue your point Situation?" Try to develop a dialogue rather than a threatening discussion. The goal is to force students to think logically, not to involve them narrow-minded struggle. Students in discussions like this must learn to look for a strong answer rather than looking for one argument for argument. Several students left during the actual class discussion. Go back to the text of the story to find evidence to support them thinking. In such cases, it is better if the teacher shows it such primary source evidence is important for some resolution differences of opinion. Madame Forester’s character was more closely examined than expected as a result of this whole process. Although he character was not the intended focus of the lesson, the class many questions and comments about nature were revealed in the discussion Forester’s character and friendship. One benefit of the lessons structured in such a way that they lend themselves deeper understanding the material. During such a discussion, tell the students what to say support their predictions and ask students to retell them sure Sometimes students need to express what they want they listen to others. This effectively keeps the discussion going encourages listening to the warning. Statements of support or opposition often lead to a show of hands and more responses and reactions. Point identify what is happening in terms of thinking behavior during this period process and give students an opportunity to reassess their positions based on new evidence.
Below is a list of some answers produced in a real classroom and a summary of the dialogue gave a result. This lesson took place in the ninth grade of the college class, but can be used with Dialog teaching model achievement at any level, ninth through twelfth grade:
A. Madame Loisel decides to change her life. The students were against this prediction; ma'am Loisel was too shallow to experience such a change. They said she is more inclined to vent her anger and frustration someone else. Others noted that her discovery was quite remarkable. She was amazed that this could make her see the folly of her ways. Students said she was too shallow to change her past behavior as evidence. One group was arguing based on evidence another speculated.
B. “She is happy because she can get his property back Mrs. Forestier. "Here the students argued that it might not be Forestier return the real necklace or return Ms. Loisel. They had revealed an assumption in this prediction. This is what the students were told Madame Loisel may have guessed so, and the class must accept at least a provisional assumption the prophecy had any significance. The class is divided into two groups. The first agreed such as the prediction that money will come the necklace was enough to please anyone. Her years’ labor was rewarded with wealth. The second group proposed after spending the argument Paying ten years for a piece of crap would be hard to get comfort from money. Some students gave evidence. A story that proves Madame Loisel has grown old and worn out from years of worry and work. She lost her youth and dignity beauty and has humbled herself over the years. Money, they argued, could never make up for lost time and a more fulfilling, happy life. They also claimed that he cannot enjoy the money now because she had no more beauty to amaze people. These thoughts were taken as a basis based on evidence from the story.
C. “Loiselle blames herself for being so stupid—as she should be told Forestier she lost the necklace."Some students again questioned Forestier's honesty. The students were distracted. At this time there was little Disagreement that Madame Loisel is not self-blame. Students agreed that the prediction could be a common reaction for some, but perhaps not for Madame Loisel. Students were asked if this reaction was likely chance, given Loisel1 personality of this matter was discussed. Students said it was important to think in qualified terms not in absolutes: probably, most likely, almost certain. Qualifying statements are a lesson at this point. The majority the students thought Ms. Loisel was unlikely to blame her because he was in the habit of blaming others.
D. “Loiselle blames Forestier for not telling her It was paste when he borrowed the necklace." This again brought up the question of Forestier is sincerity and honesty. Some students said it should be Madame Forestier Loisel tells the lady that the necklace is not real. Others Forestier replied that Madame Loisel might have thought she knew it wasn't the real thing. The class was ordered to look return to the text to resolve this disagreement. There was no evidence that Madame Forestier has dishonest intentions. Everything else forecasts were discussed until the dialogue phase was completed.