Professional Documents
Culture Documents
tr
DE CUONG MON HOC
MSMH
tit
A. T6m
56 tin chi
02
Tu duy phan bi6n ld m6n hgc gioi thiQu cho hoc vi6n crich tLimh giri thfing tin, ldp luAn vd tu ilua
ra l6p lu4n dga trdn ciic ngudn j, ki6n da dang, trrii chi6u. oay le[y nang-co ban, girip hoc vi6n
xu lf ctic th6ng.tin, l6p lu6n, nghiOn cr?u m6t ciich chinh xiic kh6ng nhirng trong nha-trudng md
cdn trong doi s6ng sau ndy. Trong. su6t kh6a hoc, hoc vi6n rip dUng tj, thuyt l6n nhirng vAn d6
bdn thdn hoic xd h6i quan tam nh6t.
stt
I
3
.;l
C.
criatudu@
,dn@
f6t qui
stt
I
2
3
4
5
ning sau:
K6i que
dil
duo.
Tim tdi li0u. th6ng tin. vd s6 li6u tir nhi6u ngu6n" kh6rc nhau
Ki6m chimg su tin c6y cria th6ng tin, tdi ligu, sti liCu
Phan tich, t6ng hqp, sdp x6p th6ng tin, tei lieu, vd s6 liCu
Ding lfp lu{n d6 biQn luQn cho ciich.nhin vd giii quy6t v6n dC cta ri6ng minh
dua tr6n nhftng kiiin thuc vd quan di6m da chiAu dd tham khdo vd chon loc.
N6i vd viilt sir dung ng6n tu chinh xdc, lip ludn
i",t.-i"ttu.a.h la",
"irg
"t
44n qlr,frng xric thuc
C6 thei d0 tU tin nhung khi6m t6n, binh tinh, doc lap, t6n trong su rhAt vd lE
qQng beng
STT
C6ch td
chfc
eians day
Tu hqc tai nhd
M6 td ngan ggn
56 ti6t
Si s6 SV t6i da
60
30
30
tru6c
E.
l0
Chia nh6m
(group work)
th6o luAn/bdi
t6p/thuc hdnh
20
Tii
Moore, BN and Parker, R 2007, "Two kinds of reasonin g". Critical Thinking,t6i bin lAn 8, Mc
Graw Hill, New York.
Van Den Brink-Budgen, R 2006,'Nhfn d4ng nhtng lap luan" (chuong l), Critical thinkingfor
students, tei ban l6n 3, Nguy6n Dric Ddn dich, Howobook, United Kingdom.
2. Tni liQu tham khio:
L6. Tt Thdnh 2005, Logic hoc vii phuong phitp nghin c ru khoa ftpc, , Nxb. T16. Tp.HCM.
Pham, Dinh NghiQm 2007 Nhdp mbn logic hoc, Nxb. DHQG, Tp.HCM.
Starkey, L 2004, Critical Thinking Skills Success In 20 Minutes A Day, Learning express, New
York.
l.
Di5m quri trinh (307o, trong iI6 10% tir di6m chuyGn cAn,207o In di5m bni tflp)
Di6m chuy6n can 1tOZl: Di6m niy d6nh giri sg c6 mit dAy dri vd qurl trinh tham gia th6o
luAn, phrit bi6u f ki6n cua sinh vi6n trong l6p.
Dim bdi tQp QO%\ Trong su6t quri trinh hgc, hgc vi6n sE lim bai tqp kiiim tra ki6n thric trdn
lop, bai t{p v6 nhd, vA m6t s6 tdi liQu clqc d nhd. Hoc vi6n duoc ggi chAm dii5m ngiu nhin.
86o crio giii,a ki (t6ng 407o, trong d6 30"/o cho brlo c6o vi6t, 107. cho thuy6t trinh;
o HQc vi6n sE ldm viQc theo nh6m (g6m 5-6 hoc vi6n/nh6m) vd m6t v6n dd kinh doanh me c6
nhidu rranh ludn hodc nhi6u j ki6n trdi chiAu. Hoc vidn dugc ydu cAu viin dung ki6n rhuc dd
hqc d6 phan tich, drinh gi6 v6n d, vd alra ra quan rtidm riAng ho{c hmfng quy| dlnh cfia
nhdm. Hgc vi6n sE dua ra nh[ng lap luan d6 bao v6 quan di6m/quy6t dinh cira nh6m minh
trong bdi b6o c6o. Hgc vi6n cin phdi thu thQp thilng tin, ddn ch*ng til nhiiu nguin d6 h6
tro bdo vd ldp lu6n cria minh.
o HQc vi6n cAn phdi deng kf <16 tdi tru6c v6i giang vi6n vdo tuAn thu 2. Dd tdi nn cg thi vd
m6t v6n d6, m6t quyiit <Ilnh, hay m6t chinh ia.n 10.6p dQ co quan hoic xd h6i) nat d6 md
lu6n c6 nhirng mAt duo. c vd m6t (rade-offs) holc c6 f ki6n da chiiju. Nh6m hoc vin n6p
mu6n sE bi tru 0,5 diCm.
o
Bdi vi& bdo cdo nhdm nQp vdo rudn cudi cing cfio khtia, theo rting nhftttg fiAu chudn vi
hinh thttc sau tldy:
2
t6l.ttrieu
lf
le
Nhin nhin nhirng mEt kh6c nhau c6 th6 c6 crla v6n <td. Sri dung nghe thuat tu tu thich hqp
d6 bAo vd quan di6m, side md minh di chon
C6 s6 li6u, chimg cri phir hqp rtd h6 trq quA trinh ldp ludn. Chimg crl dring tin c6y
(reliable), hqp l0 (valid), vd m4nh (powerful)
Khbng fuo vdn; trfch ddn phn hgp
C6 phen tei liQu tham khdo
Cric thdnh viAn si itdnh giti ldn nhau dga fiAn iiling g6p crta fimg thdnh viAn. Thdnh
viAn ndo kh6ng iiling g6p sd nhQn ctiim 0.
trinh biio crio tru6c krp. Quy trinh b6o cdo nhu sau:
Hgc vin sE trinh bdy t6m tit bdi bdo ciio cria nh6m minh (n6i dung cua bdi b6o cdo
vitit gita k! d trn) rru6c l6p trong 20 - 30 phtt. Sau d6, cric hoi vi6n khric trong
lop sC d{t cdu h6i vd phdur bi6n trong 20 - 30 phrit.
ViQc trinh bdy dA tdi sC di6n ra li6n tuc tri tuin thri 4 diin tu6n thft 8. ruy theo sy il6ng
Ti6u chi tlanh giri cho ph6n thuy6t trinh: b6n canh nhirng ti6u chi vi mdt nQi dung
nhu di m6 td trong phAn b6o c6o nh6m, hoc vi6n s0 <luqi ch6m di6m dUa tr6n hinh
thric thuydt trinh, nQi dung trd loi phan biQn, vd crich h6i ilep f ki6n phan biQn.
Tit cd ctic thdnh vin sE tham gia tri ltri phan biQn. C6c thanh vi6n sE duoc d6nh giri
ri6ng
bit.
i;t .. ;
!,{ I ,
( {^Lc,)
Ti6u luin:307o
Cric ban chgn 1 bdi b6o khoa hgc (ti6ng Anh ho4c ViQt ddu ttuoc) c6 li6n quan d6n nghiOn
cuu cria minh (do nguoi huong din de ngh!, do bgn qu tim trCn internet, thu vin,...), sau d6:
a-.
minhchausav@ueh.edu.vn vd chau@soka.ac.ip
vri nho ddt tOn
file
li
EMBA2015.xx.HoVaTen.doc (docx): trong d6 xx ld s5 thu tu crla m5i ban theo danh srich lop,
vi du : EMB,g.Ol.LeVanBinh.doc
iry 0411012015.
Uitt.d
+ zD,f&q)
Thdi
nim
Irons
tip
giri
Thdi
Trgng si5
iliAm
30%
86o cdo
gita
k!
-l
..
^ oe tar.
nguor ve mQt
(Lcrp chia thdnh 5 nh6m)
Trgng s6 nay tuong duong
40%
Thuyt
trinh
tu
tui'n 4
8,
voi di6m
gita k).
NQP
vdo tuin
8
Ti6u luin
NQp vio
tu6n 8
"1-1,,,.,/Wf
<t6:
30%
nhAn ban?
T6ng
l00o/o
3.1.
Lim
viQc <IQc tfp iISi vrii nhfrng biri tip cd nhin: Nhnng bii tdp hoac bdi ki6m tra cii nhdn
nhAm dAnh gi6 khd. neng cua timg hoc vi6n. Hoc vi6n phdi tu minh thuc hi6n nhfrng bdi t6p
ndy. D6i voi bdi ki6m tra (ca tai l6p vd tu lam d nha), hoc vi8n kh6ng duoc gian l{n du6i b6t
ct hinh thr?c niro.
3.2. Kh6ng il?o vIn: Dao vdn (plagiarism) ld vi6c st dung y, cAu vdn, ho{c bdi vi6t cia ngudi
khiic trong bdi vi6t cr.ia minh md kh6ng c6 trich d5n phn irqp. Hoc vi6n s6 bi xem ld dao vrn
n6u:
i.
Sao ch6p nguy6n vdn m6t cdu hay m6t doan vdn md kh6ng ilua vdo
ii.
iii.
iv.
nAt I(y tann it$ng khdng chinh trgc nio cta hgc vi6n, dn bi ph:it hign e_b6tky thoi <ti6m nio
(k6.cd sau khi ili6m dli iluo.c c6ng b6 ho{c k6t thric m6n hqc) ilaiu sE din tt6n <Ii6m 0 <I6i vrii
ph6n ki6m tra tuong ri'ng, ho{c tli6m 0 cho toirn bQ mdn hgc tiy viro mrirc tlQ.
trich:
Lf Thi Minh
Chdu
D5i
vr6ri
hgc
I uan
..
-t .bar
-I rra de
/Bu6i
giing
PhAn l: D6nh
Gioi thiQu
ki
chinh:
Tii
li6u
fit
Hoc vi6n
C6c
phuong
ph6p tu duy
Lf
thuy6t
l4p
Qria trinh
lap
luan
luan
DanI Ci6
lap
lu{n
P]
hinh
Pre-test
I
ffi
Gi6i thiou
Rotello C.M.
"Two kinds of Reasoning", fups L.J., American
5
bii
denh
lap
luin.
ei
Hoc vi6n
bdv b6o ciio
K!.neng.gidi
K!
nang Qp
trinh
kO
hoach PDCA
8
trinh
Hoc vi6n
T6ng kdt
Post test
Sinh vi6n
n6p
b6o ciio giira
cu6i
kj, &
ki.
gota
lL-" Nq* H;
ert,s+i'- ry*L^Q
PRETEST
t.
I
@
that apply.)
check out their websites
Chiliin-a-can.
'Vote for me, and Ilr{f,-rise our schools
c.
mentioned
research
already
5. Which
a.
of
is a
I had
sbund argument?
If I rvant to do better
@
c
ask for
she took a
a befter &iver, so
driving dass and studied the
improved.
After
of
I
d.
more positive
dream.
for
a.
6lL
cold,
Cold-Go-Away.
What is the best conclusion for the argument
that begins,'The other eight pmple in my
class . . ."?
of
..
0.
for
a category?
ab.
price
gas mileage
@) tire pressure
d.
storage capacity
PRETEST
vacation to the
Bahamas.
c.
it
enyironment.
goes on sale.
subject.
&
c.
@
b.
d-
ll.
a- fuituition
b. common sense
gossip
d-
past experience
d5o.X
t2.
Which is NOT
b.
.-
base-
r,il [jb.
orpensive.
(c.)
d.
valid argument?
a.
politi-
rates.
is running for
pollution.
d"
spefing
The person
cal office.
for
work
d"
PRETEST
judgment instead
solving?
problem
a.
a.
b.
b.
d-
d.
Your dream is to spend a sHnfll:.
someone elset.
liL
of a faa?
in Indonesia.
nighl
sents
tle
*r
j'
di$*df,r,a.y
b. A* fary r members
df
^,;-'
dodado{rs-
www.members.aol.com/keV/Lin-
trip.
Lincolnt
presidenc,,
l,ook into
b.
www.southerpower.org/assassinations: a
Confederate group's site on famous assassinations, most pages devoted to Lincoln
15. What
is
b.
historical
www.lincoln&taedu: site of
correspondence
There is nothing wrong with the argument.
d"
d-
PRETEST
&
;::jLfu., ""-
n^ b..,
Hl"rB'.,1*,f,
b.
U^.\
a.
b.
hard.
c.
camp over
d-
tle summer.
c,
gam,
9. What
is wrong
'How
t''')
ca-o
KL'
t -/"
b. t<st{..
convicted f6lon!"
[-+1
a- The fact that
b.
d.
statement?
world
the person testi$ing was convicted of a crime does not meatr he is lying.
questions.
court
of law.
c,
d.
criminals.
The person speaking obviously did not
I decided to specialize in
oceanography. The trip was sponsored by the plankton
lG ttl'
A".l rr
d"t"?
a. Floridians would be happier if they moved
b.
ac[ r
p#ftt3
to the Antarctic.
d-
contaminants.
PIIETEST
4o?
' /'\
(
tl,* at
. Q. What b phytoplankton?
\ - . another name for chlorophyll
U. a microscopic plant
//
c a microscopic animal
a" a gpe offsh
)
b.
1-
d.
b.
c.
d.
a negative
a"
rounding waters.
b.
c.
not study.
a section
you did
higher price
www.betterbusinessburcau.org: provides
?.
What is
www.carbuyingtipscom. evcrything
to know before 1ou shop for
lour
pu
b.
need
new business!
c.
detailing for
svere?
ffim.
b.
a.
it is in the wash.
had
24
is weakest?
no,v car
d"
truthfrrl or objective.
Information found in print
is almost
PRETEST
a,
b.
c.
d.
29. What
a.
b.
checks.
c.
It
of letter grades.
you
d"
qrn-
rid
30. Which phrase
; hhs
is an example of hlp,lrbole?
*J'1,
Guidelines for Critiquing a Q3ualitative Research Study
Elements influencing the believability ofthe research
Elements
Questions
Writing style
Is the article well written- concise, grammatically correct, avoid use ofiargon? ls it well
laid out an organized?
Title
Abstract
Does
tle
Elements
Questions
Purpose/research problem
Logical consistenry
Does the research report follow the steps ofthe research process in a logical mannerl Do
these steps naturally 0ow and are the finks clear?
Literafure review
an empirica.l nafure?
Theoretical framework
Has the philosophical approach been identified? Why was this approach/method chosen?
underpinnings
Research setting
Was the setting properly and completely described? Were the circumstances under which
the data was colected described?
ls the sampling method and sample size described? Is tlre sampling method appropriate?
Were the participants properly and completely described? Were the participants suitable
Sarnple
Were the participants firlly informed about the nature of the research? Was the
autonomy/confidentiality ofthe participants guaranteed? Were the participants
protected from harm ? Was ethical permission gnnted for the study?
Data collection/data
analysis
Are the data collection strategies described? Are the strategies used to analyze the data
described? Did the researcher follow the steps ofthe data analysis method identiffed? Was
data saturation achieved?
tugor
Does tJre researcher discuss how rigor was assuted? Were credibility, dependabiliry and
Findings/discussion
Are the findings presented appropriatelyl Was suficient descriptive information given to
allow the readerto conclude that the author's interpretations were grounded in the data?
transferability described?
Does the researcher address intemal validity through "triangulation," that is, veri6cation
of the 6ndings via member checks/other documentation/other sources/other
researchersl Does the author acknowledge the lack ofgeneralizability ofthe study
findings, and/or suggest a replication ofthe study? Has the original purpose ofthe study
been adequately addressed?
Conclusions/implications
and recommendations
Arc the importance and implications ofthe ffndings identified? Are recommendations
made to suggest how the research findings can be developed?
References
Were all books, joumals and otler media alluded to in the study accurately referenced?
Adapted fiom: Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P.(2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing
critiquing research. Part 2:
research. Eritislr ,/orn al
oJ
a't-
drri
Guidelines for Critiquing a Quantitative Research Study
Elements infl uencing the believability of the research
questions
Elements
Writing style
Title
Abstract
a
fi
Questions
Pulpose/research problem
Logical consistency
Does the research report follow the steps ofthe research process in
logical marner? Do
Literature rrvic\\'
Is the review logically organized? Does it offer balanced critical analysis of the literature?
Is the maiority ofthe literature ofrecent origin? Is it mainly from primary sources and of
an empirical nature?
Theoretical framework
Aims/objectives/research
question/hypotheses
Sample
Ethical considerations
Has the target population been clearly identified? How were the sample selected? Was
a probability or a non-probability sample? Is it an adequate size? Are the
it
lnstrumentation
Procedures
Is there a description of the procedures used to administer the instrument? Are any
the study's administrative or procedural lirnitations discussed?
Variables
Are variables adequately described? Was a rationale provided for their use? Were the
variables chosen appropriate for answering the research question(s)?
Data analysis/results
What gpe ofdata and statistical analysis was undertaken? Was it appropriate? How
many ofthe sample participated? Were tables and graphs presented in clear and
of
Are the findings linked back to the [temture review? Ifa hlpothesis was identified was
supportedl Were the strengths and limitations ofthe studyincluding generalizability
discussed? Was a recommendation for future research made?
References
Were all books, journals and other media alluded to in the study accurately referenced?
Adapted from: Coughlan, M., C'ronin, 1., & Ryan, F. (2007 Step-by-step guide to critiquing
critiquing research. Part I I
it
300
Chapter'13 Critique
Process
Table'13-2
Cntique Worksheet
Discussion
Titls ol th study:
#',fi
,7 t* Ei
!r".e, ti &t n;.! .tt' nt, tr" n'-itr"
Author crodenlials:
4*
A.I
indpendenl variables:
,lr.,- eC 4"
rcl
Jr.-" {-.;
'It"t'
procsdures:
wq
li
+o hd
J; lb
''foe