促进评判性CriticalThinking思维能力共69页文档
评判性思维ppt课件
PICC置管或 深静脉置管
病情恶化 外周血管充盈差
深静脉置管
根据医嘱及病情随时调整输液速度及顺序。 注意液体滴入的情况及患者静脉的情况。
临床情景分析-小结
输液前评估 患者病情 医嘱合理性 药物性质与作用 护士自身能力评估
输液计划制定 血管通路选择（部位、数量） 输液器材选择 输液顺序与滴速安排 输液前护理重点 输液中护理重点
评判性思维 的特点
主动思考 的过程
质疑、反思 的过程
审慎开放 的过程
评判性思维的意义
促进护理学科的发展 促进护士全面素质的提高 现代护理工作迫切需要评判性思维
护
士
专
业
护理专家
发
展
熟练护士
阶
梯
称职护士
新护士
培养评判的技能
操作者
行动者
思想者
著名临床医学家吴阶平说 ： “ 刚毕业 的人 ， 肯定 比毕业后工作一 两年的 差 ， 但毕业 5年的却可以比毕业 1 0 年的好。关键是靠 自己努力在实践中 多想、 多学。”
询问患者有无药物过敏史。
向患者或家属解释用药的目的，药物的作 用及副作用，药物的滴速及使用的大约时 间。
解释输液器具的选择及血管选择的原因。
问患者是否需要大小便，并为患者摆放舒 适的卧位。
输液中护理重点是什么？
注意患者生命体征变化
病情好转 浅静脉条件好
继续外周浅 静脉补液
浅静脉条件差 （弹性差、通透性高）
（二）专业标准
伦理标准 评价标准 专业责任标准
伦理标准
1.伦理标准
每个人有 自由选择 自己行为
的权利
一切为护 理对象的
利益着想
不要做有 害于护理 对象身心
Critical Thinking Part I-批判性思维
evidence appears to lead;
"reasonable
• constructing a line of reasoning to guide your audience through the evidence and lead them towards your conclusion;
Critical Thinking Part 1
• Critical Thinking and Why It Is Important
1
What is Critical Thinking and Why is it Important?
• Week 1 Class 1
2
Expectations
• You should attend ALL classes unless you are too sick to come to school or approve the absence ahead of time
• Participation is required, you will only benefit from this class if you fully engage
• If you have questions, ask! If you don’t want to ask in front of the class, see me afterward
Total
300 points
Reminder: Late work WILL NOT be accepted for a grade
4
Warm-Up
Without talking, you must arrange yourselves from oldest (at the front of the class) to youngest (at the back of the class). Be as precise as possible.
评判性思维ppt课件
评判性思维和护理程序
护理程序 评估
评判性思维认知技能 确定发现问题的方法和途径 明确思路 核实所获得的数据 将数据进行分类
诊断
确定型态 得出诊断结论
评判性思维和护理程序
护理程序 计划
实施 评价
评判性思维认知技能 排列优先顺序 制定评价标准 找出解决问题的方法 检验假设
我们必须像做学问那样，考虑问题全面而 不单一。
评判性思维是解决问题的金钥匙。
如果我们不能进行评判性思考， 我们只能片面的解决问题
初学者与有经验者思考问题的对比
初学者 知识分散 注重执行 制度约束人 根本问题不明确 缺乏自信 注重过程、忽视患者反应 资料肤浅 死板遵守制度
有经验者 知识有组织、有结构 执行前充分思考 知道如何完善制度 根本问题明确 自信、有重点 考虑问题全面 资料恰当、具有说服力 分析问题时不断使其得到
确定一种有组织而全面的方法
选择一种系统的途径，全面了解病人的身 体状况。根据病人的健康状态和自己的习 惯去评估患者的健康状况。
导言：怎样系统的全面评估
危重患者 特殊患者 一般患者
确定一种有组织而全面的方法
核心问题 你的方法是否与患者情况相适应 我们还应发现什么问题
识别线索及作假设推理
评判性思维及在临床护理实践中的应用
学习目标
描述评判性思维的定义 评判性思维和护理程序之间的区别 观察护理实践中应用评判性思维的技巧 案例分析,如何在临床护理工作中应用评判
性思维
评判性思维(Critical thinking)的产生与发展
评判性思维是二十世纪30年代德国法兰克福学派创立的 一种批判理论。
补充资料来确定假设正确。
《Critical Thinking》 讲义
《Critical Thinking》讲义在当今信息爆炸的时代，拥有批判性思维（Critical Thinking）的能力变得至关重要。
批判性思维不仅仅是简单地否定或质疑，而是一种深入、全面、理性的思考方式，它能够帮助我们在面对复杂的问题和多样的观点时，做出明智的判断和决策。
一、批判性思维的定义与内涵批判性思维是指通过对信息、观点、论据等进行客观、系统和理性的分析、评估和推理，以形成自己的观点和判断的思维过程。
它不是盲目地接受他人的观点，而是以怀疑和探究的态度去审视所接收到的信息。
批判性思维包括对证据的评估、逻辑的检验、对不同观点的比较和综合，以及对自身思维过程的反思。
它要求我们不仅要看到表面现象，还要深入挖掘背后的原因、假设和潜在的影响。
二、批判性思维的重要性1、做出明智的决策在生活中，我们面临着各种各样的选择，如职业规划、投资决策、人际关系处理等。
如果没有批判性思维，我们很容易受到他人的影响，或者被表面的信息所迷惑，从而做出错误的决策。
2、提升解决问题的能力当遇到问题时，批判性思维能帮助我们全面地分析问题的各个方面，找出问题的根源，提出有效的解决方案。
它使我们能够从不同的角度思考问题，突破常规的思维模式。
3、促进个人成长通过批判性地思考自己的想法和行为，我们能够发现自己的不足之处，不断改进和完善自己。
同时，也能够更好地理解他人，增强与他人的沟通和合作能力。
4、适应社会变化在快速发展的社会中，新的观念、技术和问题不断涌现。
批判性思维使我们能够迅速适应这些变化，理性地对待新的信息和挑战。
三、批判性思维的要素1、清晰的思考能够明确地表达自己的观点和想法，避免模糊和歧义。
这要求我们在思考和表达时，使用准确、具体的语言。
2、逻辑推理遵循正确的逻辑规则，从前提推出合理的结论。
要学会识别常见的逻辑错误，如偷换概念、以偏概全、因果倒置等。
3、证据评估对所依据的证据进行可靠性、相关性和充分性的评估。
不轻易相信未经证实的信息，善于辨别虚假和误导性的证据。
促进评判性.(Critical Thinking)思维能力
fgfh
32
通过隐性课程发展 学生的评判性思维
• 学校环境、家庭环境 和社会环境对学生评 判性思维的长期耳濡 目染称为隐性评判性 思维的训练。
fgfh
33
评判性思维的训练方法
• 在学生比较熟悉的主题中， 学生最容易获得评判性思维 技能 • 提供各种不同的材料，进行 反复的练习 • 创设良好的评判性思维的课 堂气氛
fgfh 10
评判性思维的综合定义
• 是个体对产生知识的过程、理论、方法 和背景、证据和评价知识的标准等正确 与否作出自我调节性判断的一种个性品 质。 • 包括评判性思维的个性倾向性和个体心 理特征两个方面，个性倾向性反映个体 的评判精神，个性心理特征反映个体的 评判能力。
fgfh 11
评判性思维的技能
fgfh 22
评判性思维的技能
• 判断相关信息
9 看出偏见、情感因素、宣 传以及语义倾向性: 能看出包含在一篇文章或图 表中的偏见，确定来源的可 靠性
fgfh 23
评判性思维的技能
• 判断相关信息
10 看出不同的价值系统和意 识形态: 能看出不同的价值系统和意 识形态之间的异同
fgfh
24
评判性思维的技能
1. 看出中心论题或问
题：
看出一篇文章，一个评 论，一个政治讽刺画的 中心大意或包含在评论 中的理由和结论
fgfh 15
评判性思维的技能
• 定义和明确问题
2 比较异同点: 能比较各种人物、观点 、同一时刻或不同时刻 的情境的相同点和不同 点
fgfh 16
评判性思维的技能
• 定义和明确问题
3 确定哪些信息是相关的: 能看出可证实的和不证 实的，相关和不相关信 息之间的差别
critical thinking 怎样训练批判性思维
A study of the development of critical thinking skills using an innovative web 2.0toolLesley-Jane Eales-Reynolds a ,⁎,David Gillham b ,Carol Grech c ,Colin Clarke d ,Jacqueline Cornell eaPro-Vice Chancellor (Education),Kingston University,Greater,London,United Kingdom bSchool of Nursing and Midwifery,Flinders University,Adelaide,Australia cSchool of Nursing and Midwifery,University of South Australia,Adelaide,Australia dUniversity of Westminster,London,United Kingdom eWRAP project,School of Nursing and Midwifery,University of South Australia,Adelaide,Australias u m m a r ya r t i c l e i n f o Article history:Accepted 20May 2012Keywords:Web 2.0Critical thinking Higher education E-pedagogyWeb resource appraisal process WRAPBackground:Healthcare educators face numerous challenges including technological change,information overload,and the need to maintain clinical expertise and research knowledge across multiple specialities.Students also need to develop their capacity for critical thinking,using and discriminating between diverse sources of knowledge in order to advance their own practice.Objectives:To investigate student perceptions of the affordances of a novel web 2.0-based tool –the Web Resource Appraisal Process (WRAP),designed to support the development of critical thinking skills,and to identify how student's understanding of critical thinking and their use of web 2.0resources might inform the cross-disciplinary development of the WRAP.Design:A two phase,action research study of student perceptions of the WRAP and their ability to source and identify valid information sources.Settings:Implemented at the University of South Australia,development of the WRAP is an international project with the University of Westminster,UK.Participants:Students from international locations participated in the project.Methods:A mixed methods approach was adopted involving a two phase action research study.In phase one,student perceptions of the WRAP were obtained using a modi fied course feedback questionnaire.This informed the development of a subsequent questionnaire used to survey student perceptions of their usage of online resources,the ease of access of such resources and their approaches to determining their validity.Results:Results suggest that students mainly use traditional resources when preparing work for assessment and they either do not understand the concept of,or do not exercise,critical thinking skills in such activities.How-ever,the feedback from students using the WRAP,demonstrated that they found it instructive and useful.Conclusions:To ensure that practice developments are based on authoritative evidence,students need to develop critical thinking skills which may be facilitated by tools such as the WRAP.Crown Copyright ©2012Published by Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.IntroductionAs with all fields of education,technology is revolutionising the way we learn.It is providing faster access to a much wider variety of information;the legitimacy of which may be questionable.We all need to develop information literacy skills but this is particularly important in fields such as nursing and medicine,where development of practice is expected to be based upon evidence (Sackett et al.,1996).Finding evidence and establishing its legitimacy,authority and relevance require the demonstration of a range of cognitive skills often commonly referred to as critical thinking.In nurse education,programme speci fications often refer to the need for students to demonstrate ‘critical abilities ’,‘critical analysis ’,‘critical evaluation ’and these terms mean different things to different people depending upon their disciplinary background and personal experience.However,there is no doubt,that evidence-based practice,which is an underpinning tenet to many nursing programmes,de-pends upon an individual's ability to discriminate between authorita-tive resources,to analyse the arguments therein,judge the validity of the methods and conclusions and to form their own opinions and pre-sent them in an authoritative manner.It is these skills that are chal-lenging to develop in a traditional content driven curriculum and it is this challenge that prompted the current study.BackgroundGlobalisation and technological change have transformed learning inside and outside of universities.Students are likely to spend sub-stantial leisure time accessing and exchanging information online as technological convergence promotes increased integration of television,Nurse Education Today 32(2012)752–756⁎Corresponding author.Tel.:+447872589385.E-mail address:l.ealesreynolds@ (L.-J.Eales-Reynolds).0260-6917/$–see front matter.Crown Copyright ©2012Published by Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2012.05.017Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirectNurse Education Todayj o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w.e l s e v i e r.c o m/n e d tmobile phones and the web.At this time,universities are also increasing their emphasis on online delivery with web2.0developments provid-ing accessibility to an increasing range of professional and educational resources(Learning Space,2009;LOREnet,2009;Acro,2009).As new pedagogies emerge that embrace the opportunities offered by the web,it is evident that one of our biggest challenges is to guide students in how to use this readily available information and to teach them to be discriminating.Many institutions are now beginning to talk about students as‘co-creators of knowledge’–if this is to be the case,they need to be able to discriminate,evaluate and judge the information sources they use, to synthesise the information and create new knowledge.These are skills that are explicitly taught in some disciplines,but not in others. Clearly there is a need to identify ways in which we can teach these skills particularly in relation to the use of online resources.In general,pedagogy underpinning online learning in universities has not yet fully captured the immense learning opportunities offered by the web‘students need not only to be able to choose and person-alise what tools and content are available,but also to have access to the necessary scaffolding to support their learning’(McLoughlin and Lee,2010).The Web Resource Appraisal Process(WRAP)was designed to provide structure and support to students using online resources to inform their learning about a subject of their choice and to produce a critical appraisal of the subject,which might sub-sequently inform their practice as health care workers(including nurses).Thus it allows them the choice whilst providing the struc-tured support identified by McLoughlin and Lee(2010).In the traditional learning environment curricula have been influenced by the work of Biggs(1996)and his model for constructive alignment where the learning outcomes,assessment methods and teaching strategies are all aligned and designed to encourage student learning.Particularly in high schools,but also more recently in higher education,there has been a movement towards what is generally known as‘authentic assessment.’This means that the assessment methods are not only aligned with the teaching approaches but also reflect the type of activity that one might be expected to perform in the real world when demonstrating the attainment of a particular learning outcome.‘Authentic assessment’as defined in this way,has been shown to encourage reflection and critical analysis as well as enhanced learning(Savery and Duffy,1995;Birenbaum and Dochy,1996;Darling-Hammond and Snyder,2000;Herrington and Herrington,1998;Gulikers et al.,2007).Thus the WRAP was designed to facilitate the development of information literacy and critical think-ing skills through the development of an authentic assessment item,in this instance a critical review of the literature,a useful information source for nursing professionals engaging in evidence-based practice.A critical review may be defined as an evaluation of an academic text e.g.:an article,report,essay or book[where students]are asked to make judgments,positive or negative,about the text using various criteria(.au/lls/llonline/quickrefs/26-critical-review.xml).Generally,a critical review involves a description of the focus of the article being examined,an evaluation of the reliability and validity of the material,and its relevance to a discipline and/or practice.One of the drawbacks of this approach to a critical review is that it is open to bias by the reviewer owing to their own beliefs and expe-riences.Recommending a change in practice that has implications for patient welfare based on such a review is not particularly sound. This problem was identified by Cochrane(Higgins and Green,2011) who recognised instead the need for a systematic approach to litera-ture reviewing in order to eliminate bias and increase the reliability of the outcomes.Thus a systematic review is an article that draws inferences from a range of literature and makes conclusions based on judgements about the sources studied in relation to a particular topic or question.Whilst the systematic review process is thorough,it is time con-suming and usually reliant on a number of participants evaluating the literature.A compromise is to teach students the premises of sys-tematic reviewing and to guide them in choosing key articles to review.In this way,students can learn the basics and improve their critical thinking skills by undertaking a review of a range of literature, rather than merely critiquing a single article.This was the premise upon which the WRAP was developed for use by nursing students. Since the majority of resources used for such critiques are online,a computer-based approach was sought that whilst teaching students the basic skills related to literature reviewing and critiquing,it also developed their understanding of the need for information manage-ment and taking a systematic approach.The Web Resource Appraisal Process(WRAP)The pedagogy that informed the development of WRAP was dis-tinct,combining components from a range of theoretical perspectives including constructivism(Modritscher and Spiel,2006),authentic as-sessment(Herrington and Herrington,1998),and evidence-based practice(Sackett et al.,1996).WRAP was designed to provide both an information base and guidance on aspects of critical thinking and appraisal to enable students to identify specific collections of author-itative resources.The early version of the WRAP software facilitated the production of a critical review of a topic using online resources as primary sources of information.It included the following features:•the ability to establish a topic-relevant,virtual,library•online note taking and prompted summarising of research papers •automated comparative table and report generation•detailed critical appraisal reports based upon a specific template.The combination of online forms and a backend database pro-vides the structure for the development of critical reviews of re-search evidence on topics of priority to professional practice.The WRAP guides students through the processes of summary,interpre-tation,reflection and critical appraisal in order to produce an output, of which they can see the professional relevance.Production of a critical appraisal designed to meet the student's assessment needs and to be of use in practice meets the criteria described above of an authentic assessment item,thus suggesting that the use of the WRAP might encourage the development of critical thinking skills in those who use it.The affordances of the WRAP were investigated through an Action Research Study which informed its development and modification to allow multidisciplinary use.It also highlighted the need for a better understanding of how students access,use and critically evaluate web resources.Thus,this study explored the assumptions which underpinned the design of the WRAP through investigating students' perceptions of their use of online resources to support their produc-tion of assessment items and the challenges they faced in sourcing relevant information.Ethical approval for the study was obtained from both the University of Westminster(UW)and the University of Southern Australia(UniSA).MethodThefirst phase of the study occurred at UniSA between2003and e of the WRAP by nursing and health sciences students was evaluated through standard student feedback questionnaires and the-matic analysis of responses(n=76).This informed the second phase of the study,which comprised a ten item,online questionnaire that included both qualitative and quantitative questions.These examined higher education students'experiences of assessment(not directly relevant to this study),their online resource use,online searching practices,and how they determine the authority of a resource.Prior to distribution,the questionnaire was assessed by the project team,753L.-J.Eales-Reynolds et al./Nurse Education Today32(2012)752–756which resulted in changing some wording to enhance comprehension by an international audience.Thefinal instrument was distributed to a collection of Higher Education Institutions in Australasia,Europe and North America,as well as to multidisciplinary and professional groups through established networks.Staff members were requested to encourage their students to complete the online questionnaire via SurveyMonkey().A copy of the question-naire is available from thefirst author on request.Responses were statistically analysed or subjected to thematic analysis involving the identification of key themes using the mind mapping software,Freemind().ResultsFirst PhaseThe preliminary evaluation of the WRAP by nursing and health sciences students at UniSA occurred over a period between2003 and2010using a standard course evaluation instrument.Students found the WRAP to be highly relevant to professional practice e.g.‘Highly relevant to clinical practice on an every day basis,something we all should be endeavouring to do better’and ‘very relevant!It makes you appreciate the research that is going on in current day practice and allows you to justify the evidence for optimal patient outcomes’and‘The relevance of this subject is that I now will be able to constructively critically analyse evidence based research before applying results and information to my practice’.Students also indicated how they might use the WRAP in their professional practice e.g.‘I will be applying the techniques of the WRAP process to the development of practice guidelines’.They also clearly appreciated the skills they had learned through its use e.g.‘Very useful.Now have a searching strategy forfinding other evidence on other health issues’and‘I now feel confident in my ability to write research papers to a professional level’.In general,respondents indicated that the WRAP was particularly useful for them when they did not have a strong background in re-search or critical review development.Students indicated that the WRAP improved their critical appraisal skills and questioning of the research evidence basis for practice‘Learning methods of seeking quality evidence relating to practice no matter where or what’.How-ever,they also indicated that the workload was rather overwhelming and this related directly to the way in which the WRAP worked e.g.‘The workload is excessive and more than triple the2–3hours of work per week suggested.It is hard to do from the sheer work load. The reading and links need to be reduced as to absorb the reading and links takes a lot of time’.In addition,students reported issues in accessing online resources‘I found limited access to research publica-tions very frustrating’.Finally,some students did not see the need for the tool‘I did not use the WRAP tool.I found it quite difficult to follow.Is it necessarily needed.’Students also provided extremely valuable technical suggestions for improving the WRAP such asflexibility with ordering entries, updating,editing and navigational changes e.g.‘Needs to beflexible in giving alternative ways of ordering entries,e.g.by date;author; subject matter;journal title etc.’and‘To see example offinished prod-uct prior to commencing would help plan progression through WRAP. If at all possible,using Word through WRAP would be most helpful both prior and following compilation offinal report(for formatting)’.Phase2–Student QuestionnaireFour hundred and eighteen students logged into the survey ques-tionnaire,there was a62.7%(n=281)completion rate.Students completing the survey represented nine different countries although the majority were studying in Australia(n=182)or the UK(n=65), whilst4.6%(n=13)did not provide details of their country of study.Ten separate disciplinary areas were represented predominantly from nursing and health science students(n=191),business studies (n=32)and computing(n=29).In order to analyse the data in a meaningful way,disciplines were allocated to the following categories: Business,Computing,Education,Health,Social Science and‘Others’.Initially,resource use was examined as a percentage of the com-plete sample as shown in Fig.1and subsequently Chi Square analysis was used to determine significant differences between disciplines.Free text responses underwent a thematic analysis.Initial re-sponses were expanded to identify the individual topics i.e.‘I only use Wikipedia as the beginning of my research,but never to be cited in an actual research paper.I generally trust government websites(perhaps to my detriment)and the sites of non-profits and such.I also always trust journals.’would become three separate topics,(i)I only use Wikipedia at the beginning of my research,but never to be cited in an actual research paper,(ii)I generally trust gov-ernment websites(perhaps to my detriment)and the sites of non-profits and such,and(iii)I also always trust journals.These topics were then coded to identify the response themes.Comparison of the Types of Resources Used as Sources of Information The reported rates of resource use are presented in Fig.1.The most common types of document students reported using to support their work were.pdf(published papers)(61%),book chapters(57%), Word documents(49%)and PowerPoint slides(43%).Whereas elec-tronic media such as Zines(0%),blogs(3%),and mailing lists(5%) were rarely used.When the results were analysed with respect to the disciplines, there were significant differences,particularly in relation to the less obvious resources.Students from Health sciences were significantly more likely to report the use of Podcasts c2(5,294)=12.65,p b.05 than other disciplines.Whereas students from studying Business,or Computer and information sciences were significantly more likely to report the use of Spreadsheets c2(5,294)=29.40,p b.01and Project reports c2(5,294)=12.94,p b.05.Students studying Computer and information sciences or Education were significantly more likely to report the use of Video orfilm c2(5,294)=12.04,p b.05;whilst those studying Computer and information sciences or Social sciences, Humanities and Languages were significantly more likely to report the use of information from Blogs c2(5,294)=26.07,p b.01,Social networks c2(5,294)=12.35,p b.05,and Virtual Learning Environ-ments c2(5,294)=22.48,p b.01.This indicated a clear distinction in resource use by discipline.Determination of the Validity of Resources UsedThe validity and authority of resources were predominantly deter-mined by reference to its source(Fig.2;49.3%respondents)e.g.‘Source-is it a valid professional website,journal,institution etc.’Respondents wrote about resources from trusted websites and insti-tutions(15.7%),authoritative websites(16.8%),library(6%),journals (8%)or simply‘source’(4%).Others focussed on the author(14%), who they are,their qualifications and date of publishing the resource e.g.‘author names,and if possible research them’,and how recently a source was published(10%)e.g.‘published in the last5years’.Anoth-er common theme was peer review(24.3%)e.g.‘Through use of peer reviewed articles’.A variety of other themes emerged from the data in small numbers including,university databases,Wikis,provision of a reference list,copyright and tutor e.g.‘is recommended by my lecturer/tutor’.Only four respondents mentioned critical appraisal e.g.‘Reason through underlying logic,i.e.premise's and conclusions’suggesting that the exercise of critical thinking skills is limited when students are seeking information to inform their work.754L.-J.Eales-Reynolds et al./Nurse Education Today32(2012)752–756Challenges to Discovering Relevant Information on the WebThe major themes and subthemes identi fied by students in re-sponse to the question ‘What are the major challenges you face when trying to discover relevant information on the web?’were:•Information (41%respondents;n=260)which included a number of subthemes (i)accuracy;(ii)appropriateness;(iii)currency;(iv)finding (4%);(v)relevance (7.5%)e.g.‘wading through the large amount of often irrelevant and not useful information ’;(vi)trustworthiness;(vii)completeness;and,(viii)volume (8%)e.g.‘The sheer volume of information available.Sometimes trying to find speci fically what you are looking for is a mine field ’.•Identifying keywords/search phrases (11%respondents)e.g.‘Some-times it's hard to choose appropriate search terms to localise the type of information I'm looking for and I may not be aware of all possible alternate terms ’.•Journal access (9%respondents)e.g.‘it is dif ficult to get access to some information which is really relevant,but you have to pay to get it ’.•Time (8.5%respondents)e.g.‘Time-long exhausting process usually for little reward,many hours can be spend looking and reading for only one or two references ’.Numerous other themes emerged that were only cited by a small number of respondents,these themes included:(i)a need for guid-ance;(ii)author reputation;(iii)limited research (on a particular subject);(iv)the need for payment (for resources and website access);and,(v)search engine/database identi fication.DiscussionThe results of phase one of this study,which focussed on nursing and health science students,demonstrated the usefulness of the WRAP in developing the skills required to undertake a criticalreview.Fig.1.Identi fication of online resources used by students in creating assessment artefacts.Students were asked ‘What type of resources might you use to inform work that you will submit for assessment?’The choices were Word documents (unpublished information),.pdf files (web-based;unpublished),podcasts,images,figures (e.g.graphs),excel spread-sheets,powerpoint presentations,.pdf (published papers in journals),book chapters,project reports,case reports,published catalogues,video/film,blogs,wikis,social networking sites,mailing lists,zines,virtual learning environment (Blackboard,Moodle),UTube,other.Responses are expressed as percentage of respondents indicating the use of a particularresource.Fig.2.Validity authority Wordle.Free text responses to the question ‘How do you know that the online information you use is valid and authoritative?’was analysed for word fre-quency and the word picture was created using Wordle ( ).755L.-J.Eales-Reynolds et al./Nurse Education Today 32(2012)752–756Evidence from the literature demonstrates that nursing students and those in practice have difficulty in accessing relevant information resources and even when they can locate them,they lack the skills and techniques to critically appraise the evidence(Younger,2010 p7).The results of phase two of the current study supported these findings demonstrating that this is not limited to nurses and health science students alone.This supports the need for further develop-ment of the WRAP and its application across disciplines for education and practice with the aim to develop the information management and critical appraisal skills,particularly in relation to the use of inter-net resources.Previously,higher education students located resources in libraries in the form of hard copy academic journals and books.In Mill,2008,Mill un-dertook a bibliographical study which showed that written assignments were predominantly supported with references to journal articles (47.6%)and books(29.9%)although there were some disciplinary differ-ences.For example,science and social science students cited more journal articles(66.2%,46.7and respectively)than books(17.3%,25.2%respec-tively)whilst students of the humanities cited more books(60.7%)than journal articles(24.5%).In the present study,similar results were ob-served but with books(61%)being cited more frequently than.pdffiles (journals;57%).Disciplinary differences were distinct with Business (51%v43%),Education(80%v60%)and Social Sciences(77%v73%)stu-dents reporting greater use of book chapters than.pdffiles(respectively). This difference between the current study and that of Mill,may be due the distinct methodological differences between the studies.With the advent of web2.0technology,there are a wealth of other resources open to the curious but the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable resources has become somewhat blurred because of institutional and disciplinary preferences(Lea and Jones,2011). When students were asked to identify how they ensured the validity of the information they obtained from the web the majority men-tioned the source of the information(e.g.valid professional websites, journals etc),the author,the recency of the publication and whether or not it had been peer reviewed.Others mentioned reading lists or advice of their tutor offering confirmation of the work of Lea and Jones(2011),who suggest that the question of reliability of a resource is driven by institutional requirements and student perceptions of their tutor's expectations.However,Griffiths and Brophy(2005)sug-gest that student's use of resources is dependent upon their knowl-edge of search engines,and that students'views of quality relate to reliability,recency and accuracy rather than coming from a refereed source.Our data would suggest that at least some students identified the importance of peer-review in determining the validity of a source.Some respondents in phase two of the current study identified authorship as an important factor in recognising the authority of a resource but few indicated that they conducted any detailed critical ap-praisal.This supports thefindings of Grimes and Boening(2001)who found that students attempted to locate the authors,considered the pub-lication date,and looked for confirmation via different search engines;‘Most students considered author to be the most important feature of a high-quality website,giving no thought to the qualifications of any partic-ular Web author’(Grimes and Boening,2001,p.18).All of which suggests that students are unlikely to appraise resources on the logic of the argu-ment,the methodology,content,references etc.,i.e.critically.A recentfive year study of information retrieval by students found a substantial increase in the use of Google and Wikipedia,whereas library and Google Scholar searches remained static(Judd and Kennedy,2010).Interestingly,in relation to the resources that they cite,we found that in phase two of the current study,few respon-dents mentioned the use of Google(or Google Scholar)or Wikis.By contrast,Lea and Jones(2011,p.385)found that‘when questioned about their practices around the use of the Web in terms of accessing sources for their assignments,students nearly always began the dis-cussions by naming a specific technological application,such as Goo-gle,Wikipedia or the university library portal’.Whether or not these differences are due to institutional or disciplinary conditioned re-sponses would benefit from further investigation.The challenges faced when trying to discover authoritative online resources are to some extent addressed within the original version of the WRAP,although in phase1,student feedback highlighted difficul-ties in relation to identifying keywords and search phrases.However, the original version was confined to professionally relevant search engines,a limitation of the tool when one explores the data from phase2and the types of resource identified by students.Our results support the need for further development of critical appraisal skills of students,particularly in relation to the discovery and use of Internet resources.The WRAP was originally designed to support the development of such skills in relation to the critical review of literature for nursing and health science students. ConclusionThis paper describes a two phase action research study to develop and modify a web2.0based application–the Web Resource Appraisal Process.Phase one investigated the affordances of the WRAP in rela-tion to the development of critical thinking and appraisal skills in nursing and health science students in the higher education sector. Phase two involved an international,multidisciplinary study of student perceptions of the use and validity of online resources.Our results demonstrate the potential of the WRAP to support the development of critical thinking and appraisal skills.They have also demonstrated students'lack of understanding,and implementation of,those skills in a range of students across disciplinary and interna-tional boundaries.ReferencesAcro./acro_index.html(Last accessed,September20th,2009). Biggs,J.,1996.Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment.Higher Education 32,1–18.Birenbaum,M.,Dochy, F.J.R.C.,1996.Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge.Kluwer Academic Purbishers,Boston,MS. Darling-Hammond,L.,Snyder,J.,2000.Authentic assessment in teaching in context.Teaching and Teacher Education16,523–545.Griffiths,J.,Brophy,P.,2005.Student searching behavior and the web:use of academic resources and Google(Retrieved on30March2012from)/ 2142/17492005.Grimes,D.,Boening,C.,2001.Worries with the Web:A look at student use of Web resources.College and Research Libraries62,11–23.Gulikers,J.,Bastiaens,Th.,Kirschner,P.,2007.Defining authentic assessment:five di-mensions of authenticity.In:Havnes,A.,McDowell,L.(Eds.),Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education.Routledge,New York. Herrington,J.,Herrington,A.,1998.Authentic assessment and multimedia.How uni-versity students respond to a model of authentic assessment.Higher Educational Research and Development17(3),385-322.Higgins,J.,Green,S.(Eds.),2011.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Inter-ventions Version5.1.0[updated March2011]:The Cochrane Collaboration(Avail-able from ).Judd,T.,Kennedy,G.,2010.Afive-year study of on-campus Internet use by undergrad-uate biomedical puters in Education55(4),1564–1571.Lea,M.,Jones,S.,2011.Digital literacies in higher education:exploring textual and technological practice.Studies in Higher Education36(4),377–393.http:// /10.1080/03075071003664021.Learning Space./(last accessed,September20th,2009). LOREnet.http://www.surffoundation.nl/en/themas/elearning/onderwijsrepositorieslorenet/ Pages/Default.aspx(last accessed,September20th,2009).McLoughlin,C.,Lee,M.,2010.Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web2.0era: international exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology26(1),28–43.Mill,D.,2008.Undergraduate information resource choices.College and Research Libraries69(4),342–355.Modritscher,F.,Spiel,S.,2006.Assessment in E-Learning Environments:A Comparison of three Methods./papers/paper_moedritscher_et_al_ eassessment_2006.pdf2006(last accessed January3rd,2012).Sackett,D.,Rosenberg,W.,Gray,J.,Haynes,R.,Richardson,W.,1996.Evidence based medicine:what it is and what it isn't.BMJ312(7023),71–72.Savery,J.,Duffy,T.,1995.Problem-based learning:an instructional model and its con-structivist cations Technology35,31–38.Younger,P.,2010.Internet-based information-seeking behaviour amongst doctors and nurses:a short review of the literature.Health Information and Libraries Journal 27,2–10.756L.-J.Eales-Reynolds et al./Nurse Education Today32(2012)752–756。
Critical Thinking 批判性思维
Definitions
What is critical thinking?
Critical thinking, in general, refers to higher-order thinking that questions assumptions.It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false, or sometimes true and sometimes false, or partly true and partly false.(Cao Jun,2011)
Critical thinking also is considered important for human rights education for toleration. (wikipedia)
Critical thinking is an important element of all professional fields and academic disciplines (by referencing their respective sets of permissible questions, evidence sources, criteria, etc.). Within the framework of scientific skepticism, the process of critical thinking involves the careful acquisition and interpretation of information and use of it to reach a well-justified conclusion.(wikipedia)
批判性思维和解决问题的能力精品资料
批判性思维和解决问题的能力Critical thinking andproblem solving skillsOne.the connotation of critical thinkingCritical thinking is "to decide what to believe or do reasonable and reflection of thinking".People with critical thinking in the cognitive tend to have the following abilities: one is found that the problem, gather information, analyze data,evaluate the ability of evidence; The second is to identify facts and opinionsand differences between logic judgment ability; Three is to be able to finduniversal law, and evaluate the degree of its logical ability; Four is correct andclear reasoning, and the ability of effective interpretation conclusions.Of critical thinking, in the aspect of thinking also has many characteristics, such as not hasty, not blindly follow, for problem resolv'd; Keep the attitude ofcuriosity and questioning. Aware of their prejudice, discrimination, payattention to overcome these biases affect judgment; An open attitude to therational view of the various point of view, to understand other people, willingto correct their views.Two.How to let students learn critical thinking1. The problem of knowledge is "pulled"Critical thinking at the core of the focus on "criticism" two characters. A fact or phenomenon once our senses to receive, we first need to do is to askquestions. Train the students' ability to ask questions, is the first step intraining students' critical thinking ability. And the "q", directly determines the effect of critical thinking: hit the nail on the head or to differences in askingonly.Today's understanding of "heuristic teaching" there has been a big mistake, that is the teacher as the main body of classroom questioning, one-sided think teachers need to "inspired" with carefully designed problems students to carry on the corresponding thinking, this is actually deprived students found theproblem, ask questions from the living examples of power, lead to students inthe process of acquiring knowledge relies too much on explicit problem rather than the source of the problem -- practice, has also led to the lack of students' critical thinking.2. The answer by discussing "battle"Students receiving external knowledge efficiently, reasonable analysis and comprehensive summary of ability are the important aspects of critical thinking training. As the leader of class teaching, teachers should be from as many sources and Angle for the students to create conditions of access to information, and provide students with diverse thinking environment.Group work activities to the implementation of a simple and effective way is widely used by teachers. On the one hand, group activities to make the teachers' classroom mastery moved to the students, increase the chances of a student to carry on the training of thinking; To absorb knowledge, on the other hand, through the in-depth interaction between students, details and systematic. At the same time, the students understanding of the knowledge and the structure is also more fully and perfect.Group work activities should be unique, according to its target points, mainly has "group discussion", "cooperation" and "cooperation demonstration" three forms. "group discussion" mainly through brainstorming, deepen the understanding of new concept, or to find a solution to the problem. "cooperation" means of 3 ~ 4 students group, using new concepts and to demonstrate skills, design or creative work. "cooperation demonstration" insist on team division of labor cooperation, use of multimedia technology show team results to the class. In general, the writing of "cooperation" results will be made through the way of "cooperation" demonstration display.3. The context from the inductive"comb"Knowledge of systemic and completeness is one of the important indexes to judge the students professional qualification. However, the above you'll learn to ask, you'll learn theory, you'll learn to do, due to its starting point is a starting point for teachers, or a particular instance, so the student to obtain the corresponding knowledge will be scattered. In order to overcome this problem, and complete the critical thinking education MSC step, guided by teachers "induction" link is key to an important link of the teaching effect. This is particularly important to study the basic knowledge of natural science. As a result, the students are encouraged to use the power of thinking and practice absorbs vast amounts of information and gain first-hand knowledge at the same time, teachers must be how to integrate knowledge, extracting key points, and eventually form a logically complete theoretical system of teaching methods.4. The effect in practice "rating"Critical thinking is a science about the practice, this is the only by the goal of critical thinking, namely "deciding what to believe or what to do". Both the "what" is closely connected with practice, the former is the previous, or the practice of the people around you, or is about to practice scheme, even for the exist only in the thinking of the abstract theory, can also be used to thinking in practice; While the latter is to use critical thinking to subject itself or has been carried out in practice. However, the practice of different critical thinking ability of the need to use different. Therefore, as an effective classroom to trainingstudents' critical thinking, the request content must stick to the practice of "diversity" and "controversial" the two centres.Students do the actual problem ability of exploration reflects its cultivation of critical thinking. Have good critical thinking ability of students, can keen insight into the crux of the problem, and have the ability to put forward effective solutions. In the process of teaching, school and teachers should be devoted to manufacturing for students plenty of opportunity to show and exercise.In short, in order to change the education of our country the insufficiency of the critical thinking ability training of grim situation, finally achieve the goal of cultivating a large number of creative talents, teachers must actively explore effective advanced class teaching pattern, provides students with the indirect acquisition way of critical thinking, so that the students in the learning process can be effectively train their critical thinking, let the classroom become students of the brain's training ground, so as to improve the teaching quality.。
如何提升高中生的逻辑思维和批判性思维能力
谢 谢
如何有效利用图书 馆和网络资源，提
高学习效果
学习共同体与合作 学习
如何通过学习共同 体和合作学习提高
学习效果
学习空间的创设与 利用
如何创设有利于学 习的环境，提高学
习效率
家庭教育与个人习惯的培养
家庭教育的作用与 方法
如何通过家庭教育 培养孩子的批判性
思维能力
时间管理与效率提 升的方法
如何通过时间管理 提高学习和工作效
逻辑思维与批判性思维能力提升的经典案例分 享
本章将分享一些国内外优秀学者、优秀学生和成 功教育实践的经典案例，以期为大家提供启示和
借鉴。
经典案例分享
国内外优秀学者的 经验分享
学者A：通过逻辑 思维和批判性思维 的训练，我学会了 如何独立思考，提 出有深度的观点。 学者B：逻辑思维 和批判性思维能力 的培养，使我能够 更好地分析和解决 问题，取得了学术
逻辑思维的基本概念
了解逻辑思维的基本要素、原则和方法是提升逻 辑思维能力的基础。
提升逻辑思维的技巧
推理能力的培养
通过练习逻辑推理， 增强逻辑思维能力。
逻辑谬误的识别与 避免
认识常见的逻辑谬 误，避免在论证中
犯错。
演绎推理与归纳推 理的应用
学会运用演绎和归 纳推理，提高问题
解决能力。
逻辑思维训练方法
育环境和资源，支
持逻辑思维和批判
性思维能力的培养。
对策与建议
学生方面：鼓励学 生积极参与，提供 更多的机会让他们 表达自己的观点， 培养他们的自信心。 教师方面：加强教 师的专业发展，提 供相关的培训和资 源，引导他们注重 逻辑思维和批判性 思维的培养。 学校方面：完善评
价体系，提供更多
critical thinking阅读时的批判性思维ppt课件
• – processing information (analyzing what is seen and recognizing logical relationship between the visible and the invisible)
精品课件
• read between lines: thinking carefully about what you read and why: not just looking for and reading the obvious
精品课件
• be inquisitive: (1)questioning and testing what you
精品课件
Part IV (Paras. 11 – 15): How do we cultivate critical thinking?
Paras. 11 and 12: This can be done only person-by-person through a process, which we call intellectual work. Think of the “Elements of Thought” ... Are we in the habit of asking questions?
精品课件
• comment rationally: not just repeating the ideas of others, but looking for connections (or disparities), and constructing your own arguments supported by a range carefully considered viewpoints
提高学生的批判性思维和逻辑推理能力
提高学生的批判性思维和逻辑推理能力在当今信息泛滥的社会中，学生们面临着大量的信息和观点，如何培养学生的批判性思维和逻辑推理能力成为教育界亟需解决的问题。
本文将探讨一些有效的方法，旨在帮助学生提高批判性思维和逻辑推理能力。
一、鼓励学生提出问题在教学过程中，鼓励学生提出问题是培养批判性思维的重要环节。
学生的好奇心和质疑精神是开展批判性思维的基础，教师应该倡导学生积极探究、提出合理的问题。
例如，在讲解历史事件时，教师可以引导学生针对某个历史事件进行思考，并就事件的原因、影响等方面展开讨论，激发学生的思维能力。
通过提出问题，学生的思考能力和批判性思维将得到锻炼和提高。
二、进行批判性阅读和写作位于知识获取和思维培养的核心地位，批判性阅读和写作是提高学生批判性思维和逻辑推理能力的有效方法。
批判性阅读要求学生能够全面理解文章的内容，并对其中的观点进行评价和分析。
教师可以引导学生分析文章的结构、观点的论证方式和逻辑关系，从而培养学生的逻辑思维能力。
此外，通过组织学生进行批判性写作，可以提高学生的思考能力和逻辑推理能力。
学生在撰写论文或文章的过程中，需要收集信息、分析问题、提出观点，并用逻辑推理进行支持，这将锻炼学生的批判思维和逻辑推理能力。
三、开展辩论或讨论活动辩论或讨论活动是培养学生批判性思维和逻辑推理能力的有效途径。
通过参与辩论或讨论活动，学生可以学会倾听他人观点、对立观点进行批判性思考和推理。
教师可以组织学生分组进行辩论，每个组别提出不同的观点，并通过逻辑推理和事实论证进行辩论。
这样的活动不仅能够激发学生的兴趣，还能提高他们的表达能力和逻辑推理能力。
四、引导学生进行问题解决培养学生的批判性思维和逻辑推理能力应该注重实践和应用。
教师可以引导学生面对实际问题，提供相关信息和资源，让学生通过分析、推理和思考，找到解决问题的方法和策略。
例如，在化学课上，教师可以提出一个实际问题，让学生运用他们所学的知识和思维方式进行分析和解决。
提高学生的批判性思维能力与创新能力
提高学生的批判性思维能力与创新能力随着社会的发展和变革，培养学生的批判性思维能力和创新能力成为了教育的重要目标。
学校和教育者们都在努力探索如何提高学生的批判性思维能力和创新能力，以培养具有创新意识和批判思维的未来人才。
本文将从教育方法、实践活动和教师角色三个方面探讨如何提高学生的批判性思维能力和创新能力。
一、教育方法教育方法是培养学生批判性思维能力和创新能力的重要途径。
教师可以采用一些交互式的教学方法，激发学生的思考和创造力。
例如，在课堂上进行小组讨论和案例分析，鼓励学生提出自己的观点和解决问题的方法。
同时，教师还可以引导学生进行批判性思考，帮助他们分析问题、评估证据，并培养学生对不同观点的尊重和理解。
二、实践活动实践活动是提高学生创新能力和批判性思维能力的重要手段。
学校可以组织一些与实际问题相关的活动，让学生动手解决问题，培养他们的创新能力和批判思维。
例如，学校可以开展创新设计比赛，鼓励学生提出独特的解决方案；还可以组织学生参加社会实践活动，让他们亲身体验社会现实，并思考如何解决问题。
三、教师角色教师在提高学生批判性思维能力和创新能力中起着重要的作用。
教师要成为学生“思考的引导者”，发挥积极的促进作用。
首先，教师应该成为学生的榜样，培养他们积极探索、不断创新的意识。
其次，教师要关注学生的个别差异，根据学生的兴趣和特长，采用不同的教学策略，促进他们的创新思维和批判能力的发展。
最后，教师还可以鼓励学生参与各种竞赛和实践活动，提供必要的支持和指导，帮助他们培养批判性思维能力和创新能力。
总之，提高学生的批判性思维能力和创新能力是当今教育的重要任务。
教育方法、实践活动和教师的角色都是培养学生批判性思维能力和创新能力的重要因素。
只有通过多种途径和方法的综合运用，才能够有效地提高学生的批判性思维能力和创新能力，为他们的未来发展打下坚实的基础。
批判性思维和解决问题的能力精品资料
批判性思维和解决问题的能力Critical thinking andproblem solving skillsOne.the connotation of critical thinkingCritical thinking is "to decide what to believe or do reasonable and reflection of thinking".People with critical thinking in the cognitive tend to have the following abilities: one is found that the problem, gather information, analyze data,evaluate the ability of evidence; The second is to identify facts and opinionsand differences between logic judgment ability; Three is to be able to finduniversal law, and evaluate the degree of its logical ability; Four is correct andclear reasoning, and the ability of effective interpretation conclusions.Of critical thinking, in the aspect of thinking also has many characteristics, such as not hasty, not blindly follow, for problem resolv'd; Keep the attitude ofcuriosity and questioning. Aware of their prejudice, discrimination, payattention to overcome these biases affect judgment; An open attitude to therational view of the various point of view, to understand other people, willingto correct their views.Two.How to let students learn critical thinking1. The problem of knowledge is "pulled"Critical thinking at the core of the focus on "criticism" two characters. A fact or phenomenon once our senses to receive, we first need to do is to askquestions. Train the students' ability to ask questions, is the first step intraining students' critical thinking ability. And the "q", directly determines the effect of critical thinking: hit the nail on the head or to differences in askingonly.Today's understanding of "heuristic teaching" there has been a big mistake, that is the teacher as the main body of classroom questioning, one-sided think teachers need to "inspired" with carefully designed problems students to carry on the corresponding thinking, this is actually deprived students found theproblem, ask questions from the living examples of power, lead to students inthe process of acquiring knowledge relies too much on explicit problem rather than the source of the problem -- practice, has also led to the lack of students' critical thinking.2. The answer by discussing "battle"Students receiving external knowledge efficiently, reasonable analysis and comprehensive summary of ability are the important aspects of critical thinking training. As the leader of class teaching, teachers should be from as many sources and Angle for the students to create conditions of access to information, and provide students with diverse thinking environment.Group work activities to the implementation of a simple and effective way is widely used by teachers. On the one hand, group activities to make the teachers' classroom mastery moved to the students, increase the chances of a student to carry on the training of thinking; To absorb knowledge, on the other hand, through the in-depth interaction between students, details and systematic. At the same time, the students understanding of the knowledge and the structure is also more fully and perfect.Group work activities should be unique, according to its target points, mainly has "group discussion", "cooperation" and "cooperation demonstration" three forms. "group discussion" mainly through brainstorming, deepen the understanding of new concept, or to find a solution to the problem. "cooperation" means of 3 ~ 4 students group, using new concepts and to demonstrate skills, design or creative work. "cooperation demonstration" insist on team division of labor cooperation, use of multimedia technology show team results to the class. In general, the writing of "cooperation" results will be made through the way of "cooperation" demonstration display.3. The context from the inductive"comb"Knowledge of systemic and completeness is one of the important indexes to judge the students professional qualification. However, the above you'll learn to ask, you'll learn theory, you'll learn to do, due to its starting point is a starting point for teachers, or a particular instance, so the student to obtain the corresponding knowledge will be scattered. In order to overcome this problem, and complete the critical thinking education MSC step, guided by teachers "induction" link is key to an important link of the teaching effect. This is particularly important to study the basic knowledge of natural science. As a result, the students are encouraged to use the power of thinking and practice absorbs vast amounts of information and gain first-hand knowledge at the same time, teachers must be how to integrate knowledge, extracting key points, and eventually form a logically complete theoretical system of teaching methods.4. The effect in practice "rating"Critical thinking is a science about the practice, this is the only by the goal of critical thinking, namely "deciding what to believe or what to do". Both the "what" is closely connected with practice, the former is the previous, or the practice of the people around you, or is about to practice scheme, even for the exist only in the thinking of the abstract theory, can also be used to thinking in practice; While the latter is to use critical thinking to subject itself or has been carried out in practice. However, the practice of different critical thinking ability of the need to use different. Therefore, as an effective classroom to trainingstudents' critical thinking, the request content must stick to the practice of "diversity" and "controversial" the two centres.Students do the actual problem ability of exploration reflects its cultivation of critical thinking. Have good critical thinking ability of students, can keen insight into the crux of the problem, and have the ability to put forward effective solutions. In the process of teaching, school and teachers should be devoted to manufacturing for students plenty of opportunity to show and exercise.In short, in order to change the education of our country the insufficiency of the critical thinking ability training of grim situation, finally achieve the goal of cultivating a large number of creative talents, teachers must actively explore effective advanced class teaching pattern, provides students with the indirect acquisition way of critical thinking, so that the students in the learning process can be effectively train their critical thinking, let the classroom become students of the brain's training ground, so as to improve the teaching quality.。