Information Package / Course Catalogue
| Electrical and Electronics Engineering | |||||
| Bachelor | Length of the Programme: 4 | Number of Credits: 240 | TR-NQF-HE: Level 6 | QF-EHEA: First Cycle | EQF: Level 6 |
ECTS Course Information Package
| School/Faculty/Institute | Faculty of Economics, Administrative and Social Sciences | |||||
| Course Code | PHIL 213 | |||||
| Course Title in English | Critical Thinking | |||||
| Course Title in Turkish | Eleştirel Düşünce | |||||
| Language of Instruction | EN | |||||
| Type of Course | Flipped Classroom | |||||
| Level of Course | Introductory | |||||
| Semester | Spring | |||||
| Contact Hours per Week |
|
|||||
| Estimated Student Workload | 137 hours per semester | |||||
| Number of Credits | 5 ECTS | |||||
| Grading Mode | Standard Letter Grade | |||||
| Pre-requisites | None | |||||
| Co-requisites | None | |||||
| Expected Prior Knowledge | None | |||||
| Registration Restrictions | Only Undergraduate Students | |||||
| Overall Educational Objective | To be able to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of reasoning in arguments. | |||||
| Course Description | This course aims at clarifying students’ thinking patterns; making them aware of common fallacies and helping them detect poor reasoning and construct stronger arguments. After a brief introduction to the nature of critical thinking and analyzing arguments, the bulk of the course is devoted to analyzing fallacies. Towards the end of the course, we look into the differences between ethical, religious, aesthetic, legal, scientific and pseudo-scientific reasoning. |
Course Learning Outcomes and CompetencesUpon successful completion of the course, the learner is expected to be able to:1) Identify fallacies 2) Distinguish strong (valid) reasoning from poor (invalid) reasoning 3) Separate argument from demagogy 4) Analyze the differences between moral, religious, scientific and pseudo-scientific reasoning 5) Construct stronger arguments 6) Defend arguments more efficiently |
| Program Learning Outcomes/Course Learning Outcomes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) An ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics | ||||||
| 2) An ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors | ||||||
| 3) An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences | ||||||
| 4) An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts | ||||||
| 5) An ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives | ||||||
| 6) An ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions | ||||||
| 7) An ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies |
Relation to Program Outcomes and Competences
| N None | S Supportive | H Highly Related |
| Program Outcomes and Competences | Level | Assessed by | |
| 1) | An ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics | N | |
| 2) | An ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors | N | |
| 3) | An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences | S | Participation,HW,Presentation |
| 4) | An ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts | N | |
| 5) | An ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives | S | Participation |
| 6) | An ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions | N | |
| 7) | An ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies | S | Participation,HW,Presentation |
| Prepared by and Date | BAŞAK KEKİ , November 2024 |
| Course Coordinator | SENA CÜRE ACER |
| Semester | Spring |
| Name of Instructor |
Course Contents
| Week | Subject |
| 1) | Introduction to the course |
| 2) | Introduction to critical thinking |
| 3) | Making sense of arguments |
| 4) | Persuasion through rhetoric |
| 5) | Psychological fallacies |
| 6) | Fallacies of relevance and defective induction |
| 7) | Fallacies of presumption and ambiguity |
| 8) | Midterm |
| 9) | Causal Explanation |
| 10) | Irrational tendencies: egocentrism and sociocentrism |
| 11) | Religious reasoning |
| 12) | Moral, legal and aesthetic reasoning |
| 13) | Science and pseudo-science |
| 14) | Thinking critically about media |
| 15) | Final Examination Period |
| 16) | Final Examination Period |
| Required/Recommended Readings | The coursepack will include excerpts from the following: Bassham, Gregory & William Irwin & Henry Nardone & James M. Wallace. Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2013). Burns, Elizabeth and Stephen Law. Philosophy for AS and A2, (London: Routledge, 2004). Cohen, Carl & Irving M. Copi. Introduction to Logic, (New Jersey: Pearson, 2005). Elder, Linda & Richard Paul. Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life, (New Jersey: Pearson, 2014). Moore, Brooke Noel & Richard Parker. Critical Thinking, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2012). | ||||||
| Teaching Methods | Flipped Learning technology – Perusall (texts will be uploaded pre-class with questions) -, in-class discussions and exercises, presentation, exam, paper | ||||||
| Homework and Projects | Weekly Homework (questions on Perusall texts), paper, presentation | ||||||
| Laboratory Work | None | ||||||
| Computer Use | None | ||||||
| Other Activities | None | ||||||
| Assessment Methods |
|
||||||
| Course Administration |
acers@mef.edu.tr None kekib@mef.edu.tr In accordance with YÖK regulations, 70% attendance is mandatory. Attendance and active participation are required. There would be no late presentations and make-up exams unless a medical report was provided. Late submission of paper allowed with score reduction. MEF university values academic integrity. Therefore, all students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offenses under the code of student conduct and disciplinary procedures. Academic dishonesty and plagiarism: Law on Higher Education Art. 54. |
||||||
ECTS Student Workload Estimation
| Activity | No/Weeks | Hours | Calculation | ||||
| No/Weeks per Semester | Preparing for the Activity | Spent in the Activity Itself | Completing the Activity Requirements | ||||
| Course Hours | 14 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 98 | ||
| Presentations / Seminar | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | |||
| Homework Assignments | 12 | 1 | 12 | ||||
| Midterm(s) | 1 | 8 | 2 | 10 | |||
| Final Examination | 1 | 10 | 2 | 12 | |||
| Total Workload | 137 | ||||||
| Total Workload/25 | 5.5 | ||||||
| ECTS | 5 | ||||||