Kant claims in the preface that philosophy is comprised of logic, physics, and ethics. The first of the components, logic, manages just its own structure, it does not concern itself with specific targets. On the contrary, physics is connected with the laws of nature while the laws of freedom are attached to ethics. Furthermore, Kant intellectualizes the categorical imperative, the good will, the propositions concerning duty, and teleological argument. Another section covers issues of a metaphysics of morals.
In the most general sense, it usually means encouraging students to use active techniques (experiments, real-world problem solving) to create more knowledge and then to reflect on and talk about what they are doing and how their understanding is changing. The teacher makes sure she understands the students' preexisting conceptions, and guides the activity to address them and then build on them. Dialogic teaching Dialogic teaching harnesses the power of talk to stimulate and extend students’ thinking, and advance their learning and understanding (Alexander 2010). The term ‘dialogic teaching’ is now in regular use but like all such terms means different things to different people. As developed by Robin Alexander since the early 2000s, dialogic teaching harnesses the power of talk to stimulate and extend students’ thinking and advance their learning and understanding.
According to Faculty of Education at University of Cambridge, dialogic teaching is a way of teaching where talk is an effective way to carry out teaching and learning. It involves ongoing talk between two parties; the teacher and the students. In early 2000s, Robin Alexander developed this type of learning. Dialogical teaching helps teacher to discover students’ needs, assess their progress and so on. Dialogic teaching offers an interaction; which is between not only teacher and students; it could be between student and student.
In this last principle, Kant understands that there is the possibility (or ‘capacity’) for anyone to act morally, and describes what this action would look like in practice. It explains why we are hesitant to try to put a value on a person’s life, and why most people would refuse to even attempt such a thing. For example, money would introduce a ‘conditional’ value that is not permitted in Kant’s view. “For other beings such as human beings whose rational capacities govern a will that might be moved by various incentives, temptations, and fears, the representation of something as good or required is not, by itself, sufficient for action. In such beings, the determination by their reason that some option is good or required presents itself as a kind of command as the judgment that they ought to act accordingly (even if they want not to).
Like critical thinking, the conclusion arrived at in reasoned dialogue also remains open-ended. These two processes are different from dialectic reasoning (Horvath, 2011). In dialectic thinking, a conclusion must be reached, which entails the truth. However, dialectic reasoning shares an attribute with critical thinking, which is the ability to analyze issues from multiple perspectives before arriving at a particular conclusion Many scholars are unable to tell the difference between Critical thinking, reasoned dialogue, and dialectic reasoning. It is clear that the three aspects relate closely because they all require a certain degree of brain activity.
Kids should have the right to read what they want and the community should not be able to stop them from reading whatever they want or what is assigned. Some people think they have the right to control what these kids read. People should not be able to control a school, its curriculum or even what the kids read. The community should not have the right to control what kids read because you should be able to read what you want. I am not saying that parents should not be involved.
However this is not true. In fact, when using divergent questions the teacher encourages students to explore and participate in discussions while leading it by clarifying and guiding student’s critical thinking. Moreover, those types of questions require students to reason and give their opinions and so express their feelings and values. The teachers mainly use this type of questions when they want to discuss, evaluate and analyze. Basically, the teacher should classify the type of questions used depending on the subject and on the year group.
The elements of this component are quality of questions/ prompts, discussion techniques and student participation. Effective questioning techniques are associated with the types of the questions. Instead of just asking closed-questions, the teachers should vary the types of questions by asking open-ended questions to encourage the critical thinking of the students. As mentioned by Danielson (2014: 59), “Class discussion are animated, engaging all the students in important issues and promoting the use of precise language to deepen language and extend their understanding.” Hence, an effective classroom interaction is not necessarily evolved high cognitive level of lesson content, but the engagement and participation of the students is important to make sure the learning and teaching process is
Secondly, she explains how certain parts of the theory don’t make sense. Lastly, she provides a much easier way of learning the categorical imperative, and this helps people understand the concept a lot easier. Onora O’Neill thought that Kant’s moral theory was too difficult understand so she proposed an easier version. What she does is try to pick it apart and focus on one particular form. O’Neill decides to focus on the Formula of the End in Itself.
Such differences of intellectual vitality and a cross-fertilization of ideas can produce. In dealing with the specific problems in the open is likely to bring a variety of hypotheses. This process is the most appropriate solutions can be found for a particular situation is likely to offer a variety of solutions. It takes into account the reality of the lives of people of the Islamic faith who is in harmony with