an evaluation of a classroom program to teach students to ... · cort thinking (de bono, 1976) is...
TRANSCRIPT
"an evaluation of a classroom program to teach students to be better thinkers"
Abstract:
This paper deals with teaching school students to be better thinkers
and learners. The learning principles presented are generic. They apply
to all individuals and their learning organisations. The session will
report results about PhD research conducted in upper primary classes in
Sydney schools during 1996. A teaching/ learning model MinDQuestionS
was developed and implemented by the presenter /researcher. The model
emphasises Metacognition, Disposition, Questioning and Skills. Mixed
research methodologies were used. A Quasi-Experimental design was used
with pre-tests and post-tests on treatment and control groups.
Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered from teachers and
students in three treatment and three control group classes.
Preliminary analysis at the time of writing this abstract suggests the
research model was effective. Detailed results will be reported.
The MinDQuestionS research model provides a rationale and practical
strategies: to encourage students to be Metacognitive about their
thinking and learning; to promote a positive Disposition to thinking
and learning in the classroom; to develop a questioning mode to
learning and thinking through the use and understanding of good
Questioning both for teachers and students; and, to use some form of
thinking Skills program to teach cognitive skills and to develop a
language for discussing thinking across all classroom work.
Professional development implications for teachers and practical
classroom strategies will be mentioned.
About the author:
Chris McGrath MACE, Dip Ed, BA(Macquarie), Grad Dip Music(NSW
Conservatorium), Grad Cert Gifted Education (UNSW), M Ed(Gifted
Education,UNSW), Doctoral Research Award(Uni Sth Aust)
He is completing doctoral studies with the University of South
Australia. He has been a regular class and special education teacher,
consultant for students with special needs and senior adviser for the
education of gifted and talented students in NSW Government schools. He
currently teaches part-time at a primary school, lectures at university
on a part time basis, provides professional development in schools and
is Vice President of the Australian Association for the Education of
the Gifted and Talented.
Introduction
Australian school education assumes students learn to be effective
thinkers as they experience the school curriculum. Many educators
challenge this assumption. Edwards (1994) presents an overview of the
strong body of research since the 1980s claiming school education
produces "skilled regurgitators of knowledge". He cites Perkins
(1994:11) :"The bottom line is that we are not getting the retention,
understanding and active use of knowledge we want". Norris (1985)
believes poor thinking extends beyond school. He says test results show
first year university students and workplace adults are poor on
critical thinking tests. Langrehr (1995) in Become a Better Thinker
identifies inadequacies related to teaching students to think within
the current curriculum. He suggests a thinking curriculum and provides
a range of methods to teach core thinking skills, not only for school
students but the whole community. Resnick(1987) agrees school systems
are at fault and presents an interesting equity perspective. Until the
relatively recent advent of mass, compulsory education, the "good
education" previously provided to the ruling classes was focussed more
directly on teaching students to think. Resnick says the current system
has not accommodated the demands of "education for all" and as a
consequence provides a fairly superficial core curriculum which tries
to serve too many purposes. She suggests the teaching of thinking is a
challenge facing contemporary educators:
"Although it is not new to include thinking, problem solving and
reasoning in someone's school curriculum, it is new to include it in
everyone's curriculum.
...It is a new challenge to develop educational programs that assume
that all individuals, not just the elite, can become competent
thinkers"(1987:7)
In Australia, growth in the use of thinking skills programs has been
largely allied to the implementation of states and territories policies
for gifted and talented students. Since a 1989 world gifted education
conference in Sydney and the release of a NSW Government gifted
education policy in 1991, programs and resources related to teaching
thinking have proliferated in that state. Teachers are responding to
the needs of intellectually gifted students by supplementing the
regular curriculum with materials and programs focussed on teaching
thinking and providing increased intellectual challenge. Leading
Australian publishers (Longman, Hawker/Brownlow, McGraw-Hill) and
educational supplier (Dominie, Sydney) report resources for teaching
thinking are one of their major growth areas. They concur that 1989 and
1991 were significant years in their sales, however, they report a
steady and continuous growth in demand for these materials and
programs. One publisher recently told me her analysis of sales trends
indicated teachers of regular classes are her main purchasers of these
materials in 1995. This is important to note. Regular class teachers
are interested in using these resources because all their students may
benefit and individual differences are catered for by the nature of the
strategies used.
There is an expensive array of programs and resources from which
teachers can choose, however, some programs and techniques are being
used with greater frequency by Australian teachers. They include:
CoRT thinking de Bono
Philosophy for Children Lipman
Tournament of Minds(TOM) various authors
A brief summary of each explains how they supplement students' regular
curriculum experiences.
CoRT Thinking (de Bono, 1976) is based on the belief that school
thinking is basically a conservative process and that cultures
generally perpetuate limiting, conventional thought. CoRT is designed
to break the intellectual patterns generated by conformity. De Bono
defines thinking as, "the operating skill with which intelligence acts
upon experience" (1990:161). The de Bono programs are commercially
prepared materials designed to teach students through practice, how to
use and apply specific intellectual, "operating" skills. Students are
taught to use "perceptual frameworks" with which to engage in
teaching/learning tasks and associated problems in a more thorough
manner. The skills are taught through direct instruction, in lessons
clearly specified for teachers. The skills and techniques are taught
using generic examples. They are taught initially in isolation from
curriculum disciplines.
Philosophy for Children (Lipman, 1985) is a scheme designed to help
students acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to be
members of a community of inquiry, based on Socratic dialogue. Students
learn thinking skills by working through, as members of a community of
inquiry, specially written texts. The stories are used as stimulus
material to introduce children to effective thinking skills. Lipman
(1985:87-96) cites 30 skills students acquire through the program. He
believes that through the program students develop dispositions towards
a "... readiness to employ such skills - and to employ them in a
coordinated and cumulatively reinforcing fashion" (1985:97).
Tournament of Minds (TOM) is an Australian version of the US based,
Odyssey of the Mind program. It is a group based problem solving
competition. Students are provided with externally written problems in
three broad curriculum areas: English, Maths/Science and Humanities.
Practice examples and specific instruction in problem solving
techniques are given to students either in class or as an
extra-curricular activity. Teachers and TOM organisers believe that
students learn problem solving skills that generalise across the
curriculum. The Victorian Association for Gifted and Talented Children
(VAGTC) coordinate the program nationally and develop TOM problems and
support materials.
These programs are not inexpensive and take up curriculum time,
however, teachers and schools consider they are important. One quarter
(750) of NSW schools enter students in Tournament of Minds. Philosophy
for Children is taught in 10% of Australian schools according to a
recent tabloid report (8% of NSW schools are on the Philosophy for
Children mailing list). The CoRT thinking newsletter is sent to 10% of
NSW schools. A significant number of schools and teachers are
demonstrating they believe the financial and time commitment involved
in using these programs is justified.
The three programs described above are attractive to teachers. They are
packaged with lessons formatted, they demand little preparation time
and require minimal modification by teachers. They are "added on" to
the curriculum and are not necessarily applied across disciplines.
Teachers are generally untrained in the area of teaching thinking and
they assume students will benefit from the programs. Teachers assume
students will apply the thinking skills they learn across the
curriculum. Teachers need to challenge this assumption and consider how
to ensure students are becoming better thinkers in all their school
work.
This research project intends to help teachers validate the assumptions
they make about their attempts to improve students' thinking. It
intends to demonstrate to teachers that the use of thinking skills
programs is important but, it is a beginning step. For maximum benefit
to be gained from thinking skills programs, teachers have to address
the whole classroom curriculum. There are strategies teachers can adopt
to develop thinking classrooms.
Mind Questions
In 1995, a review of research literature and direct experience with the
three major programs currently used in NSW schools suggested to this
researcher there were four major essential components to be considered
in a thinking curriculum. The four features: metacognition,
disposition, questioning and skills should be considered as essential
components of programs to teach students to be better thinkers.
A teaching model based on these essential features was developed by the
researcher. The research used case study and field study techniques to
analyse classroom change combined with quantitative techniques to
measure the effect of a teaching intervention using the model. Teachers
were provided a professional development program about how to apply the
model in the regular classroom. The model is termed MinDQuestionS, to
emphasise the M, D, Q, & S of Metacognition, Disposition, Questioning
and Skills. Metacognition, disposition, questioning and skills are
briefly discussed below.
Metacognition
Metacognition, defined as knowledge about and control over one's
thinking processes ( in Wittrock, 1986), emerges as an important
aspect of all programs to teach students to think. Programs based on
discussing thinking, group process, teachers modelling thinking, all
support this idea of thinking and discussing thinking (Evans, 1991;
Resnick, 1987, 1989; Langrehr, 1995; Baron & Sternberg, 1987; Edwards,
1994). In a major research meta-analysis, Wang, Haertel and Walberg
(1993) reviewed fifty years of research into major influences on
students' learning. Metacognitive processes were the major
instructional variable for improved student learning. Metacognitive
aids include, for example, mind mapping, journal keeping, self
questioning techniques, perceptual frameworks(CoRT thinking strategies)
and self regulatory strategies. CoRT thinking, Philosophy for Children
and Tournament of Minds all involve students gaining control over and
knowledge about their thinking, that is, becoming metacognitive.
Disposition
A positive disposition towards thinking emerges as a critical factor in
the success of teaching thinking. Because students are taught skills is
no guarantee they will use them. Students need to choose to apply an
intellectual process for it to become a part of their thinking
repertoire. Tishman (1994) believes teachers have to work on the "gap"
between what students are able to do and what they are disposed to do.
Tournament of Minds, Philosophy for Children, CoRT are all group based,
with strong modelling from the teacher and peer acceptance. These
ingredients promote a positive disposition through an accepting
classroom culture and a shared value in using strategies (Resnick,
1987, 1989; Lipman, 1985). Philosophy for Children is based on students
adopting a Socratic approach to discourseÉÉ the disposition to adopt
this approach is essential as it is for any group process to be fully
effective. Resnick (1987) suggests teachers and researchers should
consider how the disposition to think is a socialised behaviour,
developed similarly to other accepted behaviours through modelling,
notions of shared usefulness and practice. Teachers need to actively
address the development of dispositions in students. Teachers can not
assume it will occur.
In his recent best seller, "Emotional Intelligence", Goleman (1995)
makes a very persuasive case for acknowledging and teaching for what he
terms emotional intelligence(EI). I believe emotional intelligence
equates significantly with disposition. Disposition is the "feeling"
component of the MDQS model. Goleman's EI describes and accounts for
the "feeling" aspect of intelligence and cognitive functioning. The
MDQS model attempts to account for the EI of students through the
disposition component.
Questioning
Questioning, both self questioning and interpersonal questioning,
underlies all successful intellectual skills programs. Tournament of
Minds, for example, is based on questions and questioning. Students are
provided with a scenario. They have to generate questions and respond
to posed questions.
Langrehr (1995) believes that questioning, both self questioning and
the questions teachers pose, are integral to the development of
intellectual skills.
"Once people who are poor at thinking in different ways are given some
better questionsÉ they show significant improvement in these ways of
thinking. " (1995:v)
"The more questions we ask ourselves the more connections we form; the
greater the variety of questions, the greater the variety of
connections formed" (1995:39)
Questioning is at the base of de Bono's techniques. Questions about
issues and scenarios are the stimuli to which students are required to
respond. What happens ifÉÉ? How does thisÉÉ? Why do you think sheÉÉ?
and so on. Questions asked by the facilitator of the students, the
students to each other or to themselves are the intellectual triggers
for students to adopt the "perceptual frameworks" provided by the CoRT
materials.
Lipman (1985) says questioning is the basis for engaging in the
community of inquiry the Philosophy for Children program aims to
promote. Why do you think thatÉ? How can you justify that statement?
What do you think? In what way doesÉ? etc are the links forged between
the participants in a community of inquiry. Splitter (1995) believes
philosophic inquiry generates, "an appreciation that these questions
are prompts for reasons, predictions and viewpoints which can, in turn,
be evaluated as good or bad, better or worse, reasonable or
unreasonable" (1995:17).
Sullivan & Clarke (1991) believe that the type and quality of questions
used are directly related to the type and quality of learning that
takes place. Questions that require students to think "more deeply"
produce better outcomes than questions concerned solely with recall of
facts and routines. They identify three factors for "good questions":
1. They require more than recall of a fact or reproduction of a skill.
2. Pupils can learn by doing the task, and the teacher learns about the
pupil from the attempt.
3. There may be several acceptable answers.
Collins (1985) suggests one of the thinking skills teachers should
model for students is the systematic use of questioning to promote
relevant thinking. Questioning can be viewed as a part of a cycle in
the teaching of intellectual skills: teach the skills-question to
elicit use of the skills. Questioning is an essential aspect of
practising intellectual skills and of perceiving the relevance of the skills.
Skills
Numerous sources provide evidence about a range of intellectual skills
being learnt through instructional interventions [ de Bono, 1976,
1985(in Chipman Segal and Glaser); Edwards, 1994, 1995; Lipman, 1985;
Splitter, 1995; Casinader, 1995]. Evidence is abundant about the
success of direct teaching and learning of intellectual skills.
Comparing, contrasting, checking opinions, assessing underlying
assumptions are strategies that can be taught. Ennis (1985) terms
these, critical thinking skills and suggests they fall into three broad
subgroups; skills for defining and clarifying, skills for judging
information and skills for solving problems. All programs designed to
teach students to be better thinkers identify specific intellectual
skills that can be taught.
Infused or add-on?
An important question emerges about how to connect the teaching of
thinking skills to the basic curriculum. Should they be "add-on"
programs or should they be infused into subjects and Key Learning
Areas. Polson and Jeffries (1985) describe two broad alternative
approaches to teaching thinking: information processing and divergent
production. Simplified, this dichotomy asks the question: when teaching
intellectual skills, is it best to use an approach "added on"
(additional) to the regular curriculum or, "infused" into the regular
curriculum. Two basic reasons are provided to explain why intellectual
skills programs should be infused into the school curriculum. The first
is related to the link between thinking skills and content knowledge
and the second is the practical school concern, curriculum time ( and
to a lesser extent resource costs). First, numerous sources suggest
that the most effective use of intellectual skills is linked
substantially with a strong content knowledge base. Armbruster, Echols
and Brown (in Wittrock, 1986) say that the development of learning
strategies and metacognitive processes tends to follow the learner's
development of relevant knowledge. Nitko (1993) says a good content
specific, information base is the strongest position from which to best
use intellectual skills. Resnick (1987) advocates infusing the teaching
of thinking into the regular curriculum:
1. it provides natural knowledge base and environment in which to
practise and develop intellectual skills
2. it provides criteria for what constitutes good thinking and
reasoning within the disciplinary tradition
3. it will ensure that something worthwhile will have been learned even
if wide transfer proves unattainable (1987:36)
These reasons raise serious questions about the long term efficacy of
programs like Tournament of Minds, CoRT thinking and Philosophy for
Children if they are used as "add on" programs. It may be most
practical to consider using these programs as initiatives to get
students and staff motivated subsequent to infusing teaching
intellectual skills in the regular curriculum.
The second basic reason for infusing intellectual skills instruction
into regular curriculum is practical. Issues underlying the use of any
technique for improving intellectual skills are, time and cost
(Resnick, 1989). School curriculum time is precious and defended by
teachers. Programs like CoRT, TOM, Philosophy for Children all demand
time from someone's curriculum. Resnick(1987) suggests the more
instructional techniques are detached from the regular curriculum the
less likely they are to be maintained.
"Based on present evidence, general course effectiveness seems to
depend on the extent to which it is accompanied by parallel efforts
across the curriculum.
Prudent educational practice should seek to embed efforts to teach
cognitive skills into one or another preferably all of the
traditional school disciplines, and it should do this regardless of
what is done in the way of special courses in thinking and learning
skills" (1987:35)
Discussion
My review of the literature suggests intellectual skills instruction is
effective but, metacognition, disposition, questioning should be
emphasised as essential features of curriculum to make students better
thinkers.
Ample evidence suggests thinking skills can be taught. Using the
thinking skills help students, for example, define and clarify
information, make judgements about its reliability and apply relevant
information to problem solving. To gain maximum benefit from
intellectual skills learned, however, more is needed in the classroom,
from the students and from the teacher.
Teaching and learning these skills are facilitated by questioning; both
student and teacher intrapersonal questioning and interpersonal
questioning. The use of strategies to encourage metacognition is
essential in promoting the use, relevance and understanding of the
skills taught. The disposition to use the skills taught can not be
assumed and must be an integral aspect of the overall instructional
environment. And the final aspect of an effective intellectual skills
program is infusing the teaching in the context of regular curriculum.
This ensures continuity of instruction, maximum relevance to the
learner, a strong knowledge base within which to apply skills and, it
addresses the practicalities of time and cost.
Research Methodology
This research was aimed at helping teachers incorporate MDQS strategies
into their daily teaching. Classrooms are learning communities. The
essential features: metacognition, disposition, questioning and
intellectual skills instruction were intended to effect thinking across
all classroom activities. This research is concerned with promoting,
observing and measuring change in classrooms where these essential
features permeate all regular curriculum experiences.
This research project included
¥ developing a teacher training and classroom instructional model
Mind Questions based on the four essential features: metacognition,
disposition, questioning and skills
¥ providing a 5 week, 10 hour training program for teachers to use the
model
¥ providing follow up support in classrooms & observing teaching
sessions in the classroom as the treatment model was implemented
¥ measuring the effect of the treatment model on treatment class
teachers and subjects
¥ analysing differences between treatment and control group classes
The training program was provided in March/April 1996. The
implementation period and data gathering occurred from May-November
1996.
MinDQuestionS -Teacher Instruction program
During the 10 hour MinDQuestionS instruction program teachers were
provided with twelve theoretical and practical readings about
metacognition, disposition, questioning and skills. Specific
teaching/learning strategies were demonstrated for them. They were
asked to specifically use some thinking strategies during the research
period and make personal choices about whether they use others, for
example, teachers are requested to keep learning logs (reflective
journals) both themselves and for students. However, although brief
practice and discussion about the following programs was provided,
teachers were urged to consider which of the range best suited their
needs and teaching styles and, their students' needs and prior
experiences: CoRT & Six Thinking Hats (de Bono), the Australian
materials developed for the Philosophy for Children program (Phil Cam,
1994), John Langrehr's Better Questions Better Thinking .
Teachers were instructed in how to develop students' metacognition
using, for example, mind mapping, keeping reflective journals and
discussing thinking processes and strategies in all key learning areas.
The main strategies for promoting a positive disposition towards
thinking were teacher and peer modelling. Teachers are asked to model
and articulate their own thinking strategies. Through group process and
metacognitive activities, the language of thinking and a disposition to
use thinking strategies is believed to be engendered in classrooms.
Teachers practised developing examples of "good questions" in the MDQS
training program. Teachers were asked to explain to their students the
difference between questions that make them think and articulate their
understanding, and questions that rely primarily on memory and process
imitation. Effective self-questioning was discussed with students.
Langrehr's text, Better Questions Better Thinking was used as an
exemplar of units of work designed using "good" questions.
To develop cognitive skills and facilitate a "language of thinking"
(Tishman, Perkins & Jay, 1995) in their classrooms, teachers are asked
to consider, which, if any, of the major thinking skills programs they
would use with their classes. I was able to provide them with copies of
materials on loan for the research period and demonstrate or team teach
their application.
I provided on-going support and training for the treatment group
teachers as I visited their classes on a weekly basis for the research
period. I team taught and demonstrated teaching in each of the classes,
as well as making observational notes and providing feedback to the
teachers as they tried MDQS strategies.
Research design
This research was an interpretative evaluation of an approach to
teaching thinking and as such used mixed methodologies. Qualitative and
quantitative were gathered. As Patton suggests about research, "design
is necessarily an interplay of resources, possibilities, creativity,
and personal judgements" (1990:13). No single methodology provided an
adequate framework to complete this evaluation of MinDQuestionS.
Data collection - Quantitative data
Quantitative data were gathered and a Quasi-Experimental Design was
used with pretest and posttest on experimental and control groups,
similar to Parke's research (1983), cited in Buchanan & Feldhusen
(1991:60). The research intended to evaluate the effect of the
intervention on the treatment groups. Olszewski & Subotik (in Feldhusen
and Buchanan, 1991:61) suggest this type of quasi-experimental designs
may be more ecologically valid and therefore yield more generalisable
results than experimental design research. Ecological validity implied
the classes were regular classes, containing a normal range of
students, were naturally formed through school enrolment procedures and
were subject to variables associated with normal school life.
Three formal tests were administered to the treatment and control class
subjects:
The Self Concept as a Thinker (SCAT) test to provide data about self
concept as thinkers.
The Langrehr Test of Core Thinking Processes to provide data about
their ability to use specific cognitive processes.
The ACER Non-verbal Reasoning test to provide data about general
reasoning skills.
Data collection - Qualitative data
Qualitative data were gathered through interviews, teacher and students
learning journals, teacher lesson preparation notes, written
evaluations by students and teachers, and, classroom observational
notes and field notes by the researcher. Interpretative methods
described in Erickson (1986) to compile field data and observational
techniques similar to Evertson and Green (1986) were used . Case study
analyses in Hammersley (1990) provided useful models to inform the
qualitative data collection and analysis.
Subjects
Six classes of Years 5 & 6 students from Government and catholic
schools comprise the treatment and control groups (3 classes in
treatment, approximately n=74; three classes in control groups, n=60).
Results
(initial note - the results and subsequent discussion of both
quantitative and qualitative data are draft only and incomplete at the
time of writing this paper)
Quantitative data
ANOVA analyses were applied to differences between students' pre and
post test scores on the three tests administered. None of the analyses
were significant at the 5% level.
Qualitative data
Classroom observations - application of MDQS in classrooms
Data for this section came from thirty classroom observations in
treatment classes gathered over three school terms. Each observation
session was 40-50 minutes. The results are presented with reference to
the four components of the MDQS model.
Metacognition
Student metacognition was initiated by questioning and evidenced in
written form in learning logs, journals, self evaluations, self
reports, task reports and task evaluations. Reflection/metacognition
occurred during initial stages of learning tasks, in planning work, in
monitoring work, and in reporting and evaluating completed tasks.
Metacognition was frequently evidenced orally, both between students
and between students and teachers. Relaxation and quiet meditative
activities were used. Specific taught skills such as mind mapping and
Six Thinking Hats were used by students. Teachers modelled the
metacognitive process.
Disposition
Teachers modelled enthusiasm for learning and thinking. Group and pairs
work with clearly defined roles, behavioural expectations and
procedures were used consistently. Thinking learning tasks were clearly
related to ongoing class work. The balance between level of task
difficulty and student competence was continually evident. Components
of choice were present in all tasks. Ongoing summative sharing was a
constant feature of classrooms. High levels of commitment, enjoyment
and challenge were continually evident. Teachers planning indicated
they had anticipated many potential student concerns.
Questioning
Good teacher questioning incorporating, openendedness, wait time, pre
planning and use of a variety of settings was consistently evident.
Teachers asked questions in whole class settings but also in pairs, and
small and large groups. Students responded to questions
contemplatively, orally and in writing. Students were encouraged to
design questions as initial, investigative prompts, for ongoing
monitoring and as a summative procedure related to class work.
Questioning prompt charts, for example, Q-matrix, and Six Thinking Hats
questions were used.
Skills
Teachers used a number of commercial thinking skills programs. These
included: Six Thinking Hats, CoRT, Philosophy for Children, Better
Questions Better Thinking. There were classroom lists of problem
solving prompts and wall charts containing items like: fact/opinion,
guess/check, trial/error, predict, estimate and other examples of the
language of thinking. Teachers applied Bloom's Taxonomy to assignment
design and questioning.
Other comments
Application of the MDQS principles became more evident after about 4-5
classroom observations, that is, about 4 months after the initial
training, and after a review discussion meeting. Teachers then started
to use MDQS in new and different Key Learning Areas, like visual arts,
poetry and technology/design. The MDQS lesson planning proforma was
developed in response to teacher request and used by all the teachers
towards the end of the observation period. Despite constant requests
from the researcher teachers were reluctant to keep reflective
journals.
Students' written evaluations
Treatment and control class students were asked three questions: what
they had learnt about their own thinking, other students' thinking and
thinking in general. Treatment group students provided significantly
more detailed responses, using 30-40% more words in their responses.
Examples from the treatment group are provided below:
1. What have you learnt about your thinking this year?
¥ not to judge things without thinking about them. If you think about
problems the answers come easier
¥ I've learnt that if I think of thinking, I think of new ways to solve
problems and suggest better ways to do things
¥ Its hard to get out of your comfort zone but when you do and you
think about it, it's great
¥ I've learnt that if I expand the answer I got I will get a better
result
¥ I've started to wake up and actually listen to my thinking. I've
learnt that I think in different ways. I've learnt that when I think
I'm being negative then.... telling myself off. I've been learning to think about thinking.
¥ This year I have learnt about thinking. I learnt to think things
through before I do anything. I learned not to stop thinking about an
answer because eventually you'll get it.
¥ I've learnt that I should always think before I do a question, and
that I can solve things better (than before)
¥ I have learnt how to make thinking fun
2. What have you learnt about other students' thinking this year?
¥ everyone has their own way of organising their thoughts
¥ even though some people might need help in eg reading, or maths; when
they try to be creative in thinking you learn that they still have good
ideas. Even if they might not be great in one particular subject.
¥ I've learnt that most clever people in the class can think more
creatively than anyone else and everyone can think differently and that
it can sometimes confuse me
¥ I have learnt that my thinking and another person's can help each
other
¥ I've learnt that there is more than one right answer, that people
that say something silly may be right
¥ other people's thinking has good ideas because the more people you
have to think the more answers you will get, because everyone thinks
differently
¥ Everybody has a totally different thought about something, and you
have to respect that.
¥ This year I learnt that other people in my class also have good ideas
and I learned to listen to everyone not just my own friends.
¥ I have learnt that it is good working in groups
3. What have you learnt about thinking in general?
¥ before this I never knew about the hats or mind maps...now that I
know I use them for stories, projects, even coloured hats are useful
for writing in my diary
¥ there are lots of things to think and everyone thinks differently,
but there is one thing that all thinkers have and its imagination
¥ that thinking can get you out of a hard and defeating situation, I've
learnt about the different hats and how they work
¥ Thinking is very complicated. I used to think "oh yeah, we just
think" but its much more complicated than that, there is whether you
use the right side of your brain or the left more, I use the right...
¥ I've learnt the language of thinking ie all the thinking words
¥ thinking will bring you out of your comfort zone and you will improve
¥ when I'm thinking about the same question as others I take the
question in a completely different way than my neighbour
¥ that everyone should have more thinking skills
figure 1. student responses
Teachers' written evaluations
Treatment class teachers were asked to complete a written evaluation.
Examples of their responses are provided below:
Part 1. About yourself
How has involvement in the process changed your teaching?
¥ I am more aware of presenting my class with a challenging lesson at
least daily.
¥ I can see the importance of giving the children time to think and
reflect - we tend to rush children along to try to fit in the day's
activities. I think next year I will try to build in a reflection
component to my lessons.
¥ more aware of Metacognition in planning lessons
¥ I have consciously tried to provide classroom "props" to support
students' thinking eg. charts, learning log, reflection time at the end
of lessons
¥ I have become very aware of the kinds of questions I'm asking.
¥ made me more aware of the real importance of disposition as a factor
in children's learning
¥ I was aware of "wait time" in questioning before MDQS but now I use
it more than ever.
¥ We cannot assume that slow learners/workers are nor good/deep /active
thinkers and there fore my teaching needs to stimulate everyone in the
class, gave the children a wide variety of ways to respond to what is
taught/demonstrate what they have learnt. One method is a reflective
journal of some kind
What have been the main advantages for you?
¥ I have learnt more about the cognitive skills I am trying to present
to my class.
¥ it has given me greater insight into the minds of some of the kids I
have worked with this year.
¥ MDQS has provided a framework I can use to prepare lessons/units of
work
¥ my own professional development. I knew about metacognition, but
hadn't incorporated any acknowledgment of it in my teaching.
Part 2. About your students
What have you learnt about your students' thinking ( and learning) as
your class has experienced the MDQS process? Please comment in general
and specifically.
¥ it has been easier to pinpoint children who think laterally and enjoy
a challenge.
¥ it has highlighted those who find it difficult to make decisions or
think critically
¥ some of my students are much deeper thinkers than I have given them
credit for and they deserve more of an interesting challenge
academically
What changes have you perceived in students' thinking during the MDQS
process?
¥ more persistence in difficult tasks
¥ understanding the nature of questioning themselves ie. higher order
questions
What have been the main advantages for students?
¥ having the opportunity to listen to their peers' ideas/methods
¥ reflecting upon their own learning or work.
¥ realising that people think and learn differently
¥ gaining the skills to approach a problem from a different angle
¥ provided some strategies they can apply to solve problems.
¥ focussed particularly of "how" rather than "what" they were
learning: a useful strategy to use in later schooling
Part 3. General comments
How has the MDQS professional development process accounted for
teachers' experience and learning styles?
¥ It starts on familiar ground in some instances eg. we all know
something about questioning
¥ the tasks were open ended and therefore allowed for individual
responses that could build on prior experience
¥ classroom implementation tasks were negotiable
Having been involved in the process for a year..... how would you
improve it.... change emphasis... to make it more effective as a
professional development process for teachers in the future ?
¥ the "ELIC" model of input/discussion/classroom based action research/
review and feedback - is a powerful one for engendering change. I
wouldn't change that either. I wonder if it would have optimum
effectiveness as a teacher development process if it were implemented
on a whole school basis?
Apart from time constraints and pressures associated with personal
change what disadvantages do you perceive in the MDQS process.
¥ it also needs to run from K-6 ... the kids need to feel that it is an
integral part of learning not just something that one teacher they have
does in the classroom.
¥ the rationale for reflection and metacognition needs to be explained
clearly to the children
figure 2. teacher responses
Discussion
Quantitative data
The results of the ANOVA analyses of quantitative data are not
surprising. None of the pre test - post test variances were
significant. The treatment intervention period - the time between the
pre and post tests was brief. A longer period may yield significant
variances. The tests used, a Non verbal reasoning test, a self concept
as a thinker scale and a test of cognitive processes, may not yield any
variations in student performance as a consequence of interventions
such as MinDQuestionS. The gains students make from the treatment
variable may not be readily measured by such instruments.
Further analyses to be completed will hold reasoning ability as a
constant. Students scoring above average on the Non verbal reasoning
scale will be compared with students scoring below average. It is
possible that the below average students may make significant gains in
self concept and cognitive processes as their whole class experiences
the enrichment opportunities provided by an intervention like
MinDQuestionS. Usually these students are not provided such enrichment
opportunities.
Qualitative data
Three types of data are reported and have been subjected to preliminary
analyses. The results suggest that teachers and students have responded
favourably to the MinDQuestionS teaching model. Teachers have
understood the intentions of the model and have implemented MDQS
strategies. Researcher observations, combined with students' and
teachers' evaluations support this assertion.
Classroom observations
The classroom observations demonstrated a rich variety of
teaching/learning experiences incorporating features of the MDQS model.
Teachers gained in MDQS planning expertise and utilised opportunities
for incidental MDQS implementation with growing frequency during the
implementation period. Teacher use of good questioning practices was
evident in every classroom session. Teachers who chose to use thinking
skills programs, used them adequately. Teachers demonstrated a clear
understanding of the need to consider and develop learners'
dispositions. Teachers demonstrated a growing awareness of how to
ensure opportunities for metacognition were created and used
effectively.
Student evaluations
Students demonstrated high degrees of metacognitive development during
the intervention process. Their thoughts about their own thinking, that
of other students and about thinking in general were detailed and
perceptive. The differences between treatment and control groups were
noteworthy in the sophistication of language used and the volume of
words used. Treatment group students appeared to be more metacognitive
as a consequence of the MDQS intervention.
Teacher evaluations
Teacher comments about the training program indicated that they
supported the MDQS training model. Teachers reported that they knew
more about their own thinking, their teaching of thinking and students'
thinking as a consequence of the MDQS intervention. The teachers were
reluctant to keep reflective journals despite frequent requests from
the researcher. Teachers requested the development of a MDQS lesson
planning proforma.
Conclusions
Further implementation of the MDQS model should endeavour to
¥ promote whole school involvement in MinDQuestionS implementation
¥ ensure teachers and students use reflective journals (learning logs)
as a matter of course
Metacognition is clearly evidenced in the treatment classes. A positive
disposition for thinking and learning is clearly evidenced in the
treatment classes. Questioning was exemplary in the treatment classes.
Skills programs were effective if they were used by the class teachers
in their classrooms.
Class teachers provided increased opportunities for students
metacognition, they actively promoted a positive disposition for
learning and thinking, they demonstrated good questioning technique and
they integrated thinking skills programs into the regular curriculum.
Preliminary analyses of the research data suggest implementation of the
MinDQuestionS model achieved its intentions.
References
Baron JB and Sternberg RJ(eds)(1987)Teaching thinking Skills: theory
and practice. New York :Freeman
Buchanan, NK & Feldhusen, JF (1991) Conducting Research and Evaluation
in Gifted Education, New York Teachers College Press Columbia
University
Cam, P (ed) (1994) Thinking Stories 1 & 2 and Teachers Resource
Activity Books Sydney: Hale and Ironmonger.
Canfield J & Hansen MV (1993) Chicken Soup for the soul. Florida:
Health Communications Inc
Casinader N (1995) "Challenging the thinking process: the Future
Problem Solving Program" in Unicorn Vol 21,No1. march 1995 pp56-66
Chipman SF, Segal JW & Glaser R (1985) Thinking and Learning Skills.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Arlbaum
Collins A (1985) "teaching reasoning skills" in JW Segal, SF Chipman &
R Glasser [eds] Thinking and Learning Skills,Vol 1, Relating
Instruction to Research. Hillside, NJ: Arlbaum
de Bono E (1990) I am right you are wrong. NY: Penguin
de Bono E (1992) Serious Creativity. London: Fontana
de Bono E (1976) Teaching Thinking London: Penguin
Edwards J (1991) "The direct teaching of thinking skills" in G Evans
(ed)Learning and Teaching Cognitive Skills. Melbourne :ACER pp87-106
Edwards J (ed) (1994) Thinking: International Interdisciplinary
Perspectives. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow
Edwards J (1995) "teaching thinking in schools: an overview" in Unicorn
Vol 21,No1. march 1995 pp 27-37
Ennis R (1985) "A logical base for measuring critical thinking skills"
Educational Leadership 43(2) 44-48
Ennis R (1987) " A Taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and
abilities", in Baron and Sternberg (eds) Teaching thinking Skills:
theory and practice. New York Freeman pp9-26.
Ennis R (1989) " Critical thinking and subject specific clarification,
and needed research", Educational Researcher, 18 pp4-10.
Erickson F (1986) "Qualitative methods in Research on Teaching" in MC
Wittrock (ed) Handbook of Research o n Teaching. NY: Macmillan pp
119-161
Evans G (ed) (1991) Learning and Teaching Cognitive Skills. Melbourne
:ACER
Evertson CM & Green JL (1986) "Observation as Inquiry and Method" in MC
Wittrock (ed) Handbook of Research on Teaching. NY: Macmillan pp
162-213
Feldhusen JF & Buchanan NK (1991) Conducting Research and Evaluation in
Gifted Education. NY: Teachers College Press
Goleman D (1995) Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing
Gronlund NE & Linn RL (1990) Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching.
NY: Collier Macmillan
Hammersley M (1990) Classroom Ethnography. Milton Keynes Philadelphia:
Open University Pres
Hannaford C (1995) Smart Moves. Virginia: Great Ocean Publishers
Langrehr J (1995) Becoming a better thinker. Victoria Aust: Wright
Books
Langrehr J (1994) Better Questions Better thinking Melbourne: Longman
Cheshire
Lazear D (1994) Seven Ways of Knowing. Vic. Aust.: Hawker Brownlow
Lazear D (1994) Seven Ways of Teaching Vic. Aust.: Hawker Brownlow
Lipman M (1985) "Thinking skills fostered by philosophy for children",
in JW Segal, SF Chipman & R Glasser [eds] Thinking and Learning
Skills,Vol 1, Relating Instruction to Research. Hillside, NJ: Arlbaum
Marzano et al (eds) (1988) Dimensions of Thinking. Virginia USA:ASCD
Nickerson RS, Perkins DN & Smith EE (1985) The Teaching of Thinking
Hillsdale NL: Lawrence Arlbaum
Nilko AJ (1993) "Designing tests that are integrated in instruction" in
RL Linn (ed) Educational Measurement Phoenix AZ: Oryx Press
Norris S & Ennis R (1989) Evaluating critical thinking. NY: Mid West
Publications
Norris S (1985) "Synthesis of research on critical thinking".
Educational Leadership pp40-45, May.
Patton M Q (1990)(2nd Ed)Qualitative evaluation and research methods.
Newbury Park, Cal :Sage Publications
Paul R (1993) Critical Thinking: What every person needs to survive in
a rapidly changing world Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow
Polson PG & Jeffries R (1985) "Instruction in general problem solving;
an analysis of four approaches" in JW Segal, SF Chipman & R Glasser
[eds] Thinking and Learning Skills,Vol 1, Relating Instruction to
Research. Hillside, NJ: Arlbaum
Perkins D & Swartz, R (1989) Teaching thinking: issues and approaches.
NY: Mid West Publications.
Resnick L (1987) Education and learning to think. Washington DC:
National Academic Press
Resnick L (1989) Towards a thinking curriculum: cognitive research,
Alexandria Virginia:ASCD.
Sousa DA (1995) How the brain learns. Reston Virginia: Nat Assoc Sec
School Principals
Splitter L (1995) "Teaching thinking through Philosophy for Children"
in Unicorn Vol 21,No1. march 1995
pp14-27
Sullivan P and Clarke D (1991) Communication in the classroom: the
importance of good questioning. Melbourne: Deakin University Press
Tishman S (1994) "What makes a good thinker". Education Harvard
Graduate School of Education Alumni Magazine Vol XXXIX No 1 December
Tishman S, Perkins DN & Jay E (1995) The Thinking Classroom. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Wang MC, Haertel GD & Walberg HJ (1993) "Toward a knowledge base for
school learning" Review of Educational Research Fall 1993. Vol 63, No
3, pp249-294
Weiderhold C (1991) The question matrix; resources for teachers.
California: San Juan Capistrano
Wittrock MC (ed) (1986) Handbook of Research on Teaching. 3rd Edition.
NY: Macmillan
evaluating a model for from
Analysesuggest the in promoting the features metacognition,
disposition, questioning and skills in teachers and students
RsThe researcher visitingHe"questions would use with their classes.
The researcher
Owas provided by The researcherstrategies an
measured by such instruments. Research questions
SimpleText_)%Trash%Trash_Ü_²_ˆ_^_4_
ඌb8
___Q_S_\_^°½_Ú_çCPŠ•_"_-_p_v_N_f_g_u_v_-
"
.
/
¹
'N']+@+M/A/L616<AA_D
D-P1P<PnPtP"PºQ9Q?R¨R®RÂRÍSDSQS«S¶UdUxZ Z6[Q[U]®]Î^_^
_^Ï^Ú`/`:aoa!aña÷dŽdžf;f_jÒjôlømmËmÒmÓmÔnsn†úôúîúííìììììîúæîìíîììììììììììììììììíìììíìììììàîæî
€_$$
____€_@
€_""
€_00
_""Xn†o6oGoHo‚pwp„rûs_uaulw˜wžyQy_{‘{¯|ý|þ‰=‰>‰Y‰z‰‰ñŠ_ŠAŽhŽ""3"Ñ’_’`’Ø"_"º•#–$
–ä˜
˜!™–™²™½™¾™¿™ž_ž_ž"¦¦_©¨©³©Øªª>ªtª¾ªÕªÙªú«6«O«Ñ«Ø¬
¬<¬µ¬ú";Zl!¡-û®"®S®‰®ç®î¯V¯l¯å°_°ŠúùùùùùùúóíúúóíçíçíçíçíçíçíçíçíáúóùúùúùóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛó
@___
€_$$
@___
___
____€
€_""V°Š°¡±±#±R±x±à²_²>²t²£²¹²ö³"³H³]³!³"³£³°³ã´_´+´L´y´Ž´¼´Òµaµ¥µØµî¶-¶E¶º¶Ò·_·"
·=·>·|·"·º·ç¸¸l¹_¹`¹x¹y¹™¹Â¹ïº_ºIºzº§º»»7»>»�»Á¼_¼-¼T¼o¼•¼«½"½;½s½ž½Ø½ø¾_¾_¾0¾4
¾5¾<¾G¾}¾œ¾-¾°¾±¾²¾³¾Â¾Ê¾Ì¾Í¾Ö¿_¿_úôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôîí_€
€_""
___
@___^_____Q_R_S_T_^_Ö_æ_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_g_h_-_
!
"
/_ù_ú_š_2_3_Y_Z_"_>_b_Ž_î_ï_w_x-#-$ Õ
Ö#_#"%Œ%#'M'N'](ô(õ+?+@+N/@ûûíçûççáÛÖÑÑÑÑÑÑÑûÌÑÆÀû»ÑÖÖѶѱÑÑÑÖѬѧѧѢѧÑ$—û’Ñ¢ÑÑ#_
%€
_%
€
_%€
____%€
__%€
__%€
_ %€
__%€
__%€
__%€
_%€___h_%€
__ _%€"__%€
_%€
_%€
_ %€
__%€__
%€_-@@ @!@8_è__%€_7/@/A/M04:60616=7g7h8_8¨8ª9N9O:ú:û=/=1>#>Ô?5?a?b@þAA_D
D D
DI J
JzJóJôLlLmNpNqO_P0P1P<Q_Q_R‹RŒUcUdUzWMWNWmX_XeXèY@Y…Z
Z Z6]ÑûûöñìûûçûâÝûâûöûØûçûâûÒÌÒûÇÒÒûÁââ»ÒÌÒµûâ¯ûÒÝûöûÇ©ÒµÒÒ£Ò»»ÒâûÒ$ %€
___%€
___%
€
__%€
___%€
__%€
___%€
___ %€
%€
___%€
____%€
__%€
_%€
__%€
__%€
_
%€
_%€
__%€
>]Ñ]Ò^¡^¢_þ__aÛaÜcQcRdŽd!dŸf;f<fqi[ij_j}jjÑjõl÷løm_mÊmËmÓntnun‡o6o
7oHoƒpwp…rûs_uaumw˜wŸyQy`{"{‘{¯|ý|þ}5úôúîúèúâúÝØØÓØØÎúúÈúúúèÁúôúº´®®È®®Ø©Ø¤Ø¤ØŸØšØ"ú®îŽƒ
_%€
-@@ @!@_%€
__%€
____%€
__%€
__%€
__%€
_%€___ _%€"____%€______%€
___%€
___
%€
_%€
__%€
__%€
%€
___%€
___%€
___%€
___%€
__3}5}$~_~t~À�¦€Z€Î€ø€ù%;%v‚J
‚óƒ>ƒ©„A„$…$…W…X…‹†/†¸‡4ˆ_ˆFˆ!‰
‰>‰Z‰\‰z‰‰ñŠ_ŠBŠ•‹x‹ªŒ@Œ%Œß#8ŽgŽhŽ"Žè!K!–"_"_"3
"Ò‘'‘�’_’_’a’‡’×’Ø" "J"x"¬"î"+" "¡"º•$•%•ñ–#õêõõêêêõõõõêêõõêõêõõõêêêêõõêßØÒÒÍÈßõõêõêõõõ½ßõõõõêõõêõõêõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ
_%€"-@@ @!@__%€
_%€
_%€_____%€
___
_%€
-@@ @!@
%€ -@@ @!@
_%€ -@@ @!@J–#–$–å˜
˜
˜"™7™–™²™³™¾™¿™Ñœ&ž_ž_ž"Ÿ¡Ÿ¢Ÿ¹¢`¢a¢u¤B¤C¤W¦¦_¦_¦P¦"¦ñ¦ò¨
¨!©.©/©¦©§©¨©³ªª««_«t«ù¬^_I~±®=õêßõêêÔÎÇÇÁ»µ¯»»©»»£»»¯»»©$$»»»»—»—»‘»Œ»‡‚‡‡‚‡‚‡‡‡‚_%
€
__%€
__%€
%€
___%€
___%€____%€
__%€
___%€
___%€
___%€
___%€
____%€_____%€
_
_%€
-@@ @!@
_%€ -@@ @!@
%€ -@@ @!@
_%€ -@@
@!@3®=®§¯_¯y°-°®±>±Š²"²’²Ù³4³"³Ñ´´i´¬´ïµ½¶¶e¶ë·>·¡¸
¸‰¹|¹Þº8º—ºî»W»`»ç¼p¼Æ½_
½À¾_¾_¾_¾_¾5¾®¾¯¾°¿_¿1¿2¿3¿eÖQ×Ë×Ì×Í×ÎØXØYØÖØ×ÙOÙPÙàÙáÚÈÚÉÛ Û%Û&Û'ÛºÛ»Ü#Ü$ÜoÜp
ÜÜÑ݆݇ûûûöööûööûûûûûûûûöûûöûûûöñûûûûûûööûöûûìììæáááìÚÚÚìÓÚìÎìÎìÎìÎìÎìÉìììììÎìÎìììÎìÉì__%
€
_%€
__%€
_____%€______%€_
%€
___%€
__%€
_%€
__%€
O
__________________________
___________________
óôöÞ¼˜@____ C_¼&n4¸A/OQ[¡i(u¢‡½˜P¥qµj¼˜____
__Ü________™____ü_________F___v___ u__
"___ _þ__
_.___
S__
^_‘ @ A B CO]T‚Wzbhlô¼˜
%€
_%€
_%€__%€__%€_@_%€__%€
_%€
%€
@_%€
_%€__n†°Š¾Ì`ab_/@]Ñ}5–#®=¾°cdefgh__
______¿_¿¿_¿#¿.¿0¿3¿R¿eÖÖÚ×D×Ê×Ë×Ì×Îçuçvêê*ì‰ìÊ'0JOy%„´Óêóôñ_ñHñIñbñc
ñmñnñŠñºñÀñßò_ò_ò òVòWòXòYò[òmònòyò}ò~òŽò®ò°ò±ò²ò»ò¼òÄòÅòÇòÈòÕòõó_óó#ó$ó<óUóW
óXóYó`óaócódó|óÆóÇóÈóÊóËóÕùøòùøòøøììììììøøøøøæììøøåååå_@
€_""
___
@___€
€_$$ZWhat evidence was there to suggest being trained in MDQS model
changed teachers?
What evidence was there to suggest the students in the trained
teachers' classes were affected by their teachers applying the MDQS
model?All class teachers were interviewed at the beginning and again at
the conmclusion of the research period. "Typical case sampling"
advocated by Patton (1990) was used for selecting students from the
thirty possible candidates in each class.
1. What evidence suggests students were metacognitive as a consequence
of their teachers' MDQS training and use of classroom strategies ?
¥ that I use the hats much more than I knew. Also how to put my ideas
on to paper which was quite hard for me before this.
¥ I've learnt that if I think of thinking, I think of new ways to solve
problems and suggest better ways to do things
¥ This year I have learn that I don't think much in situations and I
just do the first thing that comes into my head... and that is not
good.
¥ I've started to wake up and actually listen to my thinking. I've
learnt that I think in different ways. I've learnt that when I think
I'm being negative then.... telling myself off. I've been learning to
think about thinking.
¥ I've learnt the language of thinking ie all the thinking words
(Written eval)
2. What evidence suggests students had a positive disposition as a
consequence of their teachers' MDQS training and use of classroom
strategies ?
¥ I've learnt that thinking is very important in our lives and that
problems thinking counts the most
¥ I have learnt that my thinking and another person's can help each
other
¥ Its hard to get out of your comfort zone but when you do and you
think about it, it's great
¥ This year I have learnt about thinking. I learnt to think things
through before I do anything. I learned not to stop thinking about an
answer because eventually you'll get it.
¥ I have learnt how to make thinking fun
¥ This year I learnt that other people in my class also have good ideas
and I learned to listen to everyone not just my own friends.
¥ that they are good at discussing issues in a group
¥ I have learnt that it is good working in groups
¥ I have learnt that my thinking can be expanded to a wide variety of
answers and knowledge, and I could possibly have answered most
questions when I learn how to use my knowledge.
¥ that everybody has different thinking and can come up with some
pretty good ideas and some of them are good at it and some of them are
average
(written evals)
3. What evidence suggests students understood the significance of good
questioning (both general and self questioning) as a consequence of
their teachers' MDQS training and use of classroom strategies ?
¥ The things I have this year about my thinking are to say good
questions and answers and not silly ones.... to think about questions
¥ I've learnt that I should always think before I do a question, and
that I can solve things better ( than before)
¥ When a question is asked everyone interprets it differently
¥ that they've learnt more because they're saying challenging questions
(written evals)
4. What evidence suggests students used and understood the significance
of cognitive skills as a consequence of their teachers' MDQS training
and use of classroom strategies ?
¥ I have learnt that there are lots of different ways to think. I also
understand things better.
¥ there are 6 thinking hats. You can use thinking in many different
ways
¥ I've learned about hats which express the meaning of thinking
¥ About the thinking hats... more than one way to solve a problem....
about creating things... good things and bad things
¥ before this I never knew about the hats or mind maps...now that I
know I use them for stories, projects, even coloured hats are useful
for writing in my diary
¥ that thinking can get you out of a hard and defeating situation, I've
learnt about the different hats and how they work
¥ Thinking is very complicated. I used to think "oh yeah, we just
think" but its much more complicated than that, there is whether you
use the right side of your brain or the left more, I use the right...
then there is six hats for different types of thinking
¥ I've learnt that there are many different types of thinking that I
can use
¥ I have learnt that I think better than in year 5 and also how to use
my thinking skills
_U____
%²____
‚ò___
Ĉ____
…Z____
…ˆ___
†Ì____
‡
____
‡ˆ____
‡_ __
ˆ"_
__
‰`݇ݱݳÞ:Þ;ÞqÞrÞ¥Þ¦ß^ß_ßóà
à
àÛàÜádáeáÚáÛââ_âdâ~ã.ã/ã’ã"ãÝãÞä
ä!ä$äžåAåBå¾åÀæÈæÉç_ç_çtçuçvê+ê¯ëBë«ë¬ìˆì‰ìËìäíJíˆííîP
î³ï_ï_ï*ï~ïß'(‚…ñ'ñdñ»ò_ò_òWòXòÆòÇóaóbócûûöûûûûûñûöûûñûöûöûûûûûöûöûûûûûöûöûöûìûûûöûûûöööûñûûûöûööööûûûöæûàÛÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÏÏûûû_%
€____%€
___%€
%€
___%€
___%€
__%€
_%€
__%€
OResearch questions for teacher development
1. What evidence suggests teachers have personally acquired the MDQS
model, including the use of specific thinking skills programs?
2. What evidence suggests teachers have used critical and creative
processes associated with the MDQS model and specific thinking skills
programs?
3. What evidence suggests teachers have thoughtfully applied MDQS and
specific thinking skills programs?
Secondly, teachers' responses were analysed to determine their
impressions of the effectiveness of the MDQS training process. Focus
was provided by the same research questions used to analyse the
formative evaluations.
Research questions for summative evaluation of the MDQS training
Contents of MDQS model -
4. What evidence suggests teachers developed a rationale for teaching
students to be better thinkers?
5. What evidence suggests teachers understood the MDQS model?
6. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of
metacognition in the MDQS process?
7. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of
disposition in the MDQS process?
8. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of
questioning in the MDQS process?
9. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of
skills in the MDQS process?
MDQS training process -
10. What did teachers say about the efficacy of the training sessions
in hindsight?
11. How did they evaluate the significance of the readings in the
training process in hindsight?
What other aspects of the training sessions did teachers comment about?
Students (Fogarty & McTighe, 1993)data , including students, teachers
and parents
¥
Fogarty R & McTighe J (1993) Educating teachers for higher order
thinking: the three storey intellect. Theory into Practice
v32,n3,pp161-169We can promote MDQS.
Is this the best way to train? No, make these modifications.
More opportunities for teacher sharing - peer revue, peer support,
school developmnet
Steve: "this is the most exciting learning I have ever had with
children!"
Mark: " all teachers should do this .... it is a major innovation in
education"
- research questionsTeachers - rQ1-3, developed from peer support,
school development, (Assistant Principal)
of the model sition, Questioning and Skills. search methodologies were
used. Aust Post-Grad on a part time basis andother workplace
settings.In Summary
.es, interactive learningTwo basic questions provided focus for the
data collection and analysis.
following questions:11 a.
dscrib_!___ óÕóÞóßóåóæóèóéóêóëóìóòøø_ø_ø
ø-ø<ø>ø?øAøBøCøDøEøFøGøHøIøÚøÛøâøäøåø_ùù"ùPù]
ùsù’ùªù¾ùÃùÉùÌùàùåùêúLúMúWúXú`újúrúsúuú~úˆú‘ú›úœú$úžû
û û_û"ûnûŽû û¡û¬ûíûþû_ü
ü_ü.üMüNüOüSüUüVünüzü{ü…ü"ü˜ü$úôîúíççç
€_""_€
€_$$
@__
@_[ócóÆóÇóÉóæóêóëóìø=ø>ø?øCøDøEøFøGøHøIønø‡ø£øÂøáøâøãøäøåùÊùËùÌùëú_ú
ú?ú_ú`úœú$úžû"û_üÞüßüêüëüìüíüîüïý%ý&ý©ýª_._†_‡_______r__s__Û__Ü_È_É__c__d__+__,__-_ _
_L_e_f_Ë__;__l__¤ùùôïêïïããïêïïôÝïÝôôôôôôÝÝïôôôôôôôôôôï×ôïïïÒôôôôïÍôÈôÈôôÈôôôÈôÒôÈôÒôôÒôôôôôÈôÃ__%
€
_%€
__%€___%€
_%€
___%€_____%€_____ó___%€
__%€
___Mtwo boys and two girlsTwenty four students were
interviewed.
Unpaired t-test for Q2 %Input Column
Grouping Variable: group
Hypothesized Difference = 0
Mean Diff. DF t-Value P-Value
t1, c1 18.499 138 3.309 .0012
However another procedure wasdesigned by the researcher to evaluate
students use of good questions. It was termed Q-task. It was
administered at the beginning and conclusion of the research
period.Unpaired t-test for post Q-task
Unpaired t-test for post LTCTP
Grouping Variable: group
Hypothesized Difference = 0
Mean Diff. DF t-Value P-Value
t1, c1 2.137 140 4.178 <.0001
students' w studemts' students'
T-test compariosns on the treatment and control group means at the
post test showed signifiicant difference, P value = 0.001
Similarly a t-test comparison wa applied to the post test means of
treatment and control groups for the Langrehr Test of Core Thinking
Processes (LTCTP). There was a significant difference between the
groups, P value = <0.0001
Analyses of qualitative data are incomplete at the time of writing this
paper. Analysis of teacher interviews, formative and sumative
evaluations of the MDQS training program and classroom observation have
been commenced.
summative
Research questions matched with teacher response data
1.What evidence suggests teachers have personally acquired the MDQS
model, including the use of specific thinking skills programs?
¥ I am now much more conscious of different thinking skills I can
brwQwRwrw‹ü$üü®üÇüÜüÝüÞüßüàüéüëüîüïý$ý&ý(ý¨ýï____+_-_ƒ_…_†_‡_‰_______"__N__n__p__q__s__u__Û__Ü_"_<_~_!_"_ž_Å_Ç_É_____,
__`__b_______!__*__+_
_K_h_Ê__8__:__i__k__l__¡__£__¥__¦__§__©__ã__¸__º__»_ __ _
_ _
_ n_ q_ s_ Á_ Å_ Ó_ Õ_
"_
$_
(_
‡_
µ_
Ê_
Ì_
_
Ñùøøòøøøøøñøøøøøø_€
@___@
€_""_ing to problem solving situations. SE
¥ I have learnt more about the cognitive skills I am trying to present
to my class. SE
2. What evidence suggests teachers have used critical and creative
processes associated with the MDQS model and specific thinking skills
programs?
¥ I am more aware of presenting my class with a challenging lesson at
least daily SE
3.What evidence suggests teachers have thoughtfully applied MDQS and
specific thinking skills programs?
¥ I can see the importance of giving the children time to think and
reflect - we tend to rush children along to try to fit in the day's
activities. I think next year I will try to build in a reflection
component to my lessons. SE
¥ I have consciously tried to provide clasroom "props" to support
students' thinking eg. charts, learning log, reflection time at the end
of lessons SE
¥ I still haven't worked out how MDQS relates to other learning
theories, and to the outcomes based education movement. At the moment I
have too many paradigms running around in my head. SE
Secondly, teachers' responses were analysed to determine their
impressions of the effectiveness of the MDQS training process. Focus
was provided by the same research questions used to analyse the
formative evaluations.
Research questions for summative evaluation of the MDQS training
Contents of MDQS model -
4.What evidence suggests teachers developed a rationale for teaching
students to be better thinkers?
¥ It has given me greater insight into the minds of some of the kids I
have worked with this year. SE
¥ exposed me to a whole new subject area SE
¥ We cannot assume that slowlearners/workers are not good/deep /active
thinkers and therefore my teaching needs to stimulate everyone in the
class, and give the children a wide variety of ways to respond to what
is taught/demonstrate what they have learnt. One method is a reflective
journal of some kind SE
5.What evidence suggests teachers understood the MDQS model?
¥ some of my students are much deeper thinkers than I have given them
credit for and they deserve more of an interesting challenge
academically - the problem is I'm really sure I can satisfy that need
SE
¥ MDQS has provided a framework I can use to prepare lessons/units of
work SE
6.What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of
metacognition in the MDQS process?
¥ I knew about metacognition, but hadn't incorporated any
acknowledgement of it in my teaching. SE
¥ Six Thinking Hats gave the chn a comfortable framework for
metacognition SE
7.What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of
disposition in the MDQS process?
¥ having the opportunity to listen to their peers ideas/methods SE
¥ made me more aware of the real importance of disposition as a factor
in children's learning SE
¥ more persistence in difficult tasks SE
¥ realising that people think and learn differently SE
8.What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of
questioning in the MDQS process?
¥ I have become very aware of the kinds of questions I'm asking. SE
¥ I was aware of "wait time" in questioning before MDQS but now I use
it more than ever. SE
9.What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of skills
in the MDQS process?
¥ Six thinking hats gives the children a framework to work within and
was a comfortable start for me to teach thinking SE
¥ the concepts used in the Six Thinking Hats , the particular model I
chose to implement seemed to be within the grasp of all the students
many of them were content to work at a literal level unless pushed SE
¥ STH gave the chn a comfortable framework for metacognition SE
MDQS training process -
10.What did teachers say about the efficacy of the training sessions in
hindsight?
¥ contributed to my own professional development. I knew about
metacognition, but hadn't incorporated any acknowledgement of it in my
teaching. SE
¥ It starts on familiar ground in some instances eg. we all know
something about questioning SE
¥ classroom implementation tasks were negotiable SE
¥ the tasks were openended and therefore allowed for individual
repsonses that could build on prior experience SE
11.How did teachers evaluate the significance of the readings in the
training process in hindsight?
¥ there was substantial input through readings - I wouldn't change that
SE
12.What other aspects of the training sessions did teachers comment
about?
¥ needs perhaps to be more hands on for those of us who don't "get it"
straight away eg, videos, class room visits, real teachers explaining
how it worked for them
SE
¥ the "ELIC" model of input/discussion/classroom based action research/
review and feedback - is a powerful one for engendering change. I
wouldn't change that either. I wonder if it would have optimum
effectiveness as a teacher development process if it were implemented
on a whole school basis? SE
¥ I would like to see a broadening of the skills section to include
more ideas on MI
( ways to make chn explicitly aware that they learn in different ways
from each other) I think that what I'm after are more strategies for
teaching that make sure we "reach" all the chn in our classes and
stimulate them SE
¥ Main disadvantage is that teachers would not feel prepared or skilled
enough in the 4 components of MDQS to tackle it in the classroom. It is
not easy for the kids or the teacher. T1
¥it also needs to run from K-6 ... the kids need to feel that it is an
integral part of learning not just something that one teacher they have
does in the classroom. T1
¥ the rationale for reflection and metacognition needs to be explained
clearly to the children T3
ds or the teacher. SEey have does in the classroom. SESE
The coding applied to the below teacher quotes is:
SE = summative evaluation FI = final interview
my thinking has been very scattered ... I need I think to focus more on
one style in terms of hat thinki_
Ñ_ 4_ 6_ :_ ;_ b_ d_ œ_ ž_ ¢_
__
D_
F_
¬_
®_
²_
_
‹_
#_
Ž_
b_
d_
¤_
¦_
¨_
Ä_____¨__ª__«__¬______________L__N__O__P__À__È__É__Í__0__Y__x__z__{__|__�__È__|__~__�__€__-__¯__Ë__ê__ì____Ñ__ñ___________w__x__z__Â__Ã__Í__Î__ä_"_"&_"-_"2_"4_"5_"6_"7_"__"f_"h_"j_"³_"¿_"À_"_"__"__"_""_"I_"J_"c_"d_"oþþþþþþþþþþþø
@___@b__¤__¦__ä__å__»_
_ _ o_ p_ Ö_
&_
ˆ_
‰_
Í_ 7_ e_
Ÿ_ _
_
G_
¯_
°_
_
_
Ž_
e_
§_
¨_
À_
Á________«_____O__É__Ê__.__/__{__|__Ç__È__p__�__°__±_____í__î__¶__b____Ñ________I__x__y_"5_"6_"g_"h_"i_"__""_-__-_ __ __ __ €_ %_ ä_ å_# _#
_#
_#
_#
_#__#__#__#O_#P_$Ö_$×_'_ûûûöûûñûñññûûñûûûñûñûûûñöûûûûûûññûñûûûûûûûñûìûûöûìöñççûûçûñûûûûöûöûûûûñûñûâûûûûûûûûûÝûâ_%
€
__%€
___%€
_%€
__%€
__%€
Wng I can go from emotional reponse to information FI
it has made me a more reflective teacher FI
that I wasn't thinking enough about them ..... and now I do reflect
more on what I'm trying to teach the kids .... going through like the
skill that you've mentioned to me FI
I have appreciated the opportunity of how to think out and extend that
into other areas... and especially how you could relate it to text
types in the new English syllabus.... the argument texts, and the
exposition texts and those kinds of things FI
to start with the STHsand diverg from there, but as I say I didn't
stay there for that long, and although we had the deBono book 2, and I
could hav e used that I didn't.... I guess once I'd started I used alll
kinds of different things, building cooperative classes book, Joan
Dalton one, andothers and then try to link it up with other things that
I've learnt about, like the effective teaching course.... I like to try
and integrate things as opposed to having them disparate.... FI
¥ teachers need to make specific the rationale for teaching thinking
and reflection ...so the kids know why FI
¥there were several proformas that I kept going back to when I was
planning lessons FI
¥ the reflective journal for teachers ....I guess .... in one sense I
was writing down what I was thinking ..... what I thought about the
kids and their problems .... on the other hand I had thsoe thoughts
anyway .... so I didn't really need to write them down ... but I was
... I don't really think that on very many occassions I actually, not
for starters, began to write down the thoughts I had about the way the
children were thinking, ..... I actually extended that much more .....
I had thought around the problem anyway FI
5. What evidence suggests teachers understood the MDQS model?
I'm not a writing down person so I find that very difficult, but I do
think abou the lesson afterwards , I still don't think I'm doing m,y
lessons and thinking about each and every one of them ... I do it with
the ones you come to see .... I'd like to sort of get better at that
...at least saying to myself that I could think more about say ... two
lessons a day ... rather than one ...
well I think because as well trying to explian to them what we've been
doing I've also been saying it is so imporatnt for next year, HS ...
when they're required to be more independent so I think they're going
to go away not only from being in Year 6 but from participating in a
program where they think hey maybe some of that stuff thsat we learnt
is going to help me next year , when we say if you going to have to be
able to discuss things then some of the quiet kids that don't like to
talk about things ..... will feel this is all going to help them ....
in the future
the next step will be on a daily basis to sit and think what can I do
here to really make this much more challenging type of lesson... (do
you think you have internalised MDQS? for your planning) that answer at
the moment is no but I hope in the future, yes ... I feel isolated as a
teacher and I don't know if I have internalised it ... I mean you are
ver y positive my lessons in general were not too bad ... but then you
wonder I don't really have a benchmark ... so I would have to say no
.....
I think it is almost worthwhile as a perspective that you try
incorporate into everything .... you do because most definitely there
are huge benefits ..... but it has to be done not in isolation and not
in one year .
its given them a language about their thinking ..... which they did not
have befor ethey started .. its been very useful indeed .....
its changed the way they look at thinking, maybe themselves even, its
given the language to discus thinking, its improved their vocabulary
.... it has opened up a whole new avenue of which they were previously
unaware ... and its only a small start ... even if they do not get any
more it has given them this experience .... for the future which they
would not have had ... very beneficial .... it has broadened their
minds .... T3
I think the students are more comfortable about that kind of thinking,
about inferential thinking and about creative thinking and about the
concept of there not necessarily being a "right" answer... but a
solution that is workable, to their problem and I think that it has ,
in afunny way that in at least half the class that it has improved
their reading,T2
6. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of
metacognition in the MDQS process?
getting the kids to think about it rather than just the skill part
when you ask the children to reflect .. the kids who would be quite
happy to write down what they thought ... I know initially they found
it difficult, I think some of them started to see the purpose to it and
they would tell me why would you write about what you have learnt or
how you do something, they would say "because next time you might make
the same mistake, a couple of them have actually said that to mee which
I thought was really interesting, a lot of adult don't even realise
that .... so I thought that was good .. most of those comments that
came through I thought wow .... that is what I'm trying to do ... and I
haven't actually been explicit yet about that but you have picked up on
it ... I thought that was really interesting
definitely want to have more time on how to get the children to reflect
... written reflection ...
its given them a language about their thinking ..... which they did not
have befor ethey started .. its been very useful indeed ..... T2
it has changed their thinking about their thinking ...the language to
talk about their thinking ...not all of them have taken this step to be
comfortable doing it regularly but some of them are significantly been
able to talk about thier thinking spontaneously ... not from me ...
they will find words from the thinking list, use the hats from the wall
...into the day to day activities.....they have a framework and a
terminology and langauge for thinking about their thinking T2
well its made me more aware of doing metacognitive exercises in
evrything I do T2
I think the students have sometimes felt a bit threatened by the
process...because the kids here are fairly used to being able to do
what they can do first off and I think many of them have learnt to
skate across the surface of things and they do a competent jos , a
really competent job without very much thinking going into it ...and
they found that quite threatening because there aren't any black and
white answers, and they're already socialised in to the idea that
there's a right and wrong and a tick or a cross and so on.... and some
of them have been actually quite reluctant to do much except think on
the surface, I found that really interesting... some of the kids in
class who have in fact in class produce really competent work....
haven't really proved to be deep thinkers, they're competent...but
they're really not getting deeply into things and that's come out
particularly in the Learning logs, where there have been many children
who 've felt more comforable at describing what they've done rather
than talking about the thinking that went into it...
7. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of
disposition in the MDQS process?
thinking of particular students, A for example battling and then being
disruptive in the group, making advances and then coming back to just
working with the boys again ..... I had some breakthroughs with that
but I had to structure the activities so that they'd definitely have
success, so that the whole group had success .... then it would be a
positive thing then he would be able to see how to do that ... striaght
away ... he'd say I don't want to be doing this .... so I think to
answer that question properly I'd like to say that if my class had had
some type of a continuum where they had a leader for this type of thing
where they had to do this work together more cooperatively it would
have been better....
8. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of
questioning in the MDQS process?
well its revised some things I already knew about questioning, its
deepened my knowledge of questioning techniques, and reminded me to use
wait time say T3
I've found the hierarchy of questions , you know working backwards and
those techniques, questioning skills has been very good T2
9. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of
skills in the MDQS process?
I'd like to do my own thinking skills program say STH hats next year so
I know what is happening and how it is going, not have someone else do
it .....
we stopped using the SThats after a while because every time we did
they'd groan, "ahrr not that again"... if they've done it in previous
classes it can become a bit old hat, its interesting to see that they
go back to that, just yesterday when we were doing Antarctica, we'd
been away for months so we really hadn't done anything... some of them
sat down and started to use Six hat thinking, some of them sat down and
did the pluses minuses and interesting, ..... that was interesting.....
10. What did teachers say about the efficacy of the training sessions
in hindsight?
no, I think I may have found it easier in the beginning if I had been
given general information about M and then innovated from the level of
the classroom, and gone from Q to D and then M again...because it
wasn't until we were into the third week of the training sessions, that
I started to do the stuff about Qs that it all started to fit together,
and I think from what .... I know about PD you need classroom based
action research, this is what you can do .... and how do you theorise
from the basis of that practice ... probably when I go back to it I'll
star t at that level again....
I wouldn't suggest that teachers be given a set of strategies without a
philosophy or framework, collegial learning, the ELIC model where
people try things out and have a formal reflective bit, a sharing bit,
.... peer review, the ELIC thing has been the big innovation in PD,
that has stayed with people and actually changed their practice, but
the disadvantage is that it is time consuming T2
11. How did they evaluate the significance of the readings in the
training process in hindsight?
when we did the course there was lots of detail in theory...I enjoyed
reading, but there was also a good mix of theory and practice,
11a. What other aspects of the training sessions did teachers comment
about?
Students
¥ .-_
_þ_þ _«, _N_"o_"p_"–_"±_"Á_"Â_"Ä_"Å_"Ê_"ã_"û_"ü_-__-__-__-__-__-%_-d_-n_-o_-_-±_-²_-³_-¿_-À_-ù_________$_C_J_b_j_k_Š_Ž_"_™_¸_¹_Å_Æ_Þ_æ_é_ _ __ _ __ _
_ _ R_ S_ ^_ __ e_ w_ }_ �_ ‚_ ƒ_ ¥_ Á_ Å_ Î_ Ï_ ×_ á_ ã_ ä_ æ_ ç_ é_
î_!
_!__!>_!?_!–_!—_!É_!é_!ê_!î_"=_">_"C_"D_"P_"n_""_"•_"²_"¶_"½_"
Ìþ_@d_"Ì_"×_"Û_"ì_"í_"û_"ü_"ý_#_#__# _#
_# _#
_#
_#
_#__#__#N_#Q_$Ã_$Å_$Õ_$Ø_'__'_)
_)__)__)+_)é_)ì_*s_*t_*u_*w_*–_*¹_*Ø_+__+"_+I_+h_+—_+¶_+å_,__,"_,%_,(_,>_,m_,o_,p_,€_,"_,
³_,µ_,¶_,Ó_,Þ_,ß_,à_,å_,æ_,í_-_-__-__-M_-N_-‘_-"_-"_-ù_-ü_.?_.B_.†_.ˆ_.«_.¯_1-_1._10_1"_1"_1–_1Þ_1ß_2"_2_2#_2n_2o
_2_2²_2³_2Î_2ú_2ûþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ_@d_2û_3__32_3D_3E_3"_3‘_3¿_3À_3Û_3Ü_4__4 _4
_4
_4L_4M_4\_4^_4a_4¢_4£_4Ø_4Û_4ì_4í_58_59_5N_5m_5„_5…_5†_5š_5´_5¾_5Ë_5Ì_5ß_5à_5å_5ô_5õ_5ù_6__6__6
_6
_6__6__6/_68_6<_6X_6Y_6¡_6¢_6»_6Û_6î_6ï_6ú_7:_7;_7€_7%_7Ë_7Ì_8__8__8,_86_8N_8O_8T_8V_8\_8]_8a_8b_8d_8f_8l_8m_8š_8
$_8ž_9__9__9L_9M_9"_9•_9Þ_9ß_:,_:-_:u_:v_:Ã_:Äþþ_@d_:Ä_;__;__;O_;Z_;[_;o_;p_;q_;s_;ˆ_;‰_;£_;¤_;Þ_;ß_<B_<E_<j_<ˆ_<
‰_<Š_<Í_<Î_<à_<á_<â_<ã_<å_= _=_=
_=)_=2_=>_=[_=e_=g_=i_=j_=k_=È_=É_=Ë_>f_>h_>„_>–_>˜_>¬_>-_>®_>È_>Ê_>Î_>_>û_>ü_?
__?K_?L_?c_?#_?Ž_?©_?¶_?Ï_?Ô_?Õ_?å_?è_?ë_?ì_?ò_?ô_@__@__@,_@X_@Y_@Z_@®_@¯_@±_@ý_@þ_AC_AD_AR_A‰_AŠ_AÕ_AÖ_B__B__B
_B%_B&_B*_B+_B/þþþþþþþþþþþþþ_@d_B/_B0_Bo_Bp_B‚_Bƒ_B²_B¶_B·_B¸_BÀ_BÁ_BÄ_BÅ_C_C__C!_CQ_CR_Cd_Ce_Ci_C
"_C•_CÎ_CÏ_CÚ_CÜ_CÝ_Cá_Câ_Cí_D__D&_D'_D+_D6_Da_Dk_Dl_D•_D™_Dú_Dû_Dý_E__E._E6_EC_ED_EE_E‚_E„_E…_EŠ_EÑ_EÒ_EÓ_EÔ_E
Ü_EÝ_Eß_Eá_Eä_R_R(_RG_RR_RS_R\_R]_Rw_R–_R«_R¬_RÂ_Rá_S__S_S
_S)_S._S/_SS_SX_SY_Ss_S¬_Sº_TØ_TÚ_TÝ_Tß_U‚_Uƒ_U©_U«_U®_U¯þþþþþþþþý÷
@___€_@b_'__)__)__)ê_)ë_*s_*t_,&_,'_-"_-•_-ú_-û_.@_.A_1._1/_1"_1•_2 _2!_2"_4
_4 _4__4`_8ž_8Ÿ_9_9__;ß_;à_<C_<D_<ã_<ä_=j_=k_=É_=Ê_>f_>g_@Y_@Z_@[_@¯_@°_C__C__D™_Dš_Dû_Dü_Eƒ_E…_EÒ_EÓ_EÔ_EÝ_EÞ_Eà_T
Û_TÜ_U¬_U_U_Uñ_Uò_V _V"_V-_VI_VU_VV_Vj_V–_V¤_VÃ_Ví_Vþ_V__WûöñöìöçöçöìöööâöìöìööûöìöÝöìöâöìöìöìöööìöûööööØöçöööìöÒööÍööâöñööööÍööööÍöÍìööÍÍö__%
€
___%€
_
%€
_ %€
_%€
_%€
__%€
__%€
__%€
Q..the answers the children have given not only in
question time but in classroom situation s have led me to realise ...
there is a lot of mature in depth thinking going on with a significant
minority ... they're very deep thinkers, they ponder, consider things
to a greater extent than I give them credit for, it challenges me to
consider how we can motivate those children to use those skills to
productive ends, and not just a chore "here's an activity because
you're a good thinker" but enjoy and extend themselves actually ...
so that's what I've learnt about their thinking ...its varied as well,
there's a big range ..... a lot of the younger one tend to be literal
in their analyses of literature say ...... FI
¥ making sure it has been integrated into as many KLAs as I feel
capable of doing ... so in that sense it has definitely permeated my
teaching this year ... and it has imporoved my teaching skills .....FI
¥... it has changed my teaching and my thinking about teaching FI
¥ FI ¥ FIe
¥ FI¥ FI¥ FI¥ e
¥ ,disruptive in the group, FI
¥ FI¥ FI
use wait time ...ve
¥ oing, not have someone else do ¥
FI FI
¥ FI¥ FI
¥ good mix of theory and practice FI
"" SE
Classroom observations
totals_5/10_10/10_10/10_2/10 for STH specific,
8/10 for general
_8/10_10/10_10/10_3/10 for STH specific 7/10 for general_9/10_10/10_10/10_8/10
for STH specific,
2/10 for
general__%€"%€
_%€__%€__%€__%€__%€
_%€
_%€
__U¯_U°_U²_U³_Uí_Uï_U_Uó_Uõ_Uö_U÷_Uú_Uû_Uý_Uþ_U__V_V__V_V__V__V__V
__V _V
_V _V
_V__V__V__V__V__V__V__V"_V"_V_V!_V"_V-_V._V1_V<_V=_V>_V?_V@_VA_VB_VC_VH_VJ_VL_VM_VO_VQ_VR_VT_VU_VV_Vg_Vi_Vl_Vm_VŒ_VŽ_V!_V"_V
‘_V’_V"_V"_V•_V–_V˜_V£_V§_V¨_V©_Vª_V«_V¬_V-_V·_V¹_Vº_V»_V¼_V½_VÂ_VÄ_VÆ_VÇ_Vì_Ví_Vî_Vï_V_Vü_Vý_Vþþþþ_@d_Vþ_V
__W_W
_W__W__W-_WW_WX_W!_W"_WÈ_WÉ_WÊ_\_\>_\K_^!_^š_a0_a;_b!_b•_dH_dK_dL_dN_dO_dP_dQ_dR_dt_d%_dÖ_d×_dØ_dÙ_dÚ_dê_dë_d
ö_d÷_dþ_e_e__e!_e(_ea_eb_e™_eš_eÒ_eÔ_eÕ_eØ_eÙ_eÚ_eã_eå_eæ_eí_eî_eü_eþ_l_l _l*_l8_lM_l€_l‚_l‰_l›_lÔ_lÖ_lã_m
_m
_m__m"_m'_m(_mÉ_mÊ_nÊ_nÖ_n×_nç_o!_o(_oZ_o[þþþøøøòþþþþþþìøøøþæò
€_""
___
@__
_
_€[
Analysis of this table suggests teachers' efforts to promote
metacognition were varied in their success. Teachers T2 and T3 were 80%
and 90% successful respectively, the three sessions in which they did
not provide clear opportunities for student metacognition were early in
the research period. Teacher T1 provided metacognition opportunities
for half the sessions. Metacognition opportunities included:
journal/learning log writing, oral reflection and discussion; mind
mapping, questioning about curriculum content and processes using six
thinking hats, self evaluation reports and written class assignments.
Teachers' efforts to promote a positive disposition were highly
successful. Every observed session showed clear evidence of students
working with a positive disposition, for example:
- groups worked with clear expectations and when specified, roles to
play,
- pairs worked with on-going, between student questioning and problem
solving,
- students appeared challenged yet skilled enough to attack the tasks
at hand,
- they spent maximum time-on-task,
- work was relevant, it clearly related to major classroom themes or
subject matter and,
- students negotiated learning tasks together and with their teachers.
Similarly, all sessions provided clear understanding of the importance
of "good" questions and questioning techniques, for example:
- "wait time" was used effectively and consistently by all teachers,
- pre-planning of key questions was obvious in many sessions,
- teachers discussed the components of good questions with their
students and,
- students demonstrated effective group/pairs/self questioning.
Each teacher embedded the thinking skills used into their classroom
curriculum. No thinking skills were taught in isolation. Both T1 and T2
used Six Thinking Hats twice and three times respectively. In both
these classes the STH program was taught by another teacher in a
withdrawal program. In other sessions they presented or emphasised
generic thinking skills from a variety of sources. T3 taught his class
the STH and used the STH process in 90% of the observed sessions.
os
A table of observations was made to records the frequencies of
examples of metacognition, disposition, questioning and skills events.
Teacher 1 Teachers 2 Teacher 3
session_M_D_Q_S_M_D_Q_S_M_D_Q_S__totals_5/10_10/10_10/10_2/10 for STH specific,
8/10 for general
_8/10_10/10_10/10_3/10 for STH specific 7/10 for general_9/10_10/10_10/10_8/10
for STH specific,
2/10 for general__
sscores on
eHowever, they are
presen
_W_W__W-_W#_W)_W/_WF_WW_WX_W]_Wc_Wi_W"_W•_W›_W¡_W¸_WÉ_WÊ_\__^f_^g____k__»_` _`/
_`ˆ_`_`Ñ_aV_aœ_aÛ_b+_bk_bl_dIûõïéïãÝ×ïïéÑéïéËÅlûgûbûûûûûûû]ûûûûûû_%€
__%€
__%€
X____"P˜
_°Ê_" p
Ã___i_¼_"b
µ$_'[*®@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@¼____¼___¼____¨
__¨____¨____¨____¼____l
____%€
$_dI_dJ_dK_dL_dO_dP_d×_dØ_e_e
__e
_e
_e
_e__e__e__e__e__e_e"_e-_e
_e!_e(_e-_e3_e9_eP_ea_eb_eg_em_es_eš_eŸ_e¥_e«_eÂ_eÓûûöûûñûûëåßååßååßååß剃}w}q
kåw}}e}}wqk__¤_____"____"_____¤_____"____"
__U____"P˜š
_°_ç_-_U_Œ
Ã
ú_1_h_Ÿ_Ö_
D"{IIIIIIIIIIIIIII__¤
____"
___" ___%€
___%€
&_eÓ_eÔ_eÕ_eÖ_e×_eØ_eÙ_eä_eå_lÕ_lÖ_m(_mÊ_o
_o!_o#_oŽ_o!_oå_r__s)_s*_så_sæ_s÷_t__ts_tt_tu_tv_tË_u#_u$_ud_ue_uì_vÍ_vÎ_vÏ_v
_vÑ_vÒ_w·_zý_|O_|–_|™_|¼_|½_|Í_}=»¶¶¶¶±««¦¶±±¡¶¶¶±±¶¶œ—¶±±¶±¦¶±±«‘‘‘‹‘±±…‘±±€±‘‘±‘±_%
€
_%€
___%€
___%€
____%€
__%€__%€
__%€
_%€______%€
D____"P˜x
_°_ç_-_U_Œ
Ã
ú_1_h_Ÿ_Ö_
D"{II2ted largely as raw data with only minimal linking text, discussion
or comment. This is not intended to challenge the reader but is rather
an indication of the state of progrees of the writing up of the
research.
Data analysis will include content analysis of written evaluations and
interviews
. Triangulation will be applied to data sourced from students, teachers
and the researcher. Aggregation of data will be utilised where
appropriate and practical.
For example there are some instances where teachers planned lessons
using a proforma, made comments abou the lessons in their own journal,
students completed journal entries aboiut the same session and the
researcher kept field notes on the samne session. For example, the
below table of data observed during classroom observation sessions.
record observed duirng 30 classroom observation sessions eacher Further
application of this data will be
,MDQS lesson planning ts completed journal entries aboher kept field
notes on the sam
( table 1)t"u@uAuI_o[_o\_ob_od_oŒ_oŽ_o!_o"_o¥_o¦_oÅ_oä_oå_o_r_r*_rF_rs_r…_r¶_r½_rí_s
_s(_s)_s<_s=_sN_sO_sj_sl_s†_s‡_sÍ_sæ_sè_sê_sì_sí_sô_sö_s÷_sù_sý_t__t__t _t
_t
_t
_t__t__tr_ts_tt_tu_tv_t}_t‚_t¡_t¯_t»_tÊ_tË_t_tÒ_tÔ_tá_t_u"_u#_u$_u?_u@_uI_uZ_u[_u__u`_ub_uc_ud_ue_ug_ui_ut_u
°_u²_u³_u»_u_uê_uë_uì_uï_u__v/ùó
€_""
@__`
table 1 frequencies of MDQS instancese full classroom observation
complete mini case studies of each teachers to reflect their
understanding and application of the MDQS model. These data will also
be used to triagulate with student and teacher reflective
journal/diary/learning log entries.
Data from teachers' final evaluations of the MDQS training program and
their final interviews are provided below linked as instances of
supporting evidence related to research questions.
¥ SE¥ ¥
FI
FI,,m Data from students written evaluation sis provided as evidence
related to the research questions.
learnt and d use of classroom strategies ?etacognition, isposition,
uestioning and
kills. Wae method used these teachersdays to share skills and
enthusiasm anderspective.
Brief comments are provided.training generally yes but addi p.
wawaClassroom withdrawal program to teach thinking skills seem to have
little transfer into home classrooms and other curriculum work.
Two teachers who have recently completed MDQS work in their schools
made these comments. They were not in the research project and have had
MDQS training with modifications made subsequent to the research
project evaluation.
The significant differences highlighted by the t test P values for the
Q task and the LTCTP need close analysis and clarification. The
reliability of both instruments as a valid pre and post test measure
needs further trialing.
Both results may be considered as evidence
of~·~¹~¼~Â~Ç~Í~Ó_v/_vµ_vÍ_vÎ_vÏ_v_vÖ_vî_w__w__w__w._w3_wF_wS_w
U_wV_w¶_w·_w¼_wÄ_wÊ_wË_wÙ_wã_wä_z_z
_z!_z&_z+_z0_z2_z5_zT_zU_zV_zs_zt_z{_z}_z%_z™_zµ_z¶_z·_zÁ_zÆ_zÇ_zË_zÌ_zÍ_z÷_z
ü_zý_{__{__{__{&_{2_{3_{4_{@_{A_{B_{J_{P_{[_{b_{i_{p_{}_{�_{†_{‡_{Ž_{œ_{ž_{£_{«_{²_{¹_{À_{Â_{Ê_{Ø_{â_{ë_{ò_{ú_{þ_|
_|
_|__|/_|O_|n_|#_|•ù
@__b success of the MDQS, however, tsclaim, had a genuine disposition to
use and enjoy using thinking skills, had a greater awareness about good
questioning and knew more thinking skills to apply, only Gwith:m can be
developed in teachers and studentscore
conclusiondescribedcomparisonssignificantHypothesisedDFHypothesisedDFpro
gressduringtriangulate1. What3. What4. Whatslow learnersFI5. What 6.
Whatacknowledgmentchtheirlanguage7. What8. What9. Whatch10.
Whatacknowledgmentopen endedresponses11. How12. What¥ it¥
thereoccasionsisuggest better ways to do things use of classroom
strategies ?
you think about it, it's greatlearnt how to make thinking funstudents
of
Did incorporate the best features,
e researchApril
An activity called Q-task was designed and administered to evaluate
student sunderstanding of good questioning.
ministered to evaluate students' classroom artefacts is an summary of a
larger table used to ni case studies of each teacherdevelopment, are
similarly matched with research questions to
�9�?�_|•_|–_|˜_|$_|º_|»_|¼_|½_|Ç_|Ì_|Ó_|Ô_|Ø_}<_}=_}[_}]_}^_}r_}
’_}š_}¹_}Æ_}÷_€_€
_€ _€
_€__€(_€+_€6_€;_€C_€D_€E_€F_€G_€H_€I_€S_€T_€Uùøò
€_""_@
@__*samples oft
process Many instances of mereSimilarly aofferlimited
,s
Conclusion
@ËûÞAá_____
__Ü________!____ü________5@____Œ___ T__
____ *__
____
___
í____x___&_____5___ ____‡@___^_v_"_?_ò_ó_ô_õ3
MËNíNõTUûW X*X±X²XÂZbZcZdZ™\B\•__a#e»g0i
j!j"kåkækùlClDl–l—m#m$mCnZnóo rœrêrërìs
s"s•t(_}=_€
_€D_€E_€H_€I_€Uûõïïûû_%€
___%€
____àm@_____õ_n&
4\@ÉNíZdgCqãyâ…_!~™È¤o°·ÛÂÃËgÝàm____
__Ü________!____ü________5_______ ___
____ *__
____
___
í____x___&_____5___ ____‡@___^_v_"_?_ò_ó_ô_õ3
MËNíNõTUûW X*X±X²XÂZbZcZdZ™\B\•]_]*`_a7eÏgDi!j£j¤kùkúl
lWlXlªl«m7m8mWnno_o´r°rþr_ss-s¨s©t<t=t?u
u
u½u¾uÆv‡vˆwËwÌwìxx!x@x_x`yJyKyjyƒyŸy¾yÞyßyàyáyâyãyô{À{Á~I~J~a~b�
�
�7�?�A�C�E�G�I�K�M�O�Q�S�U�X�^�c�i�o�†�—�˜�$�£�©��Õ�Û�á�ø€
€ €5†¡ˆ~ˆ�‰¸‰¹‰º‰Š«Š¬Šß‹
‹_‹_‹"‹•Œ_Œ;Œ<ŒÏŒ#'#(#‘#’Ž~Ž�!~!�!€!þ!_"e"Õ‘_’?’A"9
":"}"~"¼"½"
"
"–_––j–k–——Š™s™t™È™Éš,š-šqšÛ›
›C›D›§›ìœTœUœõœö$�$€$Þ$ßž_ž ŸAŸBŸZŸ[Ÿ¯Ÿ° E ° é¡d
£Ç¥\¥]¥Â¥Ã¦_¦$¦ž¦ê¦ë§¢¨Ó©*ª_ªÕ«%«ï¬g¬Ë®ï®®ñ®ò®û¯"¯"°°Ú°_±’±Þ²?²Ô²Ö²ú³ÈµWµz
µ{º
º
º_º/¼„¼…½Ï¿KÂ
Â-ÃøÄ
ÅsÅtÅ�dzǴȺȻÈùÉoÉÍÉÎʯʰÊüËcËdÓÛÔQàeàm
%€
_%€
_%€"%€
_%€__%€__%€__%€__%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%
€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€__%€__%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%
€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€__%€__%€__%€__%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_l
_D
_D
_D
_D
_0
_D
_D
_D
_D
_D
_D
_0
_l
_D__D__D__D_D__D
_0__D__D_D__D__D__D__0_0__%€
_%€
_%
€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€__%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%
€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%
€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
%€
%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%
€
%€
_%€
%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€__%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€__%€__%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%
€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
_%€
%€
_%€
_%€
%€
%€
__n†°Š¿_óÕü$_
Ñ_"o_"Ì_2û_:Ä_B/_U¯_Vþ_o[_v/_|•_€U`abjz�Œ£¤¥¦§¬¸¼¿_/@]Ñ}5–#®=݇óc__¤_'__W_dI_eÓ_}=_€Ucdefght{
#¨³´µÁ__
_______!"_____×_á_è_í_ô_ö_ø_þ__ Ó_V*X*Š*‘*$*Í*×9Û:~:£�
_HH_(0_ö_ï_>A,x_Þ__h_h_È
__d___
_0___Î_«_6 E ___A .h_n_n_n_nÅB___BH__-:Color SW 2400
'_Chicago_New York__Geneva__Monaco
Zapf Dingbats
_Bookman__N Helvetica Narrow__Palatino_
Zapf Chancery_Times_ Helvetica__Courier__Symbol! Avant Garde"_New Century
Schlbk___Teletext_
Lucida Bright__Garamond Narrow_×_Delphian_á
Lubalin Graph_è_Machine_í_Nadianne_ô_Old English Text_ö_Onyx_ø_Oxford_þSwing___Zeal
Ó_MT Extra_V_TTYFont*X_Klang MT*Š
Script MT Bold*‘_Old English Text MT*$_New
Berolina MT*Í_Bodoni MT Ultra Bold*×_Arial MT Condensed Light9Û_Helvetica
Compressed:~_Helvetica Black:£_Gill Sans Condensed Bold�
VT100€__ÅÝÅÝ_€€ÅÝ(_Õ_ü_
_à_ü_
á ___€_1Tt‹àí_d_hFf_u_v_~_ž%ˆŠ•©ßþ_____ ___"_ _‹_Œ_¤_Ö_ï_ò_õ3
3_N5N6NFNGNíNôNõNöTUýV_WdWeXœX¡X±X²YXY]ZAZCZbZd[-[\"\›\œ\ \Â\à\â\ã]]_]Õ]é`_`Y
`c`|`"`$`Æ`Üa_a_aa'a6a7f™f±gsgtgug~iòjj£j¤j¥jãjójûk5kCkjkukùkúl
lWlXlYlªl¬mm_m6m7m8m9mDmVmWnÖnØnÜnÝníooŸo©o²o³o´r°r¶rþr_ss_s s s"s-s¨t>u
u½u¾uÆv‡vˆv¢v¥v¦vÁvôw_w_w6wNwVwaw£w®w¹wºwÊwËwÌwàwåwëxx_x-x.x/xXxYx_x`x€x%x³x
ÁxÊxÙxëxìx÷y8yIyKy_ydyiyƒy!y«y¬yyËyÌyÖy×yßyàyáyãyóyôzz_z#zBzCzDzHzIzJzKz
czozpzqzzz{z†zŽz"z£z¤z½zÒzÓzÚzÛzézëzô{_{#{8{k{m{t{†{"{›{¿{Á{Î{õ{÷|_|_|_|m|y|
z|»||ì|í}_}6}Y}x}‚}È}Ô}Õ}å}}ñ~_~J~X~`~a~b~c~d~j~v~}~‚~Ö~à~æ�_� �
� �
�
�
�_�� �!�'�+�-�.�5�7�X�]€
€4€5ˆ}ˆ~ˆ�ˆ˜ˆ´ˆÁˆÂˆÊˆÕˆôˆõ‰_‰_‰D‰K‰d‰o‰|‰œ‰·‰¹‰º‰ïŠŠ_Š_Š_Š0Š2ŠLŠMŠ"Š¬‹
‹
‹_‹_‹_‹Ú‹òŒŒ_Œ_Œ
Œ Œ3Œ:Œ<ŒÏŒÑ#_###%#&#(#+#/#’#Ó#òŽ4ŽEŽFŽTŽ{Ž}Ž~Ž€Ž‚Ž®Ž¯ŽÈŽÉŽÔŽÕŽû!_!&!'
!)!*!/!H!`!a!w!z!{!}!~!€!ý!þ!_""_"Ò"Ô‘_‘‘_‘‘,’<’>’@’A’B’E’m’Œ’—’˜’¡’¢’¼’Û’’ñ"_"&
"."6"8";"<"="?"@"z"|"}"~"%"…"¼"_" "
"_"*"_"`"¸"¹"è"é"í"ï""ñ"ó"õ•_•7•C•D•W•‚•—•˜•¢•É•Ï•×•å•æ•ì•ö––_–_––_–
–l
–n–¦–´–»–¿–Í–Ï–î–—_—"——
—"—…—ˆ—‹—#—ؗ٘_˜"˜1˜2˜8˜d˜w˜|˜†˜‡˜œ˜®˜Þ˜ß˜ú™(™)™4™5™E
™M™p™r™s™u™w™·™¹™º™Ç™È™É™Ì™šYšnšpštšušØšÚšÞšß›_›_›@›B›C›D›G›K›é›ëœQœSœTœV
œXœ}œ›œœœ§œ¨œàœñœòœôœõœ÷œøœú$$3$<$E$G$H$R$i$k$p$z$|$~$�$€$ƒ$‡ž\ž^žožqž$žŸž ž£žÔžÕžèžéŸ_Ÿ5
Ÿ>Ÿ@ŸAŸBŸ[Ÿ_Ÿc " * B D - ¯ æ è û¡¡+¡4¡[¡c¡g¡³¡´¡ù¢_¢¢_¢?¢V¢W¢‹¢°¢±¢¹¢¼¢¿¢Û¢ß¢à¢ä¢å¢þ¢_£%
£7£8£L£M£h£l£m£u£v£y£z£¤£¥£¸£¼£Æ£È£Ê£â¤_¤"¤-¤%¤&¤*¤U¤o¤p¤!¤"¤›¤$¤¡¤¢¤-¤Ç¤È¤Ò¤ç¤ë¤ö¥_¥¥"
¥,¥U¥V¥[¥]¥a¥d¥í¦
¦
¦_¦_¦$¦C¦K¦X¦Y¦e¦f¦w¦œ¦$¦ž¦¢¦¦§c§d§h§i§"§‘§•§¡§¢§£¨¨Ò¨Ó©íª
ª
ª_ª_ª_ª´ªÔªÖªÚ«_
«€«ì«î«ï««ñ«ò¬9¬:¬E¬H¬I¬L¬^¬d¬f¬g¬h¬o¬Œ¬¨¬¬¬µ¬¶¬¾¬È¬Ê¬Ë¬Ì¬Í¬Ï¬Ô¬ò¬÷¬ø%
&}~‘"°Ñ-Õ®_®_®#®$®)®*®6®T®z®{®˜®œ®£®²®½®Á®Ò®Ó®á®â®ã®ë®í®ï®®ñ®ò®ú®û¯!
¯R¯Z¯[¯e¯’¯"¯"¯—°"°°w°–°Ú°ä°å°í°î°±±r±!±’±Þ²-²=²I²h²Ô²Ö²ß²à²è²ê²ý³Æ³Ý³ä´´µW
µ`µaµkµzµ{µ~¶ ¶*º
º
º_¼d¼ƒ¼‰¼¡¼´¼µ¼º¼Ä¼á¼æ¼ù½_½_½ ½
½_½"½"½+½5½6½J½R½^½„½£½¤½¼¿B¿G¿K¿aÂ
Â"ÂûÃ5Ã:Ã?ÃAÃDÃcÃdÃeÂÃÊÌÃ"ÑÃ"Ã¥ÃÁÃÂÃÃÃÍÃøÄ ÅrÅtÅ~Å�ŀŎÅ!śŜūŬűÅÛÅÜÅÝÅÅýÅþÆ_Æ.
Æ9ÆiÆkÇ)Ç4ÇgÇlÇmÇuÇ}Ç’Ç$ǢDZDzdzǴǸǺǼÇÅÇÇÑÇîÇ÷È_È_È
È_È_ÈÈ_ÈÈ&È*È/È0È1È2È:È;ÈWÈfȆȇțȜȫÈȷȸȹȺȻÉ_ÉE
ÉIÉQÉnÉËÉÌÉÍÉÎÉÑÉáÊ_ʗʯʰʵÊÔÊüÊýËËË_Ë_Ë
Ë
Ë_Ë_ËbËcËdËfËgÔPÔ€ÔŸÔ¶Ô¸Ô¿ÔÀÔÎÔÞàeàfàhàiàjàkàlàm_€¾_€_t€òÈ€_É€¾0€E€òÕ€_Ö¾4€_C€òõ€_k
€¾5€_a€¾<€_$€¾G€¾}€¾œ€_±_æ€_ñ€ó_€ó_€ó#€ó$€ !€ó<
¾
"€óU4T€óW€Oz€óXOŠ€óYP;€¾°P@Um€_|½Wc€¾±XÀ€_|ÇYúó`d!€J€e5€¿.f"óaf<€óciZ_|Ì€_|Ó€_|
Ô€_|Ø€_}=€_}[€_}]€_}jÏjÒ€_}^k €ÖÚ€_zý€×+€×D€_{_€×e€ø€×–€ø_€ø_€ø €ø-mÊZ
€ód_l€¾Ì€`.€¾Í`9€¾ÖbÍ¿_€¿_€c^€¿€¾Â€c¨€¿_€c〿#d
×Ë¿Ró|óÆ€óÇÖ=%óÈ€ÖQ=%€óÊ€Ö§=%×ÌøE€òm€òn€ê_ê*ê+€0€òy€ò}€ò~€2몀óË€óÕ€óÞì‡ìã€óßïßçt
'€(<%€òX€òY€ò[×Í×ÎÛ&à
â~çumËnuú$€øå€ø_€ü߀ù€ù"€ùP€ù]€ùs€ù’€úž€_{_€ú±€_{_€ú_€û
€û øHû_€ùª€ù¾€ùÃøm€_{&ø"€_{2€_{3ø±€øÚøÛùÉ€û"€_eÙ€û<€ûn€_eÚ€û�€ûŽ€û €û¡€û¬€ûíùÊ€ùÌ€ùà€ùåùê€_{
4ú_€_{@€_{Aú.€úL€úM€úWúXøáøâ_eã€o7øF€û_€ü
€ü_€ü.€üM€üN€üO€üS€_eå€üU€üV€ün€üz€ü{€üà€ü„€ü…€ü"€ü˜€ü$€ü-€ü®€üÇ€üÜ€_eæ€_eí€_e
î€_eü€_l€_l €_l*€_l8€_lM€_l€€_l‚€_l‰€_l›€_{B€_l°_lÔ€_lÖ€_lã€_m
€_m
€_m_€_m"€_m(€_mÊ€_o!€_mÖ€_o"€_n_€_o¥€_n3€_o¦€_n}€_oÅ€_nÀ€_mƒ€_nÊ€_nÖ€_n×€_oå€_nç€_}r_nè€_W€_W
_dN_dO
€_dP€_dQ€_dR€_dh€_o!€_d|€_d%€_o(€_{J€_o8€_dÕ_dÖ€_Dü_d×€_dØ€_oZ€_dÙ€_dÚ€_o[€_dê€_o\€_dò€_ob€_dö€_d
÷_dþ_e€€_e!€_e'€_r_eÔ_\_tt___€_od€_r*€_o�€_rF€_}’€_rG€_}š€_rr€_rt€_}¹€_r…€_r¶€_r½€_{P€_rà€_rí€_s
_oŒ_s(€üï_s)€_s<€_s=€_sN€_sO€_sj€_sl€_s†€_s‡_sÍ___üêý$€_{[€_{^=%ý,€_€__€_+_-€_"6€_sæ€_"7€_"__"f_‡__€__"€__N€__n€__p
__q€_{b€_{e=%__y€__Ü€_"€_<€_~€_!€_"€_ž€_Å_Ç_"_€_sô€_""€_"I€_"J€_"c€_"d€_"o€_"p€_"–€_"±€_"Á€_"€_"Ä€_"Å€_"Ê€_"ã€_"û€_"ü€_-_€_-_€_s÷__,_ €__-_
_d€_{i€_{l=%_l€__8__:€__i__k€__l€_{p€__‘€__¡__£_EÝ€_Eà€_Eá€_R€_R(€_RG€_RR€_RS€_R\€_R]€_Rw€_R–€_R«€_R
¬€_R€_Rá€_T€_{}_U«€_U®€_U¯€_U°€_U²€_U³€_Uí__¥_Uï€_{�€_{‚=%____º€_
__U€_Uó€_)_€_)+€_Uõ€_)`€_Uö€_)¸€_U÷€_sù€_U
ø_*r€_Uú€_Uû€_*u€_*w€_*–€_*¹€_Uý€_*Å€_*Ø€_+_€_Uþ€_+_€_+"€_+I€_+ü€_,_€_{†€_,_€_,_€_sý€_,"€_V_ €_{‡€_{Š=%_ _€_
q€_ s€_{Ž€_ º€_ Á€_ Å€_ Ó_ Õ€_{œ€_ ÷€_
"_.?€_1/€_V €_10€_t__2
€_V_€_2#€_2n€_2o€_2-€_2³€_V_€_2È€_2΀_2û€_{ž€_3_€_V_€_3"€_32€_3E€_V_€_3u€_3‘€_3¿€_3À€_V
€_3Ë€_{£€_3ä€_V__4 _4
€_V_€_4
€_4M€_V_€_4O_V"_
%€_{«€_{®=%_
,€_
µ€_
Ê_
Ì€_
€_
Ñ€_ 4_ 6€_ :€_ ;€_ b_ d€_ œ_;Þ_ ž€_{²€_{µ=%_ ¦€_
D_
F€_
¬_
®_VH€_VJ€_<E€_<j€_<‰€_<Š€_VL€_<•€_VV€_<߀_VM_<â_<ã€_<å€_V
O€_<æ€_= €_= €_=)€_=2€_VQ€_=4€_=>€_Vg€_=V€_=[€_=e€_VR_
¯_VT€_{¹€_{¼=%_
¶€_
‹_
d€_{À€_
x€_
¤_
¦€_Vj€_=Ë€_t €_=ü€_t
€_>_€_Vm€_>\€_V–_>e_
§_
¨€_{€_{Æ=%_
È€_{Ê€__"€__¨__ª€______€__L__N€_{Ø€__j€_{â€__™€__À_V
£€_@±€_@ý€_@þ€_AD€_V§€_AO€_AR€_AŠ€_V¨€_A¡€_AÖ€_V©€_Aû€_B_€_B_€_B
€_B&€_B*€_B+€_B/€_B0€_Vª€_BI€_Bp€_B‚€_B
ƒ€_V«€_B—€_B²€_B¶€_B¸€_BÀ€_BÁ€_BÄ€_BÅ€_V¬€_Bï€_C€_V_C_€_V·€_C
€_C!€_CR€_V¹€_C]€_Cd€_Ce€_Ci€_C•€_Vº€_C¯€_C
΀_CÏ€_CÚ€_CÝ€_Cá€_Câ€_Cí€_V»€_D_€_D_€_D'€_D+€_D6€_V¼€_DY€_Da€_Dl€_D•€_V½__È€_{ë€_{ï=%__€__Y€__x__z€_VÀ_D
ý€_E_€_E.€_E6€_ED€_EE€_VÆ€_EQ€_VÇ__{_Vì€_{ò€_{ö=%__ƒ€_Ví€__@€_Vî€__D€_Vï€__k€_V__o€_Vü€__€€____¯__±€__Ë€__ê__ì€__î€_t
€__ò€__Ñ__µ€_{ú€__º€__ñ__a€_____Ï€_ _€_ €_
€_ €_ R€_ S€_ _€_t
€_ b€_ e€_ w€_ }_ �€_ %€_{þ€_ ˆ€_ ¥€_ Á€_ Å€_ ΀_ Ï€_ ×€_ á_ ã€_ å€_ æ€_ ç€_ é€_
î€_!
€_t_€_!_€_!>€_!?€_!–€_!—€_dL€_!¬€_!É€_!é€_!ê€_!î€_|€_"2€_"=€_">€_"C€_"D€_"P€_"n€_""€_"•€_"²€_"¶€_"
½€_"Ì€_"×€_"Û€_"ì€_"í€_"û€_"ü€_"ý€_#_#__@Y_V__E„€_EÔüÝ€_t_€_}Æ€_t9€_tB€_€€_tE_tr_tu€×΀×Ñ=%ØW€Ø×€_|
_ÚÇ€ú`€Û_€új€úr€úsÛ_€Û*=%€_|/=%_|LÜ#€Üp€_|OÝ…€_|nÞ9ßñ€úu€ßý€_|#€ú†ßþ€à_=%àÚ€_tv€àñ€_t
}á,€úˆ€ân€ú‘âoú›€â~€â%=%€_t‚=%ã‘oG{Ž™³€¿3_v€_vÖ€_vî€_€
€_w=%€_w_€_w_€_w.€_w3€_wF€_wS€_wU€_w·€_w¼€_wÄ€_wÊ€_wË€_wÙ€_wã€_z€_€
€_z_€_wW€_w�€_z
€_wžž_€_z!Ÿž€Ÿ¢<%Ÿ¸€¢a<%¢t€£Ü€_z&€_z+€_z0€_z2€_z5€_zT
€_zU€_zV€_zs€_zt€_z{€_z}€¤_€_|–€_z‡€_z™€_zµ€_z¶€_z·¤_€¤C<%¤VòÅ€_€I_u#€ñ!€_t¡€ñ"€_t¯€ñ#€_t»€ñ$
€_tË€_zÍ€_t€_€S€_€_€¦ó€_ue€_€(€§€_€+€§0€_ug€§a€_ui€_ut€_€6€_u²€_€;€_u³€_u»€_u€_z÷€_uÛ€_uê_€C
_€D€_|™€ñ*€_tÔ€_u@€_tÖ€ñ.€_|$€ñ;€_tá€ñD€_zÆ€_uJ€_|º€_uV€_uZ€_zÇ€ñN€_u[€ñ]€_zË€_u_€_zÌ€ñe€ñm
€ñn€ñŠ€òŽ€ñ¹€_t€_€E€_u_€_u`€_u_€_€F€_u!ñºòW¦_€O€¦r€y€¦v¦"€_ub¦_uc€_uì€_uï€_u_€_v/_vµ_v
Í€ñ»€ñÀñ߀ò_€ò_€ò®€ò°€ò±€ò²€ò»€ò¼€òÄ€ò òV©.©¤€òÇ©¨„€´€Ó€ê€ì=%€ó=%€ô=
%€ñ²‘_€T€ø?€øAøBøCøD¾_€_ øCøD¾_€_