Training Manual
Carl D Perkins Grant
|
|
|
|
Questions I have -
Dates and times for sessions –
Getting Started & Notes to Self about Skillful Thinking –
Use this page to record your ideas and responses to the discussion about Skillful Thinking.
Men in Black Media Clip -
Use the space below to record your ideas about the MIB clip.
Use the Compare and Contrast graphic organizer below to record your ideas about the MIB clip
COMPARE AND CONTRAST Graphic Organizer
Name: _______________________________________Date:_______________
Escalator Media Clip –
With a partner talk about your ideas after viewing the Escalator clip.
What did you see as the central issue?
What kinds of thinking did you see demonstrated by the people in the clip?
Think about how these “defaults” show up in your life and the lives of those you know – including your students. Left unchecked these defaults will have a negative impact on CRITICAL thinking.
Tip of the ICEBERG
This is a metaphor for the discussion we had in Session One about Skillful Thinking. Take some time before the next session to study the Skillful Thinking chart and Visual on pages 50 and 51.
Beyond the Classroom: Going to Business and Industry for PBL Projects
NOTES:
The Shopping Cart Notes for the “Deep Dive” video
Introduction The Deep Dive – secret weapon for innovation
“Everything we use was designed to create some sort of marriage between form and function.” EX – dental floss How does the process of designing a better product work?
9:00 in the morning of Day 1 – Shopping Cart Project – IDEO
Products that work – but not always
Not experts at any given area – but experts on process of how you design stuff
Bring the supermarket shopping cart into the 21st century
Team: · Project leader – good with groups · Harvard MBA · Linguist · Marketing · Psychologist · Biology major
Issues emerge through discussion and questioning · Safety · Theft
No titles – no permanent assignments – appears to be equal · In a very innovative culture – no hierarchy - who has had the insightful experience · Hire people who “don’t listen to you.”
Team – splits into groups – finds out firsthand what people who use, make, and repair shopping carts really think · Find real experts – so that you can learn much more quickly than just learning about it by yourself · Social science – like anthropologists – “What is it that they do that will help us design a better cart?” · Corporate America – measures “good” people – at desk – BUT it is more useful to be out talking to the “Buzzes” of the world. Each team demonstrates and shares everything that they learned today They come back with “golden keys” to innovation
Deep Dive – total immersion in the problem at hand · One conversation at a time · Stay focused on the topic · Encourage wild ideas · Defer judgment · Build on the ideas of others
Ideas pour out and are posted on the walls · Nesting – has to nest – if it doesn’t nest we don’t have a solution · Build on wild ideas · Focused chaos · Begin narrowing – by voting – “cool and buildable” · Team can judge
“Enlightened trial and error succeeds over the planning of the lone genius.”
When team “drifts” – self-appointed adults – have informal side session Refocuses the deep dive – “What needs should they optimize their solution to?”
Split into groups around key issues: (1) Shopping (2) Safety (3) Check out (4) Finding what you’re looking for
Key ideas: · Time constraints – messy process – can go on forever · Playful – huge importance for being innovative – fresh ideas come faster in a fun place · Build a culture and a process where you can “routinely” come up with good ideas· Take a piece of each one of the ideas
·
Fail often in order to
succeed sooner
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expert and Novice
What are the differences between problem solvers who are considered “expert” and those who are “not yet?”
We know that beyond the general problem solving ability that develops in early childhood, young and older learners can develop quite spectacular ability to solve problems in a wide range of specific domains. From students contrasting the ability of experts and novices to solve domain-specific problems we have learned the characteristic behaviors of proficient (expert) problem-solvers. We know that these behaviors cluster in two phases: knowledge acquisition and knowledge use. Expert problem solvers acquire extensive knowledge of their chosen domains. As they do, they relate new information to prior knowledge; organize their knowledge by elaborating relationships between concepts, and abstract related concepts to find patterns and principles in what they know. As a result, experts are primed for using their knowledge to solve problems. Novice problem solvers in the same domain have less knowledge to work with. And the knowledge they do have is less coherent. Because they have not found the relationships between the concepts of the domain, they do not see the patterns and principles that define the domain. When they attempt to solve problems, they tend to be distracted by the surface features of |
|
the problem situations rather than primed for using their knowledge. When they succeed, they tend to do so by trial and error rather than by principled problem solving.
Expert problem solvers make good use of their knowledge. They use their knowledge of concepts, principles, and problem situations to carefully plan solutions. Part of their planning includes elaborating problem situations and self-questioning to be sure they understand the problems in the first place, and reconstructing or rethinking problems in terms of what they know. Once experts see problems as fitting with their domain knowledge, they evaluate alternative solutions before applying the most reasonable ones. They use success in problem solving as feedback on the appropriateness of their domain knowledge and so revise and extend their knowledge in preparation for solving future problems.
Novices, by contrast, have less usable knowledge to work with and this interferes with problem solving. They have difficulty knowing what it is they need to know to solve problems successfully. As a result, they have less to work with in planning solution and spend more time attempting solutions that are not well thought out. Because their solution attempts are often unplanned, they derive little feedback from success or failure so that their knowledge remains undeveloped and inadequate for solving future problems.
Excerpt from the article, “Teaching for the information age” by Lucy Ann Dahlberg (Journal of Reading, September, 1990.)
|
T3 Cycle – Waiting Tables
The prompts below will help you think through the challenge:
|
Working Smart at “waiting tables” – What do we know about the situation? |
|
What is the problem? What are the facts, assumptions, questions, and resources? What about drawing out my thinking? |
|
What kinds of resources do we have? What do we still need? |
|
Where can we try out our proposal for the challenge to test it? How does our work as a team address the “checklist” for features of PBL Project? |
|
Who do we know who waits tables? Could we get a restaurant to collect data? What can we learn from the “expert/novice” article? What can we learn from Mike Rose?
|
TEAMWORK Self-Assessment
INSTRUCTIONS:
Evaluate yourself and your team members on effectiveness, appropriateness and responsiveness. Use the following criteria to evaluate yourself and your other team members for each of set of indicators. Place a check for each indicator at the level you believe your performance to be and place an X at the level where you believe your team members to be. Include comments or evidence to support your evaluation.
|
INDICATORS of Effectiveness |
Level 4 Performs with no significant errors and with high levels of effectiveness |
Level 3 Performs without making significant errors and with adequate effectiveness |
Level 2 Performs but with significant errors and with less than adequate effectiveness. |
Level 1 Performs with so many errors and lack of effectiveness that he/she cannot yet be evaluated |
|
Presents ideas in organized, concise manner. |
|
|
|
|
|
Offers ideas related to group purpose / goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supports contributions with facts, examples, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uses precise language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expresses ideas with energy, confidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDICATORS of Appropriateness |
Level 4 Performs with no significant errors and with high levels of appropriateness |
Level 3 Performs without making significant errors and with adequate appropriateness |
Level 2 Performs but with significant errors and with less than adequate appropriateness |
Level 1 Performs with so many errors and lack of appropriateness that he/she cannot yet be evaluated |
|
Connects ideas to content and process of group assignment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributes and responds with courtesy and tact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uses technical terminology and familiar, concrete, and socially appropriate language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shows respect through behaviors such as turn-taking, maintaining eye contact w/ all group members, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
INDICATORS of Responsiveness |
Level 4 Performs with no significant errors and with high levels of responsiveness |
Level 3 Performs without making significant errors and with adequate responsiveness |
Level 2 Performs but with significant errors and with less than adequate responsiveness |
Level 1 Performs with so many errors and lack of responsiveness that he/she cannot yet be evaluated |
|
Builds on or links with contributions of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarifies ideas based on feedback. |
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstrates active listening by asking questions, paraphrasing, summarizing, maintaining eye contact, nods, affirming, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Designing a Project-based Learning Project with a BUSINESS PARTNER
Draw out your ideas for your Problem-based Learning Project
Use
the space below to start drawing out your ideas for your PBL project. You can
use a mind mapping approach shown to the left and explained on page 53. Or you
can simply draw out your thinking to create a “cognitive map” using any style
you would like.
As you start “mapping out” your ideas around an issue, remember the T3 Cycle will guide the process your students will use in PBL Project.
(LOOK BACK – page 17.)
STEPS for Gathering and Preparing the PBL Challenge from your Business Partner
An example interview to gather information from the business partner:
Recall an issue in your business that is still not resolved. With this in mind answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. We will use a fictitious name for your company and people involved so that your company and employees will remain anonymous.
· Describe the subject and the industry they are in. (Please use a fictitious name for the subject to keep them anonymous). Please provide background information about the organization.
· How was the problem/issue described by the subject?
· What turned out to be the actual issue?
· What was the task assigned to an individual or team to accomplish?
· Who was involved (e.g. by title) in the issue (e.g. your team, your customer, end user, etc.), where were they located, and the role/part/function they played in the issue.
· When working on this issue what methodologies and/or processes did you and/or your team use?
· What constraints were you under when you solved the problem?
· When working on the issue what resources did you consider using? Please describe them to us.
· When you were working on the issue, what tools/technologies did you use?
· Describe the deliverables you have in mind for the possible solution.
Graphic adapted from Wiggins and McTighe, Understanding by Design, Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Use the space below to make notes about the concepts and skills from your course that would fall within the smallest circle of the graphic.
.
COMPONENTS of a Problem-based Learning Project
(1) Title: What is the title of this Problem-based Learning project?
(2) Focus (Essential Question): What is the main theme or message?
(3) Business and Industry Connection(s) - Context: The business and Industry connection reflects a reality-based, authentic situation. Students experience a real situation that B & I faces in the workplace. Problem-solving, questioning and data collection all occur as a consequence of this context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
|
A |
|
K |
(4)
KSA’s of PBL project:
Knowledge:
What specific content knowledge should the student gain from participating in and working through this PBL project? The knowledge gained during this PBL project lays the foundation for fully developing the main theme or message.
Skills:
What specific skills should the student be able to do following completion of this PBL project? Linked with the knowledge aspect of the PBL project, students develop skills to support the underlying theme or message.
Attitudes:
What attitudes are students expected to develop as a result of working this PBL project? Linked with the knowledge aspect of the PBL project, students develop attitudes to support the underlying theme or message.
(5)
Course Outcome(s):
The PBL project outcomes
highlight the enduring understandings, the big ideas or significant
understandings, students should “get inside of” and know how to apply. What
are the key pieces of learning that students should walk away with after
completing this PBL project? PBL project outcomes go beyond just facts and
separate skills to principles and processes. The PBL project outcomes are the
global explanations of what is to be accomplished during the PBL project and
are further delineated into specifics in the KSA’s.
(6) Assessment: Assessments are periodic measurements of what students have learned as they have worked through the PBL project. These assessment items may include Learning Logs, discussions or debates of critical points with their team, check-in points built into the PBL project or other periodic measurement strategies. Think of these as "formative assessments." The issue here is not "evaluation" but revealing the progress of students' learning throughout the PBL project.
(7) Evaluation of KSA’s: Evaluation looks specifically at student-learning. Evaluation determines the degree to which students have met or exceeded expectations clearly identified in the KSA's. What is the net gain in developing the knowledge, skills and attitudes of the students through the PBL project?
(8) Resources for the KSA’s: Resources in a PBL project will provide information necessary to jumpstart the experience and to create higher levels of learning as the student progresses along the PBL project. Resources may include in-class visits from business partners, student-visits to business, conference calls, webex meetings, videoconferences, website links, Internet access, video clips, on-line articles, on-line experts and other pertinent data sources.
(9) Team Link: The team link will be the connecting component that will be the focus of on-line discussions and meetings with fellow students to discuss and/or debrief specific aspects of the PBL project.
(10) Media Components (video, audio, pictures): Media components will help bring the PBL project to life. Media components could include video, audio, still pictures, charts, and graphs. Some questions to guide you in the development of media components include: What specific media components will need to be videotaped, audio taped or pictures acquired? Who will need to be included in the piece? What should be included in the script? Where should the action or shot be taken (setting/scene?)
(11) Individual Activities/Active Engagement: How will the students be invited to participate and become actively engaged in this PBL project? Based on what we know about "how people learn" use the following points to guide development of these activities
1. One of the
first activities is to activate prior knowledge. This builds the initial
learning foundation for the context in which the content is
designed.
2. Students
should also have activities incorporated within the PBL project that
helps develop foundational factual knowledge, a conceptual framework
and
an organizational system for future retrieval and application of
gained
knowledge.
3. Throughout the
experience students should have the opportunity to
reflect on their learning and the processes in which they used.
(12) Reflection/Debriefing: Reflection is a critical aspect of the learning cycle, but it is often one of the most overlooked strategies. Reflection may occur on an individual basis or within the team. These reflections provide the student time to think through what took place during the PBL project and allows them to clarify and solidify key learnings. What specific pieces of the PBL project should be identified as crucial for reflection and debriefing?
Design Template
Refer to descriptions of COMPONENTS on pages 27-28
|
Title:
|
|||
|
Focus: (Essential Question)
|
|||
|
Business Context:
|
|||
|
Course Outcome(s)
|
Concepts |
Assessment |
|
|
· Knowledge
|
|
||
|
· Skills
|
|
||
|
· Attitudes
|
|
||
|
Evaluation of KSA’s
|
|||
|
Teamlink
|
Media |
Resources |
|
|
Individual Activities
|
|||
|
Reflection
|
|||
NEED TO KNOW BOARD 
T3 Cycle – ________________________
The prompts below will help you think through the challenge:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STORYBOARD for the Situation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEAMWORK Self-Assessment
INSTRUCTIONS:
Evaluate yourself and your team members on effectiveness, appropriateness and responsiveness. Use the following criteria to evaluate yourself and your other team members for each of set of indicators. Place a check for each indicator at the level you believe your performance to be and place an X at the level where you believe your team members to be. Include comments or evidence to support your evaluation.
|
INDICATORS of Effectiveness |
Level 4 Performs with no significant errors and with high levels of effectiveness |
Level 3 Performs without making significant errors and with adequate effectiveness |
Level 2 Performs but with significant errors and with less than adequate effectiveness. |
Level 1 Performs with so many errors and lack of effectiveness that he/she cannot yet be evaluated |
|
Presents ideas in organized, concise manner. |
|
|
|
|
|
Offers ideas related to group purpose / goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supports contributions with facts, examples, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uses precise language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expresses ideas with energy, confidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDICATORS of Appropriateness |
Level 4 Performs with no significant errors and with high levels of appropriateness |
Level 3 Performs without making significant errors and with adequate appropriateness |
Level 2 Performs but with significant errors and with less than adequate appropriateness |
Level 1 Performs with so many errors and lack of appropriateness that he/she cannot yet be evaluated |
|
Connects ideas to content and process of group assignment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributes and responds with courtesy and tact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uses technical terminology and familiar, concrete, and socially appropriate language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shows respect through behaviors such as turn-taking, maintaining eye contact w/ all group members, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
INDICATORS of Responsiveness |
Level 4 Performs with no significant errors and with high levels of responsiveness |
Level 3 Performs without making significant errors and with adequate responsiveness |
Level 2 Performs but with significant errors and with less than adequate responsiveness |
Level 1 Performs with so many errors and lack of responsiveness that he/she cannot yet be evaluated |
|
Builds on or links with contributions of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarifies ideas based on feedback. |
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstrates active listening by asking questions, paraphrasing, summarizing, maintaining eye contact, nods, affirming, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Knowing what Students Know by Checking for Understanding
*Evidence of understanding concepts and skills at deep levels
Ex - Students can explain by drawing generalizations or principles; providing justified and systematic accounts of phenomena, facts, and data; making insightful connections and provide illuminating examples or illustrations.
Questions used to prompt explanation include:
Why is that so?
What explains such events?
What accounts for such action? How can we prove it?
#2: – INTERPRETATION:
I - Students can interpret by telling meaningful stories; offering apt translations; providing historical or personal dimension to ideas and events; making it personal or accessible through images, anecdotes, analogies and models.
Questions used to prompt interpretation include:
· What does it mean?
· Why does it matter?
· How does it relate to me?
Facet #3 – APPLICATION:
A - Students can apply by using and adapting what they know and can do in diverse and real contexts – they can “do” the subject.
Questions used to prompt application include:
· How and where can we use these concepts, skills, processes?
· How should my thinking and action be modified to meet the demands of this particular situation?
Facet #4 – PERSPECTIVE:
P - Students can hold multiple perspectives by seeing and hearing points of view through critical eyes and ears; grasping the big picture.
Questions used to prompt demonstration of various perspectives include:
· What is assumed that needs to be made explicit?
· What is justified or warranted?
· Is there adequate reasonable evidence to support the claim?
· What are the strengths and weaknesses of the idea?
· Is the idea plausible?
· What are limitations of the idea? So what?
· What is an innovative way to look at this?
Facet #5 – EMPATHY:
Em - Students reveal empathy by finding value in what others might find odd, alien, or implausible; perceiving sensitively on the basis of prior direct experience.
Questions used to prompt demonstration of empathy include:
· What do they see that I don’t?
· What do I need to experience if I am to understand?
Facet #6 – SELF-KNOWLEDGE:
S - Students display self-knowledge by showing metacognitive awareness; perceiving the personal style, prejudices, projects, and habits of mind that both shape and impede understanding; being aware of what is not understand; reflecting on the meaning of learning and experience.
Questions used to prompt demonstration of self-knowledge include:
· How does who I am shape my views?
· What are my blind spots?
· What am I prone to misunderstand due to prejudice, habit, and style?
*Adapted by Loring from Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design, Tomlinson and McTighe, Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2006, page 67.
CHECKLIST - Features of a PBL Project
|
FEATURE |
Instructor is doing/has done |
Students are doing/have done |
|
Prior Knowledge |
£ Initial prompt given |
£ Engaged in conversations about prior knowledge |
|
T3 Cycle |
£ Pointed out, clarified, referred to throughout project |
£ Referred to while working on project |
|
Situation |
£ Designed to show through action and dialog with believable characters who hold many different perspectives |
£ View situation as many times as necessary to gain understanding, clarify questions |
|
Expectations of Teams |
£ Facilitate teamwork by answering questions, providing in class tools |
£ Collaborate with each other £ Take on roles with responsibilities £ Produce/perform |
|
Activities of Users |
£ Facilitate users’ activities by being available, asking questions, answering questions |
£ Conduct research to uncover resources £ Communicate with team members £ Gather information from resources outside of classroom £ Produce deliverables |
|
Information Given |
£ Monitor to ensure that enough but not too much given via business partner in person or in scenario |
£ Listen and ask questions for clarity £ Review in team to check for understanding |
|
Multi-media |
£ Prepared to stimulate interest and communicate context for situation; capture and hold attention of users; and provide a consistent message |
£ Process information with team £ Review as many times as necessary £ Map your understanding of the situation as it unfolds |
|
Outcomes |
£ Designed with essential concepts clearly identified and integrated throughout project |
£ Indicate awareness of outcomes within the “deliverable” while also recognizing “open-ended” process to reach outcome |
|
Business context |
£ Connects to business partner to create an authentic learning experience |
£ Use business context from scenario (through media or f2f) to identify the “problem” |
|
Assessment |
£ Plan for formative and summative collection of evidence of learning £ Plan for communicating findings back to users as feedback £ Use a variety of tools: observation, checklists, surveys, etc. |
£ Keep track of facts/assumptions/ questions/resources for team processing and assessment accountability £ Maintain learning log for reflection |
|
Evaluation |
£ Arrange for presence of business partner during report out £ Devise rubric for use during report out |
£ Produce team proposal £ Reflect on team process and submit £ Evaluate your performance and the performance of your team members using the teamwork rubric |
CHECKLIST for STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
|
FEATURE |
Engagement in PBL Project |
Comments on progress |
|
Prior Knowledge |
£ Engaged in conversations about prior knowledge |
|
|
T3 Cycle |
£ Referred to while working on project |
|
|
Situation |
£ View situation as many times as necessary to gain understanding, clarify questions |
|
|
Expectations of Teams |
£ Collaborate with each other £ Take on roles with responsibilities £ Produce/perform |
|
|
Activities of Users |
£ Conduct research to uncover resources £ Communicate with team members £ Gather information from resources outside of classroom £ Produce deliverables |
|
|
Information Given |
£ Listen and ask questions for clarity £ Review in team to check for understanding |
|
|
Multi-media |
£ Process information with team £ Review as many times as necessary £ Map your understanding of the situation as it unfolds |
|
|
Outcomes |
£ Indicate awareness of outcomes within the “deliverable” while also recognizing “open-ended” process to reach outcome |
|
|
Business context |
£ Use business context from scenario (through media or f2f) to identify the “problem” |
|
|
Assessment |
£ Keep track of facts/assumptions/ questions/resources for team processing and assessment accountability £ Maintain learning log for reflection |
|
|
Evaluation |
£ Produce team proposal £ Reflect on team process and submit £ Evaluate your performance and the performance of your team members using the teamwork rubric |
|
ACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR SKILLFUL THINKING
Use this page to keep notes about the strategies you are using to engage your students.
FISH IS FISH
http://www.thecasefiles.org/PBCSPromo/PromoFiles/PBCS_Promo.html
January 2007 | Volume 49 | Number 1
A Supersize Problem
How Students Learn
“You are the owners and operators of your own brain, but it came without an instruction book. We need to learn how we learn.”
—Sue Donovan
Sue Donovan closed the 2006 Conference on Teaching and Learning with insights from How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom, a report from the National Academies. Donovan centered her talk on the three principle findings of How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (National Academies Press, 1999) and how to apply them to the teaching of K–12 curricula.
Conceptual Engagement
The first principle finding notes, “New knowledge is built on a foundation of existing knowledge and experience. However,” adds Donovan, “everyday conceptions are resilient and must be actively engaged.” If students' initial understandings are not engaged, they may fail to grasp new concepts and information, or they may learn them for a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom.
So, if students have a background of knowledge that doesn't support the new information you're trying to teach, what do you do? Donovan says you can dislodge preconceptions by actively engaging students in powerful discrepant events. Through narrative accounts and illustrative experiments, you can engage what students already know while displacing preconceptions.
Organizing Knowledge
Next, Donovan advised that, to develop competence in an area of inquiry, students must have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and organize knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application. This principle finding from How People Learn has implications on the classroom debate on teaching facts versus “big ideas.” Knowledge of facts and knowledge of organizing ideas are mutually supportive, Donovan asserted. Concepts organize information and improve students' abilities to retrieve and apply factual knowledge. For example, physical attributes of organisms are more readily recalled and understood when taught within the conceptual framework of adaptation.
Metacognition
Last, Donovan touched on a major finding that supports a metacognitive approach to teaching. That means students take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them. Teachers, Donovan shared, can give students opportunities to actively test and explain what they're learning through experimental situations and class discussions. She added that teachers can maximize the effectiveness of metacognition by also teaching students the disciplinary standards for proof in each subject area.
For example, formal proof is necessary in math; science requires a mix of formal proof, empirical observations, and experimental data; and history uses multiple sources, with attention to author perspective and purpose.
Throughout her presentation, Donovan unpacked these three main principles and put them into real classroom situations. For further examples, see the ASCD blog post “Donovan Dishes on How Students Learn” or purchase the full recorded conference session at www.iplaybackascd.com.
Copyright © 2007 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
What do I have planned in my PBL project to help students become become aware of these defaults and use skillful thinking strategies to avoid them?
NARROW –
FUZZY –
SPRAWLING –
HASTY –
GRAPHICS to Guide Skillful Thinking
Creative Problem Solving
Treffinger, D. J, Isaksen, S.G. and Dorval, K. B. (1998). Creative Problem Solving, Revised Edition. Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning, Inc. Used with permission. Center for Creative Learning, P.O. Box 3736, Sarasota, FL, USA 34230-3736 914-351-8862, FAX 914-351-9061, www.creativelearning.com
The Habits of Mind
From Costa and Kallick, Eds., Discovering and Exploring Habits of Mind, Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2000, pp. xvii and xviii.
Briefly, the habits of mind can be described as follows:
1. Persisting – Sticking to it. See a task through to completion, and remain focused
2. Managing impulsivity – Take your time. Think before you act. Remain calm, thoughtful, and deliberate.
3. Listening with understanding and empathy – Seek to understand others. Devote mental energy to another person’s thought and ideas. Hold your own thoughts in abeyance so you can better perceive another person’s point of view and emotions.
4. Thinking flexibly – Look at a situation another way. Find a way to change perspectives, generate alternatives, and consider options.
5. Thinking about thinking (metacognition) – know your knowing. Be aware of your own thoughts, strategies, feelings, and actions – and how they affect others.
6. Striving for accuracy. Check it again. Nurture a desire for exactness, fidelity, and craftsmanship.
7. Questioning and posing problems – How do you know? Develop a questioning attitude, consider what data are needed and choose strategies to produce those data. Find problems to solve.
8. Applying past knowledge to new situations – Use what you learn. Access prior knowledge, transferring that knowledge beyond the situation in which it was learned.
9. Thinking and communicating with clarity and precision – Be clear. Strive for accurate communication in both written and oral form. Avoid overgeneralizations, distortions, and deletions.
10. Gathering data through all senses – Uses your natural pathways. Gather data through all the sensory paths: gustatory, olfactory, tactile, kinesthetic, auditory, and visual.
11. Creating, imagining, innovating – Try a different way. Generate novel ideas, and see fluency and originality.
12. Responding with wonderment and awe – Let yourself be intrigued by the world’s phenomena and beauty. Find what is awesome and mysterious in the world.
13. Taking responsible risks – Venture out. Live on the edge of your competence.
14. Finding humor – Laugh a little. Look for the whimsical, incongruous, and unexpected in life. Laugh at yourself when you can.
15. Thinking interdependently – Work together. Truly work with and learn from others in reciprocal situations.
16. Remaining open to continuous learning – Learn from experiences. Be proud – and humble enough – to admit you don’t know. Resist complacency.
Creative Thinking Strategy: PMI - Plus-Minus-Interesting
This is an idea-generating strategy developed for group or individual by Edward De Bono. Use it as a way to examine all sides of an idea, event, or choice in a decision-making process or problem-solving situation.
To prompt students to examine all sides of a situation or idea use PMI. At the beginning of a project when ideas for a topic are being explored, PMI can open discussion for innovative or unusual ways of thinking about the idea or considering a solution in a problem-solving situation.
How does this strategy work?
The key to this strategy is to require students to generate as many responses in each of the three categories. Overall, the steps in this strategy are:
P = Plus. “The good things about this idea are…” or “I like this idea because…”
M = Minus. “The bad things about this idea are…” or “I don’t think this is a good idea because…”
I = Interesting. “The things I find interesting about this idea are…” or “Although I don’t believe this is a plus or a minus, I think that…”
1. Beginning with the “plus” category, ask all students to work on their own, to respond to the prompt given above. After a few minutes, ask the students to offer their ideas in a brainstorming fashion, with no evaluation except that it must be a “positive” outcome of the idea. Any disputes can be settled as you go. Write down as many as are given. Then ask students to join with partners and come up with 2 or 3 more ideas in the same category. The purpose of this extension is to get students to explore every possibility, not just the first ones that come to mind. When it seems that most students are finished, collect the additional ideas.
2.
Now go to the category of
“minus.” Follow the same procedure as for the “plus” category. Use a different
color
of marker or chalk to record the list of responses. Again, you want to
encourage students to come up with as
many ideas as possible.
3.
Finally, go the third category
of “interesting.” Do this as a group rather than first as individuals or
partners. Now
you will want to record the sentences or phrases they will probably use to
express their ideas. Be alert for ideas
that should be in the plus or minus columns. If students offer an idea
that actually goes in one of those two
categories, check with the class to see in which column they think it
should be placed. Encourage students to
share their reasoning for the categorizations.
TEACHING TIP:
It is a good idea to teach the process of PMI independent of your content area first so that students can learn the process. An engaging approach is to offer a truly “impossible” situation, such as, “What if all the cars in the United States were painted yellow?” “What if there were no seats on a bus?” or “What if all the players on a football team had the same number on their jerseys?”
Think about Thinking:
What did you notice about the way you were thinking about the idea at each stage of the strategy: Plus-Minus-Interesting? What happened to the direction of your thinking when you talked with your partner to come up with additional ideas? Name some situations in which using PMI could be helpful to you in school, at your worksite, with your friends, with your family. How would you go about teaching this strategy to someone else?
What’s in it for you and your students?
· You can think about using PMI is a powerful way to avoid the common defaults in our thinking: fuzzy, hasty, narrow, and sprawling (see page 37.)
· Your students can learn how to be flexible and open-minded in considering ideas, even the ones initially rejected, can help them think more carefully through decisions to make and problems to solve.
Clarifying Thinking Strategy: PreP – Pre Reading Plan
PreP draws from students’ prior knowledge concerning the topic or concept in question. As both an assessment and instruction strategy it helps students clarify their thinking and increase their awareness of topics to be covered. PreP works well with a wide range of knowledge levels among students: from those who have much knowledge and who can define and draw analogies, make conceptual links, and think categorically to those with some prior knowledge who can give examples and cite characteristics of the concept but may be unable to see relationships or make connections between what they know and the new information; to those students with little background knowledge and who often have misconceptions about the topic.
How does this strategy work?
Write the key concept under investigation in the middle of the chalkboard, large piece of butcher paper, SmartBoard, or transparency on an overhead projector. Draw a circle around it. Prompt students to make comments within the following three categories:
Initial Association - “What comes to mind when you hear the word _______?”
Do not say more, merely record students’ responses, in random placement around the circled concept word. As in brainstorming, record every response without critique or comment.
Elaboration on Initial Association - “Say more about ______.”
Go back to the student who offered the idea as an initial association.
Record any additional ideas offered next to the word previously given. This
process will begin to make clear the connections students have in their thinking
regarding the concept and will reveal the associations their peers have to the
same concept. A network of ideas will be generated. You can mark connections
using visual cues, for example, lines, arrowheads, or color coding. Unlike the
brainstorming approach taken in the first stage, now you and the students can
weigh, reject, accept, revise, and integrate some of the ideas that came to
mind.
Reformulation of Knowledge - “Now that we have uncovered much of what you already know about ______, what insights, comments or questions do you have?”
Add ideas and connections drawn from students to visually make connections. (See sample to the above.)
TEACHING TIP:
Take time to have students talk about the associations they now have, especially the concepts that have changed as a result of the discussion. Furthermore, you have the opportunity to shape the direction of the development of the concept as you actively engage the students. Knowledge has been uncovered, shaped, and reshaped.
Think about Thinking
Look back to the record of your thinking about the concept, ______. Beginning with your own contributions, try to identify the connections you made in terms of thinking skills. Some examples might be: comparisons between two or more ideas, connections that required causal reasoning, links that led to drawing a conclusion, chain of ideas that suggested a prediction, evidence that prompted the need to check the reliability of source, and so on.
What’s in it for you and your students?
Listening with intention, respect, and patience both reflects skillful thinking and increases your ability to think with skill.
APPROACHES TO SKILLFUL DECISION MAKING
Skillful decision making as a strategy operates on the assumption that decisions will be made on a daily basis in an active learning environment in the classroom and throughout life. The issue is doing what comes naturally as a part of the way information is processed, SKILLFULLY. Following a procedure for making “skillful” decisions with the accompanying self-monitoring reflective piece, offers the greatest possibility that these skills will be internalized and used for a lifetime.
Students could use a number of approaches to making skillful decisions. Common features of various approaches include clarifying the decision to be made, generating options, considering the consequences, determining the value of the prospective option in light of the consequences, and, finally, making a plan to carry out the decision. Listed below are several example procedures students could follow.
1. In the process of making a decision, ask the following questions:
 | What makes this decision necessary? What is creating the need for the decision? |
| What are my options? Are there unusual ones that I should consider in this circumstance? |
| What consequences would result if I chose these options? Are there long-term consequences, consequences for others, or consequences that I might not ordinarily consider? |
| How likely are these consequences? Why would I think so? What evidence or reasons are there for thinking that they are likely? Is this information reliable? |
| Do these consequences count in favor of or against the options being considered? |
| How important are these consequences—not just for me, but for all those affected by them? Are some consequences so important they should count more in my thinking than others? |
| When I compare and contrast the options in the light of the consequences, which option is best? |
2. An abbreviated form of this same procedure is listed below:
· What makes a decision necessary?
· What are my options?
· What are the likely consequences of each option?
· How important are the consequences?
· Which option is best in light of the consequences?
3. Another model for steps to follow is:
· Identify a decision you want to make and the alternatives you are considering.
· Identify the criteria you consider important.
· Assign each criterion an importance score.
· Determine the extent to which each alternative possesses each criterion.
· Multiply the criterion scores by the alternative scores to determine which alternative has the highest total points.
· Based on your reaction to the selected alternative, determine if you want to change importance scores or add or drop criteria.
4. A simpler form of this model poses the questions:
· What am I trying to decide?
· What are my choices?
· What are important criteria for making this decision?
· How important is each criterion?
· How well does each of my choices match my criteria?
· Which choice matches best with the criteria?
· How do I feel about the decision? Do I need to change any criteria and try again?’’
METACOGNITION – Before, During and After
“Unpacking” implies that something is there to be unpacked. That is exactly the case when we talk about “unpacking our thinking.” Thinking, i.e., an internal processing of ideas based on perceptions and interpretations, occurs quite naturally. By paying attention to how we do this, it is possible to become more skillful at doing it. An essential piece of “skillful thinking” is taking time to think about thinking itself. Putting these thoughts into words is what we do when we “unpack our thinking.” Individuals put into words their awareness of thoughts; their strategy used in working out a solution; or their thoughts experienced in reflection back on to an event, a decision, an experience, and so on. This “unpacking of thought” can be called metacognition or “thinking about thinking.” Learning to do this unpacking on a consistent basis equips you and your students to become more skillful in being aware, strategic, and reflective about thinking throughout life in environments of informal learning as well as in formal learning environments in school.
Before interacting with content/process to be learned
to create a focus
using creative thinking for fluency: “Ideas I already understand within this topic are…”
using clarifying thinking to compare: “The last time I did an assignment like this…”
to establish a purpose
using critical thinking to observe: “Some things that I know the teacher expects are…”
using creative thinking for originality: “Some things I can do to help set a purpose are…”
to articulate reason(s) for doing the assignment
using clarifying thinking to draw a conclusion: “As I read this, I plan to focus on ______ because…”
During interaction with content/process to be learned
to recognize context/relationships/analogous situations
using clarifying thinking to recognize part/whole relationships: “The main ideas and supporting ideas are related in that…”
using critical thinking to determine the reliability of source: “Evidence I have to believe this is…”
to discover what is still unknown
using clarifying thinking to uncover assumptions: “Checking his position on that, I believe…”
to design possible structure or method of approaching the topic
using critical thinking to make a generalization: “I can use ___ to learn this information because I see how it organizes this information and I remember when I used it before.”
After interaction with content/process to be learned
to apply to other situations
using critical thinking to make predictions: “I remember how this connected to my life before, so I think it can be used in the future in the following way…”
to evaluate progress
using critical thinking to make inferences about causes: “On a scale of one to ten I would rank my use of strategies to learn this information as a ____ since I…”
to monitor need for further action
using critical thinking to reflect on thinking used throughout the reading process:
“When I reflect on the way my thinking was activated and maintained in this assignment, I realize I was using the following thinking skills…”
Used with permission - ©Ruth M. Loring
Plan Assessments and Activities to Engage Students in Active learning
Bring your storyboard to life with video, photos, audio media support. Use the space below to note your plans for development of media “hook” for your PBL project.
This sample illustrates the storyboard developed for a PBL project developed in partnership with a local business.
M
Used with permission.
Socratic Questioning Prompts
|
Questions for Clarification |
|
|
What do you mean by ________? What is your main point? How does ______ relate to ______? Could you put it another way? What do you think is the main issue here?
Let me see if I
understand you: do you |
________, could you
summarize in your own ________, is that what you meant? Could you give me an example? Would this be an example: _______? Could you explain that further? |
|
Questions about the Initial Question or Issue |
Questions that Probe Assumptions |
|
How can we find out? What does this question assume? Would ________ put the question differently? Can we break this question down at all?
Does this question lead
to other questions |
What are you assuming? What could we assume instead?
You seem to be assuming
______. Do I understand How would you justify taking this for granted?
Is this always the case?
Why do you think |
|
Questions that Probe Reasons and Evidence |
Questions that Probe Origin or Source Questions |
|
What would be an example? Could you explain your reasons to us? Are those reasons adequate? Do you have any evidence for that? How could we find out if that is true? |
Where did you get this idea? Have you been influenced by media? What caused you to feel this way?
|
|
Questions that Probe Implications and Consequences |
Questions about Viewpoints or Perspectives
|
|
What are you implying by that? What effect would that have? What is an alternative? If this is the case, then what else must be true? |
How would other groups of
people
How could you answer the
objection Can anyone see this another way? What would someone who disagrees say? |
Teaching Critical Thinking through Online Discussions by Carol B. MacKnight, Educause Quarterly, Number 4, 2000, page 40. Questions adapted from list compiled by Richard Paul for Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World (Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, 1990). Used with permission.
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0048.pdf
FRAMEWORKS with sample strategies for teaching
SKILLFUL THINKING
Skillful Thinking can be thought of as the combination of SKILLS that lead to PROCESSES. The Framework shown on page 50 contains three categories of SKILLS and two PROCESSES.
These skills occur as we think things through in any decision making or problem solving situation. Rather than focusing on teaching individual thinking skills the Problem-based Learning Project approach sets the stage for using these SKILLS in the PROCESS of making decisions and solving problems. When students have authentic real-time business and industry situations to work with then skillful thinking has a natural and powerful context in which to operate.
Use the Framework to help you think systematically about integrating Skillful Thinking throughout your course content and, in particular, within the PBL project you design to connect students to the world of work beyond the classroom environment.
A visual depiction of the SKILLS and PROCESSES on page 51 illustrates the synthesis of discrete skills into processes.
The categories of Skills – clarifying, creative, and critical – are elaborated on pages 52 through 54 and include sample strategies to teach these skills.
Finally, a system for guiding decision making or problem solving as a process is shown on page 55.
Refer to this Framework and sample strategies as you design your PBL project and as you continue to integrate Skillful Thinking throughout your content as you “focus on the student.”
SKILLFUL THINKING
|
Thinking Skills |
||||
|
Category of Thinking |
Goal |
Purpose |
Specific Thinking Skills |
Attitudes |
|
CLARIFYING |
Deep understanding and accurate recall |
clarifying ideas |
Analyzing ideas · comparing and contrasting · classification/definition · parts/whole relationships · sequencing Analyzing arguments · finding reasons/conclusions · uncovering assumptions
|
Seek clarity and use relevant information |
|
CREATIVE |
Original products |
generating ideas |
Generating alternative possibilities · multiplicity of ideas (fluency) · varied ideas (flexibility) · new ideas (originality) · detailed ideas (elaboration) Combining ideas · analogy/metaphor
|
Generate unusual ideas to be considered |
|
CRITICAL |
Critical judgment |
assessing the reasonableness of ideas |
Assessing basic information · accuracy of observation · reliability of sources Assessing inferences - use of evidence · causal explanation/prediction · reasoning by analogy · generalization Assessing inferences – deduction · conditional reasoning / categorical reasoning |
Open-mindedly, base judgments on good reasons |
|
THINKING PROCESSES |
||||
|
DECISION MAKING Goal: Well-founded decisions Strategy: Consider options, predict consequences, and choose the best option Skills: Skills of generating ideas, clarifying ideas, and assessing the reasonableness of ideas
PROBLEM SOLVING Goal: Best solution Strategy: Consider possible solutions, predict consequences, and choose the best solution Skills: Skills of generating ideas, clarifying ideas, and assessing the reasonableness of ideas
|
||||
Adapted by Loring from Swartz
Visual of Skillful Thinking
The
Visual of the Skillful Thinking Domain explained on page 31 was adapted from the
work of
Dr. Robert Swartz, Director of the National Center for Teaching Thinking located
in Newton, MA. You can check out his website at
http://www.nctt.net/index.html . Dr. Swartz proposes that “skillful thinking is
ordinary thinking done well.” The visual below shows the three primary
categories of thinking – clarifying, creative and critical
– that blend for use in decision making and problem solving.
Refer to the list of skills and attitudes listed for each of the three
categories as shown on page 50.
Clarifying Thinking
Goal: Deep understanding and accurate recall
The following graphic developed by Sandra Parks, Organizing Thinking (Critical Thinking Press), enables students to clearly identify how two ideas are alike and different. However, the most important part of the graphic organizer is that it explicitly calls for the students to clarify the kind of difference they are identifying. It is the classification of difference that many students have difficulty verbalizing. Patterns of BOTH similarities and differences move students to begin synthesizing ideas. Finally, the conclusion is one that they have reached rather than one obtained by someone else, e.g., the author, teacher, etc.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST DIAGRAM
Name: _______________________________________Date:_______________
Concept 1 _________________ |
Concept 2_________________ |
How Alike? |
|
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
How Different? |
|
____________________________________________ |
|
____________________________________________ |
|
with
regard to… |
|
Patterns |
|
Conclusion |
Creative thinking
Goal: Original products
· Use brainstorming – lists of ideas
· Follow the Plus-Minus-Interesting strategy explained on page 18.
· Make your thinking visible using “cognitive maps.” The example shown below is a cognitive map created by Tony Buzan. This mind map captures both creative thinking and clarifying thinking. Also, refer to page 19 for another example of cognitive mapping.
Retrieved from
http://www.imindmap.com/
Tony Buzan – also see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlabrWv25qQ
Critical thinking
Goal: critical judgment
Below is a graphic for predicting consequences. Write the option you are considering in the option box. Then write the consequences of the option in the boxes labeled “consequences.” At the same include the evidence (in the box labeled evidence) you have to support your reasons for the consequences.
Use the small boxes within evidence and to code the consequence regarding its value (see code in box labeled Value.) As you know choosing an option may indeed have a “negative” consequence but it is still of “pro” value. For example, taking the time to complete a program of study may mean that you have fewer hours in the day to work but it is worth the sacrifice. Use the code in the box labeled “likelihood” to write in the small boxes within consequences to rate the likelihood that the consequence would occur.
Using these coding devices will help you “weigh the consequences” of choosing the option being examined. The point that you want to make with your students is that every option in a decision making or problem solving process will have “consequences.” It is those consequences in the context of the desired goal for the decision being made or problem being solved that must be carefully considered.
From Infusing the Teaching of Critical and Creative Thinking into Elementary Instruction, Swartz and Parks, Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press & Software, 1994, page 425.
PROCESSES
Decision making
Goal: Well-founded decisions
Problem solving
Goal: Best solution
Problem solving requires a “problematic situation” to be solved, i.e., something is not working well and requires a redesign. Decision making does not necessarily incorporate a “problem to be solved.” We make decisions each day, e.g. determining the best way to reach a goal, choosing how to spend our time, deciding who to vote for in a campaign, and so on. Making well-founded decisions and determining the best solution requires application of clarifying, creative and critical thinking skills. The graphic below shows the process flow and thinking skills activated throughout the process.
Skillful thinkers consciously use and monitor their thinking to generate, clarify, and assess the reasonableness of ideas in order to be good decision makers and problem solvers.
|
|
|
Comparing and contrasting; deduction Deduction
|
|
Many, varied, detailed original ideas |
|
Causal inference; use of evidence |
|
Reliable source; accuracy of information |
|
Prediction based on evidence; reliable source; prioritizing |
DRAW OUT YOUR PLAN
Draw out your plan for presenting your proposal. Remember to show the media “hook” and demonstrate one or more of the skillful thinking strategies included in your project. The CHECKLIST participants will use to give you feedback is shown on page 57.
Presentation of PBL Projects and Plan for Implementation with Students
CHECKLIST for Evaluation and Feedback of PBL Project
INSTRUCTIONS: As you hear evidence of its inclusion of each PBL Project presentation
place a 5 to 1 rating (5 is highest and 1 is lowest) in the box by each feature.
|
FEATURE |
Instructor is doing/has done |
Students are doing/have done |
|
Prior Knowledge |
r Initial prompt given |
r Engaged in conversations about prior knowledge |
|
T3 Cycle |
r Pointed out, clarified, referred to throughout project |
r Referred to while working on project |
|
Situation |
r Designed to show through action and dialog with believable characters who hold many different perspectives |
r View situation as many times as necessary to gain understanding, clarify questions |
|
Expectations of Teams |
r Facilitate teamwork by answering questions, providing in class tools |
r Collaborate with each other r Take on roles with responsibilities r Produce/perform |
|
Activities of Users |
r Facilitate users’ activities by being available, asking questions, answering questions |
r Conduct research to uncover resources r Communicate with team members r Gather information from resources outside of classroom r Produce deliverables |
|
Information Given |
r Monitor to ensure that enough but not too much given via business partner in person or in scenario |
r Listen and ask questions for clarity r Review in team to check for understanding |
|
Multi-media |
r Prepared to stimulate interest and communicate context for situation; capture and hold attention of users; and provide a consistent message |
r Process information with team r Review as many times as necessary r Map your understanding of the situation as it unfolds |
|
Outcomes |
r Designed with essential concepts clearly identified and integrated throughout project |
r Indicate awareness of outcomes within the “deliverable” while also recognizing “open-ended” process to reach outcome |
|
Business context |
r Connects to business partner to create an authentic learning experience |
r Use business context from scenario (through media or f2f) to identify the “problem” |
|
Assessment |
r Plan for formative and summative collection of evidence of learning r Plan for communicating findings back to users as feedback r Use a variety of tools: observation, checklists, surveys, etc. |
r Keep track of facts/assumptions/ questions/resources for team processing and assessment accountability r Maintain learning log for reflection |
|
Evaluation |
r Arrange for presence of business partner during report out r Devise rubric for use during report out |
r Produce team proposal r Reflect on team process and submit r Evaluate your performance and the performance of your team members using the teamwork rubric |
APPENDICES
Page(s)
Tools for Designing Problem-based Learning Projects 59
· Design Template 60
· T3 Cycle 61
· Need to Know Board 62
· Storyboard 63
· Teamwork Self-Assessment 64
Resources – Websites and Reading 65
· Thoughts on Adaptive Expertise – John Bransford 66-74
· References and Recommendations for Further Study 75
· Websites related to Critical Thinking 76
Tools for Designing Problem-based Learning Projects
Design Template
Refer to descriptions of COMPONENTS on pages 27-28
|
Title:
|
|||
|
Focus: (Essential Question)
|
|||
|
Business Context:
|
|||
|
Course Outcome(s)
|
Concepts |
Assessment |
|
|
· Knowledge
|
|
||
|
· Skills
|
|
||
|
· Attitudes
|
|
||
|
Evaluation of KSA’s
|
|||
|
Teamlink
|
Media |
Resources |
|
|
Individual Activities
|
|||
|
Reflection
|
|||
T3 Cycle – ________________________
The prompts below will help you think through the challenge:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEED TO KNOW BOARD
STORYBOARD for the Situation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEAMWORK Self-Assessment
INSTRUCTIONS:
Evaluate yourself and your team members on effectiveness, appropriateness and responsiveness. Use the following criteria to evaluate yourself and your other team members for each of set of indicators. Place a check for each indicator at the level you believe your performance to be and place an X at the level where you believe your team members to be. Include comments or evidence to support your evaluation.
|
INDICATORS of Effectiveness |
Level 4 Performs with no significant errors and with high levels of effectiveness |
Level 3 Performs without making significant errors and with adequate effectiveness |
Level 2 Performs but with significant errors and with less than adequate effectiveness. |
Level 1 Performs with so many errors and lack of effectiveness that he/she cannot yet be evaluated |
|
Presents ideas in organized, concise manner. |
|
|
|
|
|
Offers ideas related to group purpose / goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supports contributions with facts, examples, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uses precise language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expresses ideas with energy, confidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
INDICATORS of Appropriateness |
Level 4 Performs with no significant errors and with high levels of appropriateness |
Level 3 Performs without making significant errors and with adequate appropriateness |
Level 2 Performs but with significant errors and with less than adequate appropriateness |
Level 1 Performs with so many errors and lack of appropriateness that he/she cannot yet be evaluated |
|
Connects ideas to content and process of group assignment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributes and responds with courtesy and tact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uses technical terminology and familiar, concrete, and socially appropriate language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shows respect through behaviors such as turn-taking, maintaining eye contact w/ all group members, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
INDICATORS of Responsiveness |
Level 4 Performs with no significant errors and with high levels of responsiveness |
Level 3 Performs without making significant errors and with adequate responsiveness |
Level 2 Performs but with significant errors and with less than adequate responsiveness |
Level 1 Performs with so many errors and lack of responsiveness that he/she cannot yet be evaluated |
|
Builds on or links with contributions of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarifies ideas based on feedback. |
|
|
|
|
|
Demonstrates active listening by asking questions, paraphrasing, summarizing, maintaining eye contact, nods, affirming, etc. |
|
|
|
|
RESOURCES
Thoughts on Adaptive Expertise - 7/9/01 - John Bransford
(Revised 11/8/2004 – see note at end of document)
Let me try out some thoughts about the concept of adaptive expertise.
1. Why should we care about the concept of adaptive expertise?
We’ve talked a lot about the idea of “working backwards’ as we think about courses and programs (e.g., Wiggins & McTighe’s book on “Understanding by Design, 1997, which is highly compatible with How People Learn; and Sean’s excellent description of this process.) There are at least two important sources of information that can guide the working backwards process. One is knowledge of our particular domains (e.g. Biomechanics, Optics) and what we want students to know and be able to do that is relevant to that domain. Another is knowledge of the world “out there” -- after graduation. The concept of adaptive expertise becomes especially important when we explore the world “out there”.
We have some great interviews with people like Peter Vaill on “whitewater worlds” and the kinds of people it takes to navigate them. Another interview is with Tony White (CEO of Celera Genomics) who talks about the need to create environments were “his” people use more of their brains (than is typically the case) to invent and innovate. Larry Howard (not yet on tape but we hope to capture him soon) has noted how he has dealt with many experts in engineering and technology who are used to “applying technical algorithms” but not used to being adventuresome in their thinking. All of you probably know lots of good examples of contrasting cases of “by the book” people versus those who are willing ---AND EQUIPPED--to jump in and try new things. [We should get more descriptions of these kinds of cases in interview form.]
The ability to change and continually innovate is where the concept of equipping students to be adaptive experts comes into play. But as Tom Harris emphasizes, we need to be much clearer about the meaning of this construct. I’ll try to explain below why I think that a focus on adaptive expertise will involve a focus on what we have defined as “core competencies” PLUS. The “PLUS” is the extra needed for adaptive rather than simply routine expertise. I’ll also try to sketch some of the cognitive processes that seem to underlie adaptive expertise. I think it is crucial to try to understand and study these.
2. Research on Adaptive Expertise:
Hatano and other researchers have differentiated between “routine” and “adaptive” experts. As an illustration, HPL (p 45 of the expended edition) discusses Miller’s studies of information systems designers who work with clients to design computer systems that allow them to efficiently store and access relevant information. Routine experts (“artisans”) try to identify the functions that their clients want automated. They tend to accept the problem and its limits as stated by the clients. Their approach to these tasks is primarily to find things that they have done before that can be applied to the new situation. They attempt to “get the problem solved’ as efficiently as possible and then move on to the next task.
In contrast to the artisans (routine experts), the adaptive experts (virtuosos) listen to the clients’ statement of the problem but only as a point of departure for further discussions. They realize that how one defines one’s problem is half the battle and they know that clients are often too close to a situation to see their problems from a variety of different perspectives. Adaptive information designers also look forward to the opportunity to expand their thinking and increase their existing solution strategies. They treat their clients’ problems as opportunities for new learning rather than simply as a job to do. (At the risk of making him blush, I think that Larry Howard is a fantastic model of an adaptive expert in the computer systems world. To emulate him, we need to get all our students to drink really strong coffee at least 6 times a day.)
In general:
1. Routine experts have learned a set of routines that can be very complex and sophisticated, and the experts become very skilled at applying them. These routines can involve expert communication skills, design analysis skills, data gathering and analysis skills, and so forth. Many of the competencies we have been discussing can easily fit “routine expertise.” This doesn’t mean they aren’t important. But it does mean that -- in order to define adaptive expertise -- we need to explore the issue of “routine competencies” PLUS.....
Routine experts continue to learn throughout their lifetimes, but the learning tends to be one of becoming increasingly efficient at doing what they have also been doing, and perhaps of adding a few new tricks along the way. Studies of cigar rollers in a cigar company showed that they kept getting faster and faster over time. Being a routine expert is great if one’s world stays stable. About 40 years ago, adolescents could learn how to fix cars from their Dad or Mom and turn this into a lifelong area of employment. Today, good car mechanics have to undergo rigorous training about every 6 months because there is so much change. As humans, we all need to have routines that we can count on. As William James said, “Habit is the flywheel of society.” I don’t want to be an adaptive expert with respect to typing. I just want a good keyboard and the ability to increase my efficiency over time. On the other hand, some people with Carpal Tunnel syndrome have faced the need to learn a whole new, more ergonomic keyboard--and have done so with excellent long term results. Others have failed to change and hence remain in pain.
2. Adaptive Experts:
Compared to routine experts, adaptive experts are more likely to relish challenges that require them to “stretch” their knowledge and abilities. They tolerate ambiguity, at least for a while, and they think of themselves as people who know a lot, yet still know little compared to all that is knowable. They are particularly aware of the “assumptive nature of knowing” (e.g., how their current beliefs and knowledge affect their “fish is fish” constructions), and they are able to “let go” of these assumptions without feeling overly threatened. They also actively try to make their tacit assumptions explicit and test them against various criteria. As the Philosopher of Science Toulmin put it: A person demonstrates his (or her) rationality, not by a commitment to a fixed set, stereotyped procedures, or immutable concepts, but by the manner in which and the occasions on which, he (she) changes those ideas and procedures. (p. v).The ability to be an adaptive expert requires that people deal with emotions (hot cognition) as well as skills and knowledge. The physicist David Boehm points out the emotional turmoil that is often involved in changing one’s thinking. His description refers to a scientist (in this case a male scientist) being confronted by conflicting opinions:
His first reaction is often of violent disturbance, as views that are very dear are questioned or thrown to the ground. Nevertheless, if he will “stay with it” rather than escape into anger and unjustified rejection of contrary ideas, he will discover that this disturbance is very beneficial. For now, he becomes aware of the assumptive character of the conscious criticism of one’s own metaphysics, leading to changes where appropriate, and ultimately to the continual creation of new and different kinds.
We probably all know people who set up barriers to protect their comfort zones and try to avoid upsetting their cherished procedures and beliefs. Others are willing to explore new possibilities despite the initial turmoil involved. But it’s important to note that even adaptive experts have to pick their battles carefully. There’s not enough time in life to continually rethink everything we believe.
3. Developing Adaptive Experts:
I think the core conjecture for us to explore is that the development of adaptive expertise is not something that simply happens AFTER people develop routine expertise. You don’t develop it in a “capstone course” at the end of students’ senior year. Instead, the path toward adaptive expertise is probably different from the path toward routine expertise.
Adaptive expertise involves habits of mind, attitudes, and ways of thinking and organizing one’s knowledge that are different from routine expertise and that take time to develop. I don’t mean to imply that “you can’t teach an old routine expert new trick.” But it’s probably harder to do this than to start people down an “adaptive expertise” path to begin with--at least for most people. How can this be accomplished? By helping students learn about themselves as thinkers and problem solvers. I think that a key to developing adaptive experts is to help students understand their own processes of knowing and problem solving; plus help them develop an identity as a lifelong learner rather than as an expert who is supposed to know all the answers. There are issues here that are much deeper than the standard clichés, e.g., “being a lifelong learner is good.”
Helping students develop adaptive expertise requires a metacognitive approach to teaching. Students need to understand how they think, and how what they currently know can be both a blessing and a curse. They need to understand that their (usually tacit) ideas of “what it means to be a competent professional” (e.g., knowing most of the answers versus really being a learner) has major effects on how they think and act, and how comfortable they feel about taking a chance. They need to pay attention to the processes they use to solve problems. [There are some powerful examples in How People Learn (HPL) that we should pull out and highlight of ways that metacognitive additions to instruction have increased achievement in courses in physics and other areas.]
One thing our students need to understand is that their problem solving is always affected by their current knowledge and assumptions (just like Fish is Fish). Having prior knowledge and beliefs is both necessary and nice -- we can’t function in a mental vacuum. But our current assumptions can also trap us in a box that confines us to a “problem space” that is much narrower than it should be.
Consider the following problem:
Two men played 5 games of checkers. Each won three games. How is this possible?
Most people who try to solve this problem first assume (reasonably) that the two men are playing each other. Given that problem space, the problem is impossible to solve. After a few seconds of confusion, most people typically let go of the assumption that the two men were playing each other. This helps create a larger problem space where the answer becomes trivial. If the two men are not playing one another, it is easy for each to win three games.
The preceding is one of those trick problems, of course. But nature is also full of trick problems (or maybe it’s more accurate to say that we inadvertently play tricks on ourselves when we attempt to solve problems.) The trick we play on ourselves is that we tend to jump into solutions based on tacit, restricted definitions of a problem—hence we operate in a restricted problem space. This is similar to the routine information system designer (see above) who simply takes the clients’ definition of the problem as a given and doesn’t try to reframe the problem to reveal alternative problem spaces that can be explored.
One of my favorite examples of restricted problem spaces comes from a book by Adams called Conceptual Blockbusting. He discussed the bruised tomato problem that a group of engineers tried to solve about 40 years ago. The problem as stated by the client was: “We can’t afford to have humans pick tomatoes--we need automated tomato pickers. But the current ones are bruising the tomatoes. We need you engineers to design us a tomato picker that is less likely to bruise tomatoes.”
The engineers worked for about 6 months and made mild headway but no major improvements. They padded the picking arms, slowed down the machine a little, etc. But the improvements were pedestrian. Eventually, some biologists were brought into the picture. They redefined the problem and hence opened up a how new problem space that contained new solutions. Instead of trying to design an automated tomato picker that was less likely to bruise tomatoes, they set out to design a tomato that was less likely to be bruised. And they succeeded (their new tomato had thicker skin and grew further out on the vine). Interestingly if this bruised tomato problem were posed in this day and age, traditional biologists and bioengineers would probably have different views of how to frame the “reinvent the tomato” problem. One would look at selected breeding, the other at genetic engineering. A major reason for getting collaborative, “distributed expertise” teams involved in problem solving is to generate alternative problem definitions and increase the problem spaces that can be explored.
4. Should we think about a systematic framework for thinking about and doing problem solving?
It might be useful for us to develop a systematic approach to problem solving that helps our students think more carefully about their own assumptions and processes as they solve problems. One possible framework comes from The Ideal Problem Solver (1993) that my colleague Barry Stein and I wrote. I have NO investment in getting us to use this framework versus some other--I use it simply as an
illustration. For those who have read the book (there are a total of 5 in the world, I think), you’ll notice that I’ve modified the IDEAL acronym somewhat to better fit our purposes. Here’s a quick overview of what IDEAL means.
I = Invest
Invest the time to treat problems as opportunities for new learning. We would need to help students understand the many ways that this is important. For example, previously solved problems can serve as example cases that provide the bases for analogous solutions to new problems. Concrete examples become even more valuable if seen as instances of more general issues (see HPL). For example, if a previously solved problem can be framed and represented in memory at a more abstract level, it is more likely to be accessed when needed later rather than remain inert. So it is valuable to invest the time to relate particular problems to more general issues. When students are helped to focus on the PROCESSES of solving problems, they can also learn more that helps transfer (e.g. see the physics learning studies by Mestre et al. in Ch 6 of HPL).
D = Develop
Develop an understanding of the problem you are trying to solve and the processes you are using to solve it. This means that students must be helped to define learning goals for obtaining more information rather than simply jumping to solutions based on superficial understandings of problems. And they must understand WHY this is important. This has implications for how we design challenges.
Consider a simple challenge we just built for Emergency Medicine instruction. A college student has been brought to the emergency room because “she won’t wake up”. If novices are asked, “What do you think might be wrong with her?” they’ll generate lots of possibilities based on everyday experiences like “too much to drink,” “drug overdose,” etc. But this is essentially “guessing” based on existing knowledge. To develop adaptive experts, we need to help students do more than this.
The Emergency Medicine Challenge we built asks three questions:
(1) What might be wrong with this patient?
(2) What additional
information would you want in order to feel confident making
a diagnosis and deciding on a treatment--and why would you want it?
(3) What are some things
that you would want to learn in order to develop more
expertise in this area?
Students revisit this challenge as they proceed with their course.
o Questions (2) and (3) don’t have to be in every challenge, but they are particularly important to include in some challenges in order to develop adaptive expertise.
o Question (2) gets at the idea that problems don’t typically come prepackaged with all the data for solving them--we need to know what to seek in order to be confident and competent.
o Question (3) gets students in the habit of defining learning goals.
For example, as I thought about Q3 I realized that I don’t really know what it means to be unconscious, and I wondered if there are a number of different unconscious states (e.g., being knocked unconscious, being unconscious due to a drug overdose, etc.) I want to learn about unconsciousness and its relationship to sleep, fainting, hypnosis, etc. I also want to know if and how different reasons for unconsciousness can be detected by different sets of vital signs, etc, and whether different sets of signs suggest different methods for “awakening” patients (e.g., smelling salts?, letting patients awake on their own, etc.) My guess is that generating these kinds of questions first will create a “time for telling” (Schwartz & Bransford) that helps students better learn new information that is relevant.
Similar to the Emergency medical challenge (above), consider the “Port wine stain” problem.
If posed simply as a problem to be solved, many people might simply start to generate solution strategies like “try to replace the skin with a skin graft,” etc. We need to help students develop the habit of mind of thinking thoughts like “I really need to understand what is causing this.
Does it just involve the skin, or are other things like blood vessels involved?” etc.
The tendency to jump right to possible strategies without trying to first understand and conceptualize problems is a tendency found in all fields. And it is a dangerous tendency because it builds habits of over assimilation to existing knowledge and beliefs.
Wineberg provides an
example of the importance of overcoming the tendency to simply assimilate. He
studied a historian who was asked to analyze a set of history documents that
focused on a topic that was outside his area of specialization. At first, the
historian resolved puzzling contradictions in the documents by using his
existing knowledge of present day culture. Eventually he came to the
conclusion that he did not have enough historical knowledge about the situation
to make an informed judgment, so he devised learning goals and carried them out.
After opportunities to learn, the historian did as well at analyzing the history documents as an expert who specialized in that area. In contrast, college students presented with the same documents tended to use their intuitive everyday knowledge and generated erroneous conclusions (Wineburg & Fournier, 1994). They failed to question their existing assumptions and, ultimately, failed to take advantage of new opportunities to learn.
Overall, we need to create challenges that give our students lots of opportunities to ask for more information and define learning goals. Often, the problems that we use develop habits of mind like those of the routine expert in systems design (see above) who always accepts the client’s problem statement as a given rather than simply as a point of departure for further exploration. In medical education, Barrows (the father of “problem based learning”) does a great job of consistently emphasizing the formulation of learning goals as students proceed through medical school.
E = Explore
Explore at least two different ways to frame (define) the problem you are working with. This is a very simple but powerful strategy that moves one’s thinking one level of abstraction about most attempts to solve problems. For example, a bird flew into the window of a seminar I was holding and started to panic and dive at students-- they were scared. I tried to catch the bird and then remembered to ask myself (What’s my tacit problem of the current problem?). It was: How do I catch the bird before it hurts someone or itself? The problem space for this definition of the problem has lots of obvious strategies, but none of them worked. It then hit me to explore a different definition of the problem; namely, “How can I get the bird to voluntarily leave the room.” For this, I turned out all the lights and hoped it would head back out the lighted window. It did. This solution required knowledge (e.g. of phototropism), and it was lucky that the room could get dark and there was light outside. But I would never have tried it if I had not consciously used the IDEAL strategy of exploring at least two ways to define the problem to be solved.
Interestingly, just last year I encountered a similar problem at a conference session in Virginia---a bird flew in the room and started darting at people and also flying into the screen--which was lit. Since I had seen this problem before, it was a snap to know what to do (this is one of the advantages of “case based” representations of previously solved problems --provided the cases are coded so people can retrieve them when needed). People were amazed at my “quick thinking.” Actually, it wasn’t quick thinking at all. I simply accessed a familiar case that I had used previously. I suspect that most “quick” problem solving involves access to well known cases (or more general schemas) like this. Once again, however, these cases need to be represented at the appropriate level of abstraction or they will remain inert when the problem arises again (e.g., see Bransford et. al., “Because Wisdom Can’t be Told.”)
A = ACT
Act on the strategy(s) that seems most promising -- initially through thought experiments or pilot studies and eventually in real world contexts.
L = Look
Look at your whole process of problem solving and learn from the experience so you can improve next time around. [This includes investing the time to explore one’s solution strategies and consider possible alternatives, and to try to see how the specific problem one has solved relates to more general issues in a domain (e.g., I might be exploring a cave and find life that does not need oxygen and be helped to realize that this is highly relevant to astrobiologists who are trying to find other places that support life.)
Beyond Memorizing IDEAL: Obviously, It doesn’t do much good to simply memorize the IDEAL framework--it needs to be used to structure students activities of problem representation, problem solving and reflection. There are probably other frameworks that are even better than IDEAL (The IDEALer Framework?) But I thought I’d throw IDEAL out as an example of how we might take a systematic, metacognitive approach.
Mini Studies: I see the potential for some very powerful mini studies we can and should do to show NSF that there are really “teeth” in pursuing the goal of developing adaptive expertise. We should also look at research on Problem Based learning in Medicine by Cindy Hmelo (she got her Ph D at Peabody) as a guidelines for these studies. She has strong results).
5. An “Adaptive Expertise” Challenge for All of Us
Imagine that we are part of the show “To Tell the Truth” and are introduced to two seniors in Bioengineering who each claim to be adaptive experts. But in reality, one is a routine expert.
What would we do in order to decide which is which? If we simply ask “Are you an adaptive expert?” both will say yes (or perhaps “huh?”) Both should show evidence of basic competencies like core knowledge of Bioengineering, the ability to solve familiar (routine) problems that are similar to ones solved before, the ability to communicate, etc. What’s the “PLUS” for the adaptive expert?
Here are some sacrificial thoughts about the two most important things:
1. A systematic understanding of themselves as learners and problem solvers -- including their strengths and weaknesses, plus their understanding of the importance of building “distributed expertise” teams.
2. An ability to LEARN to solve novel problems (not simply solve routine problems based on existing knowledge). This includes the ability to generate learning goals, define multiple perspectives on problems, deal with criticism and contradictory data, etc.
Assessing the latter is relevant to new ways of thinking about the issue of learning and transfer (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999). A striking feature of most transfer studies is that they all use a final transfer task that involves what Bransford & Schwartz (1999) call “sequestered problem solving” (SPS). Just as juries are often sequestered in order to protect them from possible exposure to “contaminating” information, subjects in experiments are sequestered during tests of transfer. There are no opportunities for them to demonstrate their abilities to learn to solve new problems by seeking help from other resources such as texts or colleagues, or by trying things out, receiving feedback and getting opportunities to revise.
Accompanying the SPS paradigm is a theory that characterizes transfer as the ability to directly apply one’s previous learning to a new setting or problem (we call this the Direct Application (DA) theory of transfer). Bransford & Schwartz’s thesis is that the SPS methodology and the accompanying DA theory of transfer is responsible for much of the pessimism about evidence for transfer.
An alternative to SPS methodology and DA theory is a view that acknowledges the validity of these perspectives but also broadens the conception of transfer by including an emphasis on peoples’ “preparation for future learning” (PFL). Here, the focus shifts to assessments of people’s abilities to learn in knowledge-rich environments. When organizations hire new employees they don’t expect them to have learned everything they need for successful adaptation. They want people who can learn, and they expect them to make use of resources (e.g., texts, computer programs, colleagues) to facilitate this learning. The better prepared they are for future learning, the greater the transfer in terms of speed and/or quality of new learning.
Examples of how a Preparation for Future Learning (PFL) View of Transfer helps us Rethink the Quality of Various Learning Experiences.
The PFL perspective helps us notice evidence of positive transfer that is often invisible in the traditional SPS paradigm. This, in turn, helps reveal the value of various learning experiences that often remain hidden when assessed by traditional methods. Prevailing theories and methods of measuring transfer work well for studying full-blown expertise, but they represent too blunt an instrument for studying the smaller changes in learning that lead to the development of expertise. New theories and measures of transfer are required.
As a simple illustration of a PFL perspective on transfer, consider a set of studies conducted by Kay Burgess & Sean Brophy. In one study they asked fifth graders and college students to create a state-wide recovery plan to protect Bald Eagles from the threat of extinction. The goal was to investigate the degree to which their general educational experiences prepared them for this novel task; none of the students had explicitly studied Eagle recovery plans.
The plans generated by both groups missed the mark widely. The college students’ writing and spelling skills were better than the fifth graders, but none of the college students mentioned the need to worry about baby eagles imprinting on the humans who fed them, about creating tall hacking towers so that
fledgling eagles would imprint on the territory that they would eventually call home, and about a host of other important variables. In short, none of the students--college or fifth graders-- generated a recovery plan that was even close to being adequate. Based on these findings, one might claim that the students’ general educational experiences did not prepare them adequately for transfer.
However, by another measure of transfer, the differences between the age groups were striking. We asked the students to generate questions about important issues they would research in order to design effective recovery plans for eagles.
· The fifth graders tended to focus on features of individual eagles like how much do they eat? How big are they? Where do they live?
· In contrast, the college students were much more likely to focus on issues of interdependence between the eagles and their habitats. They asked questions reflecting an appreciation for
1. interdependence
§ “What type of ecosystem supports Eagles?”
§ “What about predators of Eagles and Eagle babies?”
2. history and change
§ “Are today’s threats like the initial threats to eagles?”
3. possible need for multiple solutions
§ “What different kinds of specialists are needed for different recovery areas?”
Because they had not studied eagles directly, the college students were presumably generating questions that were framed by other aspects of biology that they had learned. So, by this alternative form of transfer test, it would appear that the college students had learned general considerations that would presumably help shape their future learning if they chose to pursue this topic (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1992). In this regard, one would call their prior learning experiences a success.
Overall, the traditional “sequestered problem solving” (SPS) approach to assessment in the eagle study revealed how far the fifth grade and college students were from developing an adequate Eagle recovery plan, and it invited the inference that the students’ K-12 experiences had not prepared them for this kind of transfer. From the “preparation for future learning” (PFL) perspective, one looks for evidence of initial learning trajectories. So, rather than evaluate whether people can generate a finished product, the focus shifts to whether they are prepared to learn to solve new problems. For example, one determinant of the course of future learning is the questions people ask about a topic, because these questions shape their learning goals (e.g., see Barrows, 1985; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989; Hmelo, 1994). For the eagle experiment, the PFL perspective yielded a deeper appreciation of how the college students’ K-12 experiences had prepared them to learn.
Clarifying the value of various teaching strategies:
The PFL perspective can also help clarify the advantages of various teaching techniques (e.g., challenge-based inquiry) that look inefficient from other perspectives. For example, consider efforts to compare the benefits of
(a) beginning lessons by first having students generate their own, perhaps incorrect, thoughts about phenomena versus
(b) simply telling students the correct answers.
Examples might include attempts to have students begin an instructional sequence by first generating their own experiment to test some idea (Bransford et al.,1990) or creating their own formula for capturing the variance of statistical distribution, (Schwartz & Moore, in press). Since novices will often generate ideas that are incorrect, they must eventually be guided toward more
fruitful ways of thinking. Why not “cut to the chase” and present the correct ideas right from the start?
The PFL perspective suggests a number of reasons for first having students generate their own ideas about phenomena. The most important is that it provides an opportunity for students to contrast their own thinking with that of others, including experts in an area. This sets the stage for appreciating the critical features of the new information that is presented to them. In contrast, students who were simply given an assignment without opportunity to generate their own ideas beforehand simply treat the assignment as a set of facts to be learned.
Schwartz and Moore offer an example the domain of statistics. The idea is that students are better prepared to appreciate the formula for standard deviation if they are first given opportunities to differentiate the elements of "spread" that the formula has to account for. To help differentiate these elements, students are shown an initial pair of distributions, say {2, 4, 6, 8, 10} and {4, 5, 6, 7, 8}.
The experimenters point out that the two sets have a similarity, and they ask the students to notice that there is a single number for each set that helps determine this similarity—the average. This single number is easier to keep in mind and communicate than the total distribution.
The experimenters then ask students to come up with a method for determining a single number for each set that could capture what is different (i.e., the variance). After they invent their own methods (often a range formula) they receive a new pair of distributions, say {2, 4, 6, 8, 10} and {4, 8} and determine whether their formula works for this set as well. If it does not they should fix it.
This continues for several cycles where students generate a formula and then try to apply it to new distributions that highlight new quantitative properties (like sample size). At the end of these exercises, students may be shown the formula for variance used by experts. The question of interest is: How do these exploratory activities prepare students to understand the variance formula in ways that go beyond teaching the formula from the start? Initial results from the Schwartz and Moore studies suggest that even though the students generated faulty formulas, these experiences helped the students become aware of the quantitative properties of distributions that a formula should take into account. This set the stage for noticing critical features of experts’ formulas; for example, that it yields a smaller number for smaller variances (many of the students’ self-generated formulas had done the opposite); that it elegantly solves the problem of set size, and so forth.
As a consequence, students in the “generate first” group were much better able to appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of different non-standard formulas for capturing variance (e.g., a formula that summed the deviations from the median instead of the mean). In contrast, students who had been directly taught the standard formula (with no previous attempts to generate their own thoughts) simply declared that the non-standard formulas were “wrong.” They were not as prepared as the other students to learn about the expert formula. In Broudy’s terms, they had a less well-differentiated “field” for “knowing with.”
The instructional procedures noted above can also help accomplish another goal; namely, to let people experience how seemingly “intuitive” or “obvious” ideas that they initially generate can look suspect when subjected to closer scrutiny. This is important because adapting to new situations (transfer) often involves “letting go” of previously held ideas and behaviors. This is very different from assuming that transfer represents “the degree to which a behavior will be repeated in a new situation” (Detterman, 1993, p. 4).
In many cases, repeating an old behavior in a new setting produces what his been called “negative transfer.” Luchin’s (1942) classic studies of filling water jars illustrate this point nicely. When given a transfer task, participants in these experiments repeated a complex set of water-pouring strategies despite the fact that the task permitted a simple, efficient response. Land, inventor of the Polaroid Land camera, coined a colorful definition of “insight” that highlights the importance of “letting go” of previous assumptions and strategies rather than simply repeating them. He defined insight as “the sudden cessation of stupidity.” It’s a great definition. And it relates especially to the “Explore” part of the IDEAL framework discussed above (Exploring alternate ways to frame a problem -- which can reveal assumptions that can be changed or relaxed).
6. A Final Thought
First, I hope this is helpful. Second, it occurs to me that the Wiggins and McTighe approach to working backwards might be rephrased to read: “Define what we want our students to experience during our courses and to know and be able to do at the end.” They need to experience changes in their own thinking (and thinking about thinking) over time. And we need to help them learn from these experiences. I think that doing so creates a highly metacognitive environment where content knowledge (including knowledge about domain knowledge AND the nature of adaptive expertise) and processes of learning and problem solving are combined to develop adaptive expertise.
Cheers.
John Bransford
Selected references with some notes:
Adams, James L. Conceptual Blockbusting: A Guide to Better Ideas. This is a creativity classic by Adams who teaches at Stanford University where he is Professor Emeritus, Mechanical Engineering (design); Management Science and Engineering; Science, Technology and Society. For more information go to http://me.stanford.edu/faculty/facultydir/adams.html (update as of February 2004).
Bransford, John, et.al, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Principles for “how people learn” provide the theoretical foundation for the problem based, case based approach to learning embedded throughout The Case Files and CSS Project approaches used at NSCC and funded primarily through NSF.
Bransford, John and Stein, Barry. The Ideal Problem Solver: A Guide for Improving Thinking, Learning, and Creativity. This book is a classic used by educators who have been advocating teaching thinking across all curricula areas for several decades. See also, Developing Minds: A Resource for Teaching Thinking, edited by Art Costa. Available through www.ascd.com
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, pp.262-272. This is a seminal work in the study of routine and adaptive expertise set in the context of discussion of process verses content. See also, Hatano, G. & Oura, Y. (In press, 2003). Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher.
Land, Edwin – Refer to http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/land.htm for more information.
Vaill, Peter, Learning as a Way of Being: Strategies for Survival in a World of Permanent White Water. In his 1989 book Managing a Performing Art, Peter Vaill coined the phrase "permanent white water" to describe the turbulent environment in which we all work. Now, Vaill couples the concept of the "learning organization"--continual, on-the-job education and training for managerial leadership--with the continual change that permeates the modern workplace to create an innovative method of "learning as a way of being", based on self-direction, creativity, and expressiveness.
Wiggins and McTighe, Understanding by Design, published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. A companion professional development workbook is now available for faculty groups involved in redesign of curriculum using the principles of “understanding by design.” www.ascd.org
NOTE: Revised 11/6/2004 - This revised version of the original text posted at http://www.vanth.org/docs/AdaptiveExpertise.pdf contains annotations to text, reformatting, and list of references with notes provided by Ruth Loring with permission from Bransford.
References and Recommendations for Further Study
Armstrong, Thomas, Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. ASCD Stock No. 1-94055, 1994.
Barell, John, Teaching for Thoughtfulness. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group, ISBN 0-8013-0620-5, 1991.
Beyer, Barry K, Inquiry in the Social Studies Classroom: A Strategy for Teaching. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, ISBN 0-675-09228-0, 1971.
Bloom, Benjamin S., Editor, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: Longman Inc., ISBN 0-582-28010-9, 1956.
Bruner, Jerome, J. J. Goodnow, and G. A. Austin, A study of thinking. New York: John Wiley, 1956.
Buzan, Tony, with Barry Buzan, The Mind Map Book: How to Use Radiant Thinking to Maximize Your Brain’s Untapped Potential, New York, NY: Penguin Group, ISBN 0-525-93904-0, 1993.
Clarke, John H., Patterns of Thinking: Integrating Learning Skills in Content Teaching, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. ISBN 0-205-12361-9, 1990.
Costa, Arthur L., and Robert J. Garmston, Cognitive Coaching, a Foundation for Renaissance Schools, Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc., ISBN 9-926842-37-4, 1994.
Costa, Arthur L., Editor, Developing Minds, A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking, 3rd Edition. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Costa, Arthur L., and Rosemarie M. Liebmann, Editors, Envisioning Process as Content, Toward a Renaissance Curriculum, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc., ISBN 0-8039-6309-2, 1997.
Danielson, Charlotte, Enhancing Professional Practice, A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. ASCD Stock No. 196074, 1996.
Danielson, Charlotte, and Leslye Abrutyn, An Introduction to Using Portfolios in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. ASCD Stock No. 197171, 1997.
deBono, Edward, Lateral Thinking: creativity step by step. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, ISBN 0-06-090325-2, 1970.
deBono, Edward, Serious Creativity. New York: Harper Business, ISBN 0-88730-566-0, 1992.
Ferrara, Steven, and Jay McTighe, “Assessment: A Thoughtful Process” in If Minds Matter: A Foreword to the Future, Volume 2, Edited by Costa, Bellanca, and Fogarty, Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing, Inc., ISBN 0-932935-40-0, 1992.
Gardner, Howard, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-02508-0, 1985.
Harmin, Merrill, Inspiring Active Learning: A Handbook for Teachers, Alexandria, VA: ASCD, ISBN 0-87120-228-X, ASCD Stock No. 1-94027, 1994.
Hyerle, David, Visual Tools for Constructing Knowledge, Alexandria, VA: ASCD, ASCD Stock No. 196072, 1996.
Langer, Judith A., From theory to practice: A prereading plan. Journal of Reading, 25, 152-1156.
Lipson, Abigail and Perkins, David, Block: Getting Out of Your Way - The New Psychology of Counterintentional Behavior in Everyday Life. Lyle Stuart Publishing, ISBN 0818405163, 1990.
Loring, Ruth, “Reading As a Thinking Process” from Envisioning Process As Content, Toward a Renaissance Curriculum, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc., ISBN 0-8039-6309-2, 1997.
Margulies, Nancy, Mapping Inner Space: Learning and Teaching Mind Mapping, Tuscon, AZ: Zephyr Press, ISBN 0-913705-56-X, 1991.
Marlowe, Bruce A., and Marilyn L. Page, Creating and Sustaining the Constructivist Classroom, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc., ISBN 0-8039-6587-7, 1998.
Marzano, R, et al., Dimensions in Learning: Teacher’s Manual, 2nd Edition, Alexandria, VA: ASCD, ASCD Stock No. 197133, 1997.
Marzano, Robert J., Debra Pickering, and Jay McTighe, Assessing Student Outcomes: Performance Assessment Using the Dimensions of Learning Model, Alexandria, VA: ASCD, ASCD Stock No. 611-93179, 1993.
Ogle, Donna, “KWL: A Teaching Model That Develops Active Reading of Expository Text,” The Reading Teacher, 30(6), 1986, pp. 564-570.
Palinscar, Ann S. and Brown, Ann L., “Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and monitoring activities.” Cognition and Instruction, 12, 117-175.
Parks, Sandra, and Howard Black, Organizing Thinking, Book II. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press and Software, ISBN 0-89455-355-0, 1990.
Perkins, David N., Heidi Goodrich, Shari Tishman, Jill Mirman Owen, Thinking Connections: Learning to Think and Thinking to Learn, Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, ISBN 0-201-81998-8, 1994.
Swartz, Robert J., and Sandra Parks, Infusing the Teaching of Critical and Creative Thinking into Elementary Instruction, Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press and Software, ISBN 0-89455-481-6, 1994.
Taba, Hilda, Teacher’s Handbook for Elementary Social Studies, Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1967.
Treffinger, D. J., S. G. Isaksen, and K. B. Dorvel, Creative learning and problem solving, Revised Edition, Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning, 1998.
Vacca, R. T., and J. Vacca, Content Area Reading, 2nd Edition, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, ISBN 0-316-89490-7, 1986.
Whimbey, Arthur, and Jack Lochhead, Problem Solving and Comprehension, Fifth Edition, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, ISBN 0-8058-1024-2, 1991.
Wiggins, Grant and Jay McTighe, Understanding by Design, Alexandria, VA: ASCD
WEBSITES related to Critical Thinking
Partnership for 21st Century Skills http://www.21stcenturyskills.org
Click on Framework: Overview http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/route21/
Read: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/RTM2006.pdf
Listen to CDW-G podcast - http://www.thejournal.com/the/21stcenturyskills/podcast/
PBS websites
WNET – New York
http://www.thirteen.org/index.php
Concept to Classroom
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/inquiry/index.html
WGBH - Boston
http://www.wgbh.org/kids/parents/eds
Getting Results - Professional Development Modules
http://www.league.org/gettingresults/web/ -
Cable in the Classroom – Threshold online publication
http://www.ciconline.org/thresholdfall07
Teacher Tap – PD resources for Educators and Librarians
http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic43.htm
Technology Tools resource
George Lucas Education Foundation www.glef.org
http://www.edutopia.org/george-lucas-education-dreamforce-2007
Click on http://www.edutopia.org/php/keyword.php?id=037 Requires video and audio capability
Then click on any project-based article that interests you. They are available in video and/or written format.
http://www.edutopia.org/envision-schools-PBL-professional-development#
Project Based Learning from the Teacher’s Perspective
Requires video and audio capability
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFt6qW0Pb4c
Virtual Environments
One example - http://www.machinima.com/film/view&id=2204 (Note from John Bransford in a personal communication: “Imagine having students in CC courses create these to help others learn about various business environments”)
Thoughts on Creativity
Recorded February 2006 – Ken Robinson – TED Talks – “Children starting school this year will retire in 2065 or there abouts. Can the education system as we know it help these young people to succeed in that world?”
http://www.innovationlabs.com/blog2/2007/01/do-schools-today-kill-creativity-ken.html
Collaboration
|
|
