Tag Archives: Critical Thinking Curriculum

Columbia University study: College rigor is a mixed bag

9 Feb

There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the state of education in America. A lot of that dissatisfaction comes from the belief that the education system fails to actually educate children and to teach them critical thinking skills. The University of Maine at Augusta defines an educated person:

An educated person exhibits knowledge and wisdom; recognizes and respects the diversity of nature and society; demonstrates problem solving skills; engages in planning and managing practices; navigates the on-line world; writes and speaks well; acts with integrity; and appreciates the traditions of art, culture, and ideas. Developing these abilities is a life-long process. http://www.uma.edu/educatedperson.html

Essential to this definition is the development of critical thinking skills. https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/critical-thinking-is-an-essential-trait-of-an-educated-person/

Scott Jaschik wrote an interesting review of the University of Chicago Press book ‘Academically Adrift’ for Inside Education.

If the purpose of a college education is for students to learn, academe is failing, according to Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, a book being released today by University of Chicago Press. The book cites data from student surveys and transcript analysis to show that many college students have minimal classwork expectations — and then it tracks the academic gains (or stagnation) of 2,300 students of traditional college age enrolled at a range of four-year colleges and universities. The students took the Collegiate Learning Assessment (which is designed to measure gains in critical thinking, analytic reasoning and other “higher level” skills taught at college) at various points before and during their college educations, and the results are not encouraging:
• 45 percent of students “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning” during the first two years of college.
• 36 percent of students “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning” over four years of college.
• Those students who do show improvements tend to show only modest improvements. Students improved on average only 0.18 standard deviations over the first two years of college and 0.47 over four years. What this means is that a student who entered college in the 50th percentile of students in his or her cohort would move up to the 68th percentile four years later — but that’s the 68th percentile of a new group of freshmen who haven’t experienced any college learning.
“How much are students actually learning in contemporary higher education? The answer for many undergraduates, we have concluded, is not much,” write the authors, Richard Arum, professor of sociology and education at New York University, and Josipa Roksa, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. For many undergraduates, they write, “drifting through college without a clear sense of purpose is readily apparent…”
The main culprit for lack of academic progress of students, according to the authors, is a lack of rigor. They review data from student surveys to show, for example, that 32 percent of students each semester do not take any courses with more than 40 pages of reading assigned a week, and that half don’t take a single course in which they must write more than 20 pages over the course of a semester. Further, the authors note that students spend, on average, only about 12-14 hours a week studying, and that much of this time is studying in groups.
The research then goes on to find a direct relationship between rigor and gains in learning:
• Students who study by themselves for more hours each week gain more knowledge — while those who spend more time studying in peer groups see diminishing gains.
• Students whose classes reflect high expectations (more than 40 pages of reading a week and more than 20 pages of writing a semester) gained more than other students.
• Students who spend more time in fraternities and sororities show smaller gains than other students.
• Students who engage in off-campus or extracurricular activities (including clubs and volunteer opportunities) have no notable gains or losses in learning.
• Students majoring in liberal arts fields see “significantly higher gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills over time than students in other fields of study.” Students majoring in business, education, social work and communications showed the smallest gains. (The authors note that this could be more a reflection of more-demanding reading and writing assignments, on average, in the liberal arts courses than of the substance of the material.)
In section after section of the book and the research report, the authors focus on pushing students to work harder and worrying less about students’ non-academic experiences… “Students who struggle to pay for college and emerge into a tough job market have a right to know that they have learned something, he said. “You can’t have a democratic society when the elite — the college-educated kids — don’t have these abilities to think critically,” he said…. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/18/study_finds_large_numbers_of_college_students_don_t_learn_much#ixzz1rPPGmmPT

See, A Lack Of Rigor Leaves Students ‘Adrift’ In College http://www.npr.org/2011/02/09/133310978/in-college-a-lack-of-rigor-leaves-students-adrift?sc=emaf and Study: US College Students Advance Little Intellectually http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/only-in-america/Study-US-College-Students-Advance-Little-Intellectually—146441905.html

Allie Grasgreen reported in the Inside Higher Ed article, It’s Not All Bad:

Students are getting a better and more demanding education than scathing accounts like Academically Adrift http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/18/study_finds_large_numbers_of_college_students_don_t_learn_much suggest, but they and their instructors have plenty more work to do, a new study says.
“It’s lukewarm,” Corbin Campbell, the study’s author and an assistant professor of higher education at Columbia University’s Teachers College, said of the academic rigor and teaching quality measured in the study.
While instructors were effective in teaching in-depth subject matter and the cognitive complexity of courses was about right, many students were neither expected to nor did participate in classes, most of which focused on “understanding and applying” rather than “analyzing and evaluating” course material.
The study included 150 class observations and syllabus reviews from one public and one private selective research institution, assessing academic rigor (quality of cognitive complexity, workload, standards and expectations) and teaching quality (in-depth subject matter ideas, using and transforming students’ prior knowledge, and supporting learning) in a wide range of undergraduate courses.
It’s the first pilot of Teachers College’s College Educational Quality project, which aims to ultimately create alternative, less quantifiable measures of educational quality than standardized tests, surveys and other performance metrics. After a 10-institution study this fall and a national one two years after that, the benchmarks could be put into a database and referenced by people and institutions nationwide.
While there’s a lot of talk from opposite camps – the Academically Adrift supporters who say students learn next to nothing in college, and the scholars and politicians who say the U.S. has the finest higher education system in the world – Campbell’s research suggests the reality is somewhere in between, she said. (Academically Adrift is not a perfect comparison to the study, however, as it measures learning over students’ entire time at college.)
“There are some strong educational processes happening at these institutions,” Campbell said, but she added that universities are “not maximizing their educational capacity.”
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/07/academic-rigor-lacking-not-dead-study-says#ixzz2srxfE600

See, A New Kind of Study Seeks to Quantify Educational Quality http://chronicle.com/article/A-New-Kind-of-Study-Seeks-to/144621/

Here is the snapshot of the two College Education Quality reports:

CEQ SNAPSHOT REPORT
College Educational Quality at two selective research institutions:
Are they pushing the boundaries of student’s capabilities?
In the first pilot of the College Educational Quality (CEQ) project, the research team measured the pulse of educational quality at two selective research institutions (one public and one private)—by getting inside the classroom (more than 150 class observations) and investigating curricula (more than 150 syllabi analyzed). At these two institutions, we studied academic rigor (in terms of the quality of cognitive complexity required1, the amount of academic work2, and the standards and expectations assigned3) and teaching quality (teaching in-depth subject matter ideas, accessing and transforming prior knowledge, supporting learning4).
1 Based on Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
2 Based on decades of research on the importance of time on task (Fisher et. al., 1978; Stallings, 1980) and quality of effort (Astin, 1993)
3 Based on current frameworks on standards and grade inflation in higher education (e.g. Hu, 2005)
4 Based on Neumann’s (2014) claims on teaching and learning in higher education
Results painted a picture of a college education that is certainly not in crisis (as suggested by Arum and Roksa’s (2011) Academically Adrift), but perhaps not maximizing its educational capacity.
The good news:
• Most students attended class (82% of enrolled students).
• Instructors are relatively effective in orchestrating subject matter ideas in great depth.
• The cognitive complexity of courses is about what should be expected of college level.

Room for improvement:
• Of the students who attended class, more than half (but not most) students were actively engaged in the course material.
• Only about half of students were expected to participate during class, and these expectations were often not tied to grading.
• Most classes focus on understanding and applying rather than analyzing and evaluating course material.
• Instructors were less effective at understanding students’ prior knowledge and in supporting cognitive and emotional features of students’ learning (important aspects of college teaching; Neumann, 2014).

This pilot study gives us a window into the educational quality of two research institutions. Yet, we need to know more about whether these findings would hold true at other institutions and institutional types. To answer these next questions, the College Educational Quality project will pursue a second, multi-institutional benchmarking pilot of 7-10 institutions in fall of 2014.
ACADEMIC RIGOR: LUKE-WARM AT TWO SELECTIVE RESEARCH INSITUTIONS
When testing the water of in-class academic rigor at our two pilot sites, we found the temperature to be luke-warm. Far more promising than Academically Adrift (Arum & Roksa, 2010) might suggest, we found that most students attended class (82% of enrolled students) and more than a half were actively engaged in class. The average class mostly asks students to understand and apply course materials, and occasionally analyze it – true both in class observations and in the required readings/assignments from syllabi. This is about what we would expect for college level coursework, according to Bloom. Yet, we also found that the coursework was perhaps not pushing the boundaries of students’ capabilities. In the average class, instructors expected about half of the students to be prepared and participate in class. On average, participation was set as an expectation in the syllabus, but not tied to grading. According to syllabi, in the average class, several readings were assigned and some (but not most) were long/complex; the assignments required a moderate amount of work.
TEACHING QUALITY: INSTRUCTORS TEACH SUBJECT IDEAS IN DEPTH, BUT DOES THIS TRANSLATE TO LEARNING?
Courses, on average, scored between “somewhat effective” and “effective” at orchestrating in-depth subject matter ideas (e.g. creating multiple representations of the ideas; giving students an opportunity to engage thoughtfully with the ideas; introducing students to how the ideas play out in the field). Yet, we know that in order to facilitate learning, students must connect the new course content with their prior knowledge (Neumann, 2014). Instructors scored between “ineffective” and “somewhat effective” at surfacing and understanding student’s prior knowledge. Students are more likely to learn subject matter ideas when their instructor supports and engages their learning process (Neumann, 2014). Instructors scored between “ineffective” and “somewhat effective” at supporting learning (e.g. helping students to realize the difference between old and new subject matter ideas; supporting students who are challenged by the contrast between old and new ideas).
DO COURSE CHARACTERISTICS MAXIMIZE ACADEMIC RIGOR AND TEACHING QUALITY?
Our findings showed that certain course characteristics had a positive influence on academic rigor and teaching quality. Classes that lasted longer than 60 minutes and classes that were smaller in size (5-25 students) were found to have a higher level of academic rigor and teaching quality. Higher levels of academic rigor and teaching quality were also found in classes that included activities and discussion and classes where students asked questions.
Most courses observed in the two selective research institutions had some of these characteristics…
• Most were longer than an hour (69%)
• In most courses, students asked questions during class (85%)

But many courses had features that did not maximize the potential for academic rigor and teaching quality:
• Many had a larger class size (68% of observed classes had more than 25 students)
• Only about half included a class activity (54%)
• Less than half included class discussion (41%)

REFERENCES
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hu, S. (2005). Beyond Grade Inflation: Grading Problems in Higher Education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 30 (6), 1–99.
Neumann, A. (2014). Staking a Claim on Learning: What We Should Know about Learning in Higher Education and Why. Review of Higher Education, 37, 249-267.
CORBIN M. CAMPBELL, Ph.D. ~ 212-531-5182 ~ campbell2@tc.columbia.edu ~ http//www.tc.columbia.edu/ceq
http://collegeedquality.weebly.com/results.html

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

The school is the last expenditure upon which America should be willing to economize.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
Derek Bok

Related:
Trying to Find a Measure for How Well Colleges Do

Cultural literacy: Is there necessary core knowledge to be academically successful? https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/cultural-literacy-is-there-necessary-core-knowledge-to-be-academically-successful/

Where information leads to Hope. © Dr. Wilda.com

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Blogs by Dr. Wilda:

COMMENTS FROM AN OLD FART©
http://drwildaoldfart.wordpress.com

Dr. Wilda Reviews ©
http://drwildareviews.wordpress.com/

Dr. Wilda ©
https://drwilda.com/

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Are college students stuck on stupid?

8 Apr

In Critical thinking is an essential trait of an educated person moi said:

There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the state of education in America. A lot of that dissatisfaction comes from the belief that the education system fails to actually educate children and to teach them critical thinking skills. The University of Maine at Augusta defines an educated person:

An educated person exhibits knowledge and wisdom; recognizes and respects the diversity of nature and society; demonstrates problem solving skills; engages in planning and managing practices; navigates the on-line world; writes and speaks well; acts with integrity; and appreciates the traditions of art, culture, and ideas. Developing these abilities is a life-long process. http://www.uma.edu/educatedperson.html

Essential to this definition is the development of critical thinking skills. https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/critical-thinking-is-an-essential-trait-of-an-educated-person/

Scott Jaschik wrote an interesting review of the University of Chicago Press book ‘Academically Adrift’ for Inside Education.

If the purpose of a college education is for students to learn, academe is failing, according to Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, a book being released today by University of Chicago Press. The book cites data from student surveys and transcript analysis to show that many college students have minimal classwork expectations — and then it tracks the academic gains (or stagnation) of 2,300 students of traditional college age enrolled at a range of four-year colleges and universities. The students took the Collegiate Learning Assessment (which is designed to measure gains in critical thinking, analytic reasoning and other “higher level” skills taught at college) at various points before and during their college educations, and the results are not encouraging:

  • 45 percent of students “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning” during the first two years of college.
  • 36 percent of students “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning” over four years of college.
  • Those students who do show improvements tend to show only modest improvements. Students improved on average only 0.18 standard deviations over the first two years of college and 0.47 over four years. What this means is that a student who entered college in the 50th percentile of students in his or her cohort would move up to the 68th percentile four years later — but that’s the 68th percentile of a new group of freshmen who haven’t experienced any college learning.

“How much are students actually learning in contemporary higher education? The answer for many undergraduates, we have concluded, is not much,” write the authors, Richard Arum, professor of sociology and education at New York University, and Josipa Roksa, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. For many undergraduates, they write, “drifting through college without a clear sense of purpose is readily apparent…”

The main culprit for lack of academic progress of students, according to the authors, is a lack of rigor. They review data from student surveys to show, for example, that 32 percent of students each semester do not take any courses with more than 40 pages of reading assigned a week, and that half don’t take a single course in which they must write more than 20 pages over the course of a semester. Further, the authors note that students spend, on average, only about 12-14 hours a week studying, and that much of this time is studying in groups.

The research then goes on to find a direct relationship between rigor and gains in learning:

  • Students who study by themselves for more hours each week gain more knowledge — while those who spend more time studying in peer groups see diminishing gains.
  • Students whose classes reflect high expectations (more than 40 pages of reading a week and more than 20 pages of writing a semester) gained more than other students.
  • Students who spend more time in fraternities and sororities show smaller gains than other students.
  • Students who engage in off-campus or extracurricular activities (including clubs and volunteer opportunities) have no notable gains or losses in learning.
  • Students majoring in liberal arts fields see “significantly higher gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills over time than students in other fields of study.” Students majoring in business, education, social work and communications showed the smallest gains. (The authors note that this could be more a reflection of more-demanding reading and writing assignments, on average, in the liberal arts courses than of the substance of the material.)

In section after section of the book and the research report, the authors focus on pushing students to work harder and worrying less about students’ non-academic experiences… “Students who struggle to pay for college and emerge into a tough job market have a right to know that they have learned something, he said. “You can’t have a democratic society when the elite — the college-educated kids — don’t have these abilities to think critically,” he said.

The book rejects the idea of federal mandates on testing or the curriculum, suggesting that such requirements rarely work. And the book acknowledges that many college educators and students don’t yet see a crisis, given that students can enroll, earn good grades for four years, and graduate — very much enjoying themselves in the process. But in an era when “the world has become unforgiving” to those who don’t work hard or know how to think, Arum said that this may be a time to consider real change.

The culture of college needs to evolve, particularly with regard to “perverse institutional incentives” that reward colleges for enrolling and retaining students rather than for educating them. “It’s a problem when higher education is driven by a student client model and institutions are chasing after bodies,” he said.

The analysis in the book stresses that there is significant variation within institutions, not just among institutions, with students in some academic programs regularly outperforming others at the same campuses. Arum said this suggests that institutions can improve student learning by making sure that there is some consistency across disciplines in the rigor of requirements. “You need an internal culture that values learning,” he said. “You have to have departments agree that they aren’t handing out easy grades.”

Further, he said that colleges need to shift attention away from measures of “social engagement” (everything that’s not academic) and toward academic engagement, even if some of those measures of non-academic engagement help keep students engaged and enrolled. “It’s a question of what outcome you want,” he said. “If the outcome is student retention and student satisfaction, then engagement is a great strategy. If, however, you want to improve learning and enhance the academic substance of what you are up to, it is not necessarily a good strategy…”

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/18/study_finds_large_numbers_of_college_students_don_t_learn_much#ixzz1rPPGmmPT

See, A Lack Of Rigor Leaves Students ‘Adrift’ In College http://www.npr.org/2011/02/09/133310978/in-college-a-lack-of-rigor-leaves-students-adrift?sc=emaf

and Study: US College Students Advance Little Intellectually http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/only-in-america/Study-US-College-Students-Advance-Little-Intellectually—146441905.html

The Critical Thinking Community has several great articles about critical thinking at their site. In the section, Defining Critical Thinking:

A Definition
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.

The Result

A well cultivated critical thinker:

  • raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and
    precisely;

  • gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to
    interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;

  • thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought,
    recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and

  • communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.  (Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008). http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

The question is how to teach critical thinking skills.

Diane F. Halpren discusses a model for teaching critical thinking skills to college students in her article, Teaching for Critical Thinking: Helping College Students Develop the Skills and Dispositions of a Critical Thinker:

The How of Critical Thinking Instruction: A Four-Part Model

I recently proposed a four-part model of instruction for critical thinking (Halpern, 1998). Not surprisingly, it includes two parts we have already discussed—instruction in the skills and dispositions for critical thinking—but it also includes structure training as a means of improving the probability that students will recognize when a particular thinking skill is needed, even in a novel context. The problem in learning thinking skills that are needed in multiple contexts is that there are no obvious cues in the novel contexts that can trigger the recall of the thinking skill. With structure training, students are taught to create retrieval cues from the structural aspects of a problem or an argument so that when these structural aspects are present in the novel context, they can serve as cues for retrieval. I borrowed the term from Hummel and Holyoak (1997), who identified structure sensitivity as a fundamental property that underlies human thought: “First thinking is structure sensitive. Reasoning, problem solving, and learning . . .depend on a capacity to code and manipulate relational knowledge” (p. 427). For example, students may be able to explain why correlation is not causation when presented with this question on an exam but still not recognize that this same principle is operating when they read that children who attend religious schools score higher on standardized tests than those who attend public schools. Specific instruction in recognizing the structure of correlational problems can improve the probability that students will recognize these problems, even when the topic is different.

The last component of critical thinking instruction is metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition is usually defined as “what we know about what we know,” so metacognitive monitoring is determining how we can use this knowledge to direct and improve the thinking and learning process. While engaging in critical thinking, students need to monitor their thinking process, checking that progress is being made toward an appropriate goal, ensuring accuracy, and making decisions about the use of time and mental effort. In the jargon of cognitive psychology, metacognitive monitoring serves the executive function of directing the thinking process. It is made overt and conscious during instruction, often by having instructors model their own thinking process, so that the usually private activity of thinking is made visible and open to scrutiny.

http://education.gsu.edu/ctl/FLC/Foundations/criticalthinking-Halpern.pdf

Citation:

Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses

Read an excerpt.

Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa

272 pages | 20 tables, 20 line drawings | 6 x 9 | © 2010

Cloth $70.00 ISBN: 9780226028552 Published January 2011

Paper $25.00 ISBN: 9780226028569 Published December 2010

E-book $7.00 to $18.00 About E-books ISBN: 9780226028576 Published January 2011

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle

The school is the last expenditure upon which America should be willing to economize.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Derek Bok

Related:

Trying to Find a Measure for How Well Colleges Do http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/education/trying-to-find-a-measure-for-how-well-colleges-do.html?emc=eta1

Cultural literacy: Is there necessary core knowledge to be academically successful? https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/cultural-literacy-is-there-necessary-core-knowledge-to-be-academically-successful/

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Tags: , , , , ,

What is a creativity index and why are states incorporating the index into education?

3 Feb

The Martin Prosperity Institute of the University of Toronto began studying the “creativity index” several years ago. Here is a portion of the summary for their report, Creativity and Prosperity: The Global Creativity Index:

The economic crisis has challenged popular conceptions of economic growth, both in terms of what it is and how to measure it. While engendering growth and bolstering competitiveness remain high on the agenda, immediate attention has shifted to creating jobs, lifting wages, addressing inequality, and fostering long-term, sustainable prosperity. This new edition of the Global Creativity Index (GCI), which we first introduced in 2004, provides a powerful lens through which to assess these issues.

The GCI assesses the prospects for sustainable prosperity across 82 nations according to a combination of underlying economic, social, and cultural factors that we refer to as the 3 Ts of economic development—Technology, Talent, and Tolerance. It also compares the GCI to a series of other metrics of competitiveness and prosperity—from conventional measures of economic growth to alternative measures of economic equality, human development, and happiness and well-being…

Creative Class:

The Creative Class—made up of workers in fields spanning science and technology, business and
management, healthcare and education, and arts, culture, and entertainment—is a driving force
in economic growth. The Creative Class makes up 40 percent or more of the workforce in 14 nations. Singapore has the highest creative ranking, followed by the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Norway, and Germany. Canada ranks 12th, with 40.84 percent of its workforce in the Creative Class, and the United States ranks 27th, with 34.99 percent.

Technology:

Technology is a key factor in economic progress. From new inventions like software, robotics, and biotechnology to improvements in manufacturing systems and processes, technology makes economies and societies more efficient and productive. We assess technological capacity through three measures: research and development spending, R&D workforce, and patented innovations. Finland takes the top spot in technology, followed by Japan in second place, the United States in third, Israel in fourth, and Sweden in fifth. Canada ranks 11th.

Talent:

There is a broad consensus that the ability to generate, attract, and retain skilled and enterprising people—talent—is essential to sustained economic success. We measure a country’s talent as a combination of two factors: its average levels of educational attainment and the percentage of its workforce in the Creative Class. Scandinavian countries leap to the top, with Finland and Sweden taking first and second place, Denmark in fourth, and Norway sixth. Singapore ranks third, with New Zealand in fifth and Australia in seventh. The United States is eighth, just ahead of Greece and Slovenia in the ninth and tenth spots. Canada ranks 17th.

Tolerance:

Tolerance is the third key factor in economic growth and prosperity. The ability to attract both talent and technology turns on openness to new ideas and openness to people. We measure tolerance as a combination of two variables, based on Gallup surveys of openness to ethnic and racial minorities and openness to gays and lesbians. Canada takes the top spot, followed by Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Australia. Spain, Sweden, the United States, Uruguay and the United Kingdom round out the top ten.

http://martinprosperity.org/research-and-publications/publication/global-creativity-index

Download Creativity and Prosperity: The Global Creativity Index. (2.68 MB)

Read “Towards a Broader Conception of Economic Competitiveness“, our MPInsight discussing the Global Creativity Index.

The question is whether creativity can or should be taught?

Erik W. Robelen writes in the Education Week article, States Mulling Creativity Indexes for Schools

At a time when U.S. political and business leaders are raising concerns about the need to better nurture creativity and innovative thinking among young people, several states are exploring the development of an index that would gauge the extent to which schools provide opportunities to foster those qualities.

In Massachusetts, a new state commission began meeting last fall to draft recommendations for such an index for all public schools, in response to a legislative requirement. Meanwhile, the California Senate last month approved a bill calling for the development of a voluntary Creative and Innovative Education Index.

And Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin recently announced plans for a public-private partnership to produce an innovation index for schools, which she described as a “public measurement of the opportunities for our students to engage in innovative work….”

The emerging state efforts to promote creativity and innovation among their students pick up on a theme that’s been gaining steam for some time in American political, business, and education circles.

“Building capacity to create and innovate in our students is central to guaranteeing the nation’s competitiveness,” declared the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities in a report last year.

In addition, fostering creativity has become a high priority among some of the United States’ top economic competitors. In a recent Education Week Commentary, Byong-man Ahn, a former South Korean minister of education, said that “creating the type of education in which creativity is emphasized over rote learning” is a top education goal for his government. (“Education in the Republic of Korea,” Jan. 12, 2012.)

Researchers have recently examined the subject of teaching creativity, but experts are just beginning to determine what makes some students more creative than their peers and how the classroom environment can nurture, or smother, that capacity.

In fact, some emerging research seems to point to two critical aspects of creativity that can be hard to teach: the willingness to take risks and learn from failure, and the ability to transfer ways of solving problems between seemingly unrelated situations. (“Science Looks at How to Inspire Creativity,” Dec. 14, 2011.)

Robert J. Sternberg, the provost and a professor of psychology and education at Oklahoma State University, who is an expert in intelligence-testing and has studied creativity extensively, said he’s encouraged by Oklahoma’s interest in developing an innovation index. He said it’s important for schools to teach creative thinking, and developing some form of accountability around that is a good idea.

But, in an email, he cautioned that there are risks.

For example, “We don’t want an index that trivializes creativity, such as by counting numbers of activities that, on their surface, sound creative rather than exploring what is actually done in the activities to encourage creativity,” he wrote. Also, “We don’t want to encourage quantity over quality of activities.”

The apparent originator and a leading proponent of the index idea is Daniel R. Hunter, a playwright and founding partner of a Boston-based public relations firm who previously served as the director of Iowa’s cultural-affairs department.

“This is not an effort to overthrow standardized testing,” but rather “to provide schools with incentives to spend more time and resources” fostering student creativity, said Mr. Hunter, who also previously led a Massachusetts advocacy group for arts and culture that has disbanded.

“If the only public measurement of your school is a standardized test, then schools have every incentive to teach to the test,” he said. “The index is a tool to get to what is happening in the classroom.” http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/02/02/19creativity_ep.h31.html?tkn=WVZF1T1gOdAjXSPDyFwHiU0kImS%2F3%2F335Q%2Fk&intc=es

Robert Sternberg wrote a thoughtful essay for the Chronicle of Higher Education about creativity in higher education, although his thoughts have wider application.

In, Teach Creativity, Not Memorization, Sternberg opines:

As educators, then, we need to do a better job teaching students to mobilize their creativity successfully. Let me suggest 12 ways to encourage creativity in the classroom.

Redefine the problem. We can promote creative performance by encouraging students to define and redefine their own problems, projects, presentations, and topics for papers, subject to approval; to choose their own ways of solving problems; and sometimes to choose again if they discover that their approach was a mistake.

We cannot always offer choices in the classroom, but having choices is the only way students learn how to choose. Giving them latitude helps them develop taste and good judgment, both of which are essential elements of creativity.

Question and analyze assumptions. Everyone has assumptions, although they are not often widely shared. Questioning assumptions is part of the analytical thinking involved in creativity. We can help students develop this talent by making questioning a part of the daily exchange. It is more important for students to learn what questions to ask—and how to ask them—than to learn the answers. We need to avoid perpetuating the belief that our role is to teach students the facts, and instead help them understand that what matters is their ability to use facts.

Teach students to sell their creative ideas. Everyone would like to assume that his or her wonderful, creative ideas will sell themselves. But they do not. When I was a first-year assistant professor, the second colloquium I was invited to give was at a large testing organization. I was delighted that the company was apparently interested in adopting my ideas about intelligence, even though I was only 25 years old. My career seemed to be off to a spectacular start. I took the train to Princeton, N.J., and gave the talk. It was an abject failure. I went from fantasizing about a dazzling career to wondering whether I would have a career at all.

Students need to learn how to persuade other people of the value of their ideas. That selling is part of the practical aspect of creative thinking.                                                                        http://chronicle.com/article/Teach-Creativity-Not/124879/

In Critical thinking is an essential trait of an educated person, https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/critical-thinking-is-an-essential-trait-of-an-educated-person/ moi said:

There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the state of education in America. A lot of that dissatisfaction comes from the belief that the education system fails to actually educate children and to teach them critical thinking skills. The University of Maine at Augusta defines an educated person:

An educated person exhibits knowledge and wisdom; recognizes and respects the diversity of nature and society; demonstrates problem solving skills; engages in planning and managing practices; navigates the on-line world; writes and speaks well; acts with integrity; and appreciates the traditions of art, culture, and ideas. Developing these abilities is a life-long process. http://www.uma.edu/educatedperson.html

Essential to this definition is the development of critical thinking skills. The University of Michigan  outline, Critical and Creative Thinking  links critical thinking and creativity. http://www.engin.umich.edu/~cre/probsolv/strategy/crit-n-creat.htm

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle

The school is the last expenditure upon which America should be willing to economize.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Derek Bok

Resources:

The Global Creativity Index                                                        http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2011/10/global-creativity-index/229/

The Rise of the Creative Class                     http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Tags: , , , , , ,

Critical thinking is an essential trait of an educated person

22 Jan

There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the state of education in America. A lot of that dissatisfaction comes from the belief that the education system fails to actually educate children and to teach them critical thinking skills. The University of Maine at Augusta defines an educated person:

An educated person exhibits knowledge and wisdom; recognizes and respects the diversity of nature and society; demonstrates problem solving skills; engages in planning and managing practices; navigates the on-line world; writes and speaks well; acts with integrity; and appreciates the traditions of art, culture, and ideas. Developing these abilities is a life-long process. http://www.uma.edu/educatedperson.html

Essential to this definition is the development of critical thinking skills.

Melinda Burns writes in the Miller-McCune article, No Debate: Kids Can Learn By Arguing about Columbia professor Deanna Kuhn’s assertion that developing debate skills in children helps to develop critical thinking skills.

But how do kids become deep thinkers? To find out, Kuhn, who’s the author of a book titled Education for Thinking, and Amanda Crowell, a doctoral candidate at Columbia’s Teachers College, set up an experiment at a public middle school in Harlem. Forty-eight students, mostly Latinos and blacks, took philosophy classes twice a week for three years, from sixth through eighth grades, and every year debated four new subjects. The kids became experts on, for example, home schooling, animal rights, the sale of human organs, and China’s one-child policy. Under a coach’s supervision, they chose one side or another on an issue and tried to anticipate their opponents’ arguments. They often debated in pairs — not face to face, but online, in a sort of Socratic inquiry via Google Chat. By debating electronically, the students were able to consult each other and reflect before firing off comebacks.

At first, as each new topic was introduced, the researchers were startled: the youngsters were clueless about complexity. (“Prisoners, not animals, should be used in medical research because prisoners are guilty and animals are innocent!”) And early in the experiment, the kids showed no interest in the written questions and answers offered by their coaches. By the end of year two, though, they had developed a thirst for evidence.

As each quarter drew to an end, students held a “showdown,” a verbal debate where every three minutes, two new students — one from each side — would rotate into the hot seat. During the post-showdown debriefing, coaches awarded points for good moves (counterarguments and rebuttals), took away points for bad moves (unwarranted assumptions and unconnected responses), and declared the winning side.

All the while, a separate group of 23 students at the school studied philosophy in a more traditional way, using a textbook. Their teacher led discussions; the students rarely broke into sides, or held formal debates. They never argued online, but they wrote a lot in class — 14 essays apiece per year, compared to four in the experimental group.

At the end of every year, as a test of their progress, the students wrote essays on a subject neither group had ever discussed: seniority-based pay versus equal pay for teachers. At the end of the third year, everyone wrote an essay on whether family members and doctors should assist in euthanasia.

Hands down, the winners were the students in the experimental group — even though they’d had much less practice writing. By the end of year one, researchers found, two-thirds of the students in that group were considering and addressing opposing arguments in their written essays—a skill demonstrated by only 38 percent of the students in the comparison group. By the end of the third year, nearly 80 percent of the students in the experimental group were writing essays that identified and weighed opposing views in an argument. Less than 30 percent of the students in the comparison group were doing so.

http://www.miller-mccune.com/education/no-debate-kids-can-learn-by-arguing-38932/

The key is developing the idea that facts should be used to support an opinion.

The Critical Thinking Community has several great articles about critical thinking at their site. In the section, Defining Critical Thinking:

A Definition
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.

The Result

A well cultivated critical thinker:

  • raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and
    precisely;
  • gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to
    interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards;
  • thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought,
    recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
  • communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.  (Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008). http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

The question is how to teach critical thinking skills.

David Carnes wrote the excellent Livestrong article, How to Build Critical Thinking Skills in Children.

Critical thinking skills are typically developed over a long period of time through educational exercises designed to develop them. Because critical thinking is a lifelong habit, critical thinking skills are best developed during childhood.

Step 1

Having your child read passages of some length in which the author argues a point and then reaches a conclusion that others may dispute. Although political commentary is ideal for this purpose, it is best to choose a passage that does not require background knowledge that your child is unfamiliar with.

Step 2

Quiz your child after each passage to make sure that she understands the facts upon which the argument is based. Although the memorization of facts does not constitute critical thinking, it is the starting point from which critical thinking may proceed.

Step 3

Make your child think analytically. Analytical thinking involves the ability to recognize patterns and separate ideas into components, according to Elizabeth Shaunessy, assistant professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of South Florida. Ask your child questions about the passages he reads that are designed to test these abilities. For example, you might have your child rank several passages according to their degree of relevance to a particular topic touched upon by all of them.

Step 4

Encourage your child to think synthetically. Shaunessy describes synthetic thinking as the ability to generalize, reach conclusions and use information in a new way. Have your child read several passages about related topics, and then ask her a question that is not directly answered by any of the passages. Your child will then have to use the information in the passage to answer the question without parroting the author’s thinking.

Step 5

Test your child’s ability to make judgments. Evaluative thinking is the ability to choose the best among several options that each have advantages and disadvantages, and to examine opinions for bias. Have your child read “for” and “against” passages on the same subject, and ask him to choose which one he agrees with and say why. Then ask him to take the opposite point of view and give arguments that an opponent could use against his opinion.

Step 6

Engage your child in an activity that is interesting and that regularly employs critical thinking skills. This activity need not be verbal–it may be mathematical or even musical. Dave Rusin, Associate Professor of Mathematics at Northern Illinois University, notes that music always has an underlying mathematical structure. If your child has an interest in music, you could encourage her to compose her own music using either musical notation or computer software that graphically represents musical structure.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/167563-how-to-build-critical-thinking-skills-in-children/#ixzz1kB28AgFS

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle

The school is the last expenditure upon which America should be willing to economize.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Derek Bok

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

 

Tags: , , , ,