Citation
A study of the effectiveness of the direct instruction of thinking skills on science and social studies achievement and on cognitive skills application

Material Information

Title:
A study of the effectiveness of the direct instruction of thinking skills on science and social studies achievement and on cognitive skills application
Creator:
Willsey, Patricia J
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 190 leaves : illustrations ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Cognition in children -- Testing ( lcsh )
Science -- Study and teaching (Elementary) ( lcsh )
Social sciences -- Study and teaching (Elementary) ( lcsh )
Cognition in children -- Testing ( fast )
Science -- Study and teaching (Elementary) ( fast )
Social sciences -- Study and teaching (Elementary) ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 125-134).
Thesis:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Education, School of Education and Human Development.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Patricia J. Willsey.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
22693008 ( OCLC )
ocm22693008
Classification:
LD1190.E3 1989d .W54 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
A STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIRECT INSTRUCTION OF
THINKING SKILLS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIAL STUDIES ACHIEVEMENT
AND ON COGNITIVE SKILLS APPLICATION
by
Patricia J. Willsey
A.A., Pueblo Junior College, 1960
B.A., Southern Colorado State College, 1965
M.A., University of Northern Colorado, 1978
A dissertation submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
School of Education
!aJ
1989


This dissertation for the Doctor of Education degree by
Patricia J. Willsey
has been approved for the
School of
Education
by
Date


Willsey, Patricia J. (Ed.D., Education)
A Study of the Effectiveness of the Direct Instruction of Thinking
Skills on Science and Social Studies Achievement and on Cognitive
Skills Appi ication
Dissertation directed by Professor Bob L. Taylor
This study focused on the effect of the direct instruction of a
specific curriculum, which emphasized the teaching of thinking and
science and social studies contents, on the ability of students to
apply thinking skills to social studies and science-related tasks and
to apply these skills to other non-content-specific tasks. The
curriculum is referred to as the Explore Curriculum. The study
included the evaluation of the application of specific thinking
skills to general tasks requiring their use and the transferability
of specific thinking skills to social studies and science learnings
by grade four students.
Sixteen classrooms of students in grade four were
examined, eight experimental classrooms and eight control classrooms.
Teachers in the experimental classrooms had received preparation in
the implementation of the curriculum, although the extent of their
preparation varied.
Student performance was evaluated through the administration of
the science and social studies sections of the Comprehensive Tests of
basic Skills and the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery,
developed by the researcher. The students' scores on the third-grade
administration of the CTBS and the Test of Cognitive Skills were used


1 V
as covariates in the study and allowed for a comparison of student
growth from the conclusion of the third grade to the end of the
fourth grade.
Students in the experimental group exhibited higher mean scores
at grade four in science and social studies than did the students in
the control group. However, these gains were not statistically
significant. Neither the experimental nor the control group achieved
gains in the area of cognitive skills. Both genders in the experi-
mental group demonstrated gain in the areas of science and social
studies. The effect of teacher training on student achievement was
not clearly demonstrated in this study. Students in the classroom
with the teacher who had received the most preparation in the
curriculum did exhibit the highest mean scores on the science and
social studies assessments. However, for the other classrooms, in
which teachers had received varying degrees of preparation, the
student outcomes were varied. No relationship of teacher preparation
and student achievement could be generalized from the study. A
parallel assessment was administered that evaluated student attitudes
toward the study of science and social studies. The survey results
indicated that students in the experimental group found science and
social studies to be more interesting and useful, than did students
in the control group.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its
publication.
Signed


V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation is dedicated to my colleagues in School
District Number Twelve, Adams County, Colorado who have labored to
bring thinking and excitement to the study of science and social
studies in the elementary grades. I have shared many rewarding hours
with them in the development of the Explore Curriculum, as well as
some frustrating ones. To the many parents who have indicated to me
the joy they have felt watching their child become "a scientist" and
"a thinker," I express equal joy in knowing that parents are noticing
a difference in the education their child is receiving.
I am indebted to many people who encouraged me to begin and
to continue this study. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Bob
Taylor for the guidance he provided throughout my doctoral program,
and particularly, during the period of this study. Dr. Kenneth
Hopkins was of tremendous assistance in the design of the study.
Dr. Richard Heaton offered continual, patient counsel throughout the
statistical analysis of the data. A debt of gratitude is owed to
Mrs. Betty Casey who typed the dissertation.
My son deserves my thanks for demonstrating kindness and
encouragement at those times when I felt thoroughly frustrated and
helpless while conducting this study. Hopefully, my efforts will
convince him that learning never stops, and that determination is a
powerful motivator.


CONTENTS
Li st of Tabl es................................................ vi ii
List of Figures................................................. x
CHAPTER:
1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE........................................ 1
Background.................................................. 3
Significance of the Problem................................. 6
Purpose of the Study........................................ 8
Statement of the Problem................................... 11
Conceptual Assumptions..................................... 12
Delimitations of the Study................................. 16
Limitations................................................ 16
Definitions................................................ 17
Outline of the Dissertation................................ 19
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE................................. 20
The Nature of Conscious Thinking........................... 20
The Relationship of Thinking and Learning.............. 26
The Purposeful Teaching of Thinking........................ 30
Summary of Review of Related Literature.................... 38
3. THE EXPLORE CURRICULUM....................................... 39
Theoretical Base.......................................... 39
Structure and Major Content of the
Explore Curriculum........................................ 46
4. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES OF EVALUATION..................... 56
Overview................................................... 56
Curriculum Implementation.................................. 57


vi i
Research Methodology and Design........................... 58
Selection of Subjects...................................... 63
Instrumentation........................................... 66
Data Collection........................................... 75
Data Processing and Analysis.............................. 76
5. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA........................................ 78
Overview.................................................. 79
Analysis of Pretreatment Data............................. 87
Analysis of Dependent Variables........................... 89
Analysis of Data Related to the Ancillary Variables.... 93
Analysis of Correlation Results........................... 105
Discussion of Data Gathered Through An Attitude Survey. 107
Discussion and Summary of Findings........................ 110
6. CONCLUSIONS, INPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............... 114
Purpose of the Study...................................... 114
Methodology of the Study.................................. 115
Summary of Findings...................................... 117
Conclusions............................................... 119
Recommendations and Implications......................... 120
References....................................................... 125
Appendix A....................................................... 135
Appendix B........................................................ 149
Appendix C....................................................... 163
Appendix D........................................................ 188


vi ii
TABLES
Table
1. EXPLORE Inservice Participation,
Grade-Four Teachers......................................... 59
2. Baseline Data: Experimental and Control Groups.............. 64
3. Correlation of Explore Curriculum Content With
Items Drawn From the Ross Test of Higher Cognitive
Processes and the Kit of Factor-keferenced
Cognitive Tests............................................. 73
4. Correlation of Explore Curriculum Content With
CTBS Science and Social Studies Sections................... 74
5. Rel iability Analysis...................................... 81
6. Statistical Procedures Employed with Evaluation
Instrunents.................................................. 81
7. Reduced/Free Lunch Percentage of Student Body
at Experimental and Control Sites.......................... 83
8. Pretreatment Testing Results, Experimental and
Control Groups, CTBS and TCS Mean Scores................... 84
9. T-tests on Pretreatment Assessments for Experimental
and Control Groups........................................... 86
10. T-tests on Posttreatment Assessments of the Dependent
Variables for Experimental and Control Groups............. 92
11. T-tests on Posttreatment Assessments of the Dependent
Variables for Experimental and Control Groups............. 91
12. Analysis of Covariance Grade 3 Covariates, CTBS Science
and Social Studies, and the TCS, with Grade 4 Dependent
Variables, CTBS Science, CTBS Social Studies, Assessment
of Cognitive Skills.......................................... 94
13. Means Scores for Females and Males on Pretreatment
Variable and Dependent Variable of Science Achievement... 95
14. Means Scores for Females and Males on Pretreatment
Variable and Dependent Variable of Social Studies
Achievement.................................................. 96


Tables (continued)
ix
Table
15. Means Scores for Females and Males on Pretreatment
Variable and Dependent Variable of Cognitive
Skills Achievement.......................................... 96
16. Analysis of Variance, Interaction of Treatment
and Gender.................................................. 98
17. Cell Means for Teacher Training and Dependent Variables.. 101
18. Pre and Post Comparisons on the Dependent Variables
with the Effects of Teacher Training........................ 103
19. Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficients:
Covariates, Ancillary Variables and Dependent Variables.. 106
20. Comparison of Mean Scores of Experimental and Control
Groups on the Total Attitude Survey, the Response
Integrity Scale and on the Scales of the Attitude Survey. 109


X
FIGURES
Figure
1. A Model of Thinking Skills: Basic Processes.............. 13
2. Toward a Hierarchy of Thinking Skills,
Strategies and Creativity................................ 14
3. Major Cognitive Operations.................................. 24
4. Examples of Thinking Skills Programs........................ 28
5. A Model of Metacognitive Thinking Skills.................... 29
6. Explore Curriculum Intended Learning Outcome................ 44
7. Science/Social Studies/Thinking Strategies
Curriculum.................................................. 47
8. Explore Curriculum Specific Concepts and
Thinking Skill s/Processes (Fourth Grade)................... 50
9. Focus, Restructure, Exploration, Focus...................... 55
10. Grade 3 (Pretreatment) Mean Scores on the TCS and
Gender, and Grade 4 (Posttreatment) Mean Scores the
Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery and Gender........ 99
11. Interaction of Teacher Training and Student
Achievement on Measures of the Dependent Variables
Compared with Student Achievement on the
Pretreatment Variables.................................... 104


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
In 1985 a number of education associations combined forces in
efforts designed to emphasize priorities and programs related to the
teaching of skills of thinking. Many of the organizations have
sponsored conferences and publications that were focused on the
teaching of thinking. These organizations were identified by Brandt
(1986) as members of The Collaborative pn Teaching Thinking:
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
American Federation of Teachers
American Association of School Administrators
American Educational Research Association
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Council of Great City Schools
Home Economics Education Association
Institute for Development of Educational Activities
International Listening Association
International Reading Association
Music Educators National Conference
National Art Education Association
National Association of Black School Educators
National Association of Elementary School Principals
National Council for the Social Studies
National Council of Teachers of English
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
National Education Association
National School Boards Association
National Science Teachers Association
National Congress of Parents and Teachers
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National School Public Relations Association (p.6)
Their collaboration highlighted the magnitude of a national focus
within the education community--and indeed in other institutions as
well--to address, or perhaps re-address, the issue of the intellec-
tual status of the children and youth of the United States. Further,
the agreed upon tasks which members of these organizations set forth
established a purposefulness for their attention to the improvement
of instruction of thinking. Those tasks, as described by Brandt


2
(1986) were to:
1. Sponsor the refinement of terms and definitions re-
lated to thinking skills and processes.
2. Suggest changes in preservice and inservice teacher
education that will enable teachers to gain expert-
ise in developing students' thinking abilities.
3. Ask publishers of textbooks and tests to design
materials that will contribute to student thinking.
4. Promote continuing research to learn more about
human thinking and the effectiveness of approaches
and materials that develop it.
5. Solicit public support for teaching thinking {p.6)
The tasks of the Collaborative on Teaching Thinking illustrate
that a great number of organizations devoted to teaching and learning
believe that research is necessary in the field of thinking and that
such research should include study of the methods and programs of
instruction utilized to advance intellectual proficiency. The think-
ing skills movement in education has been stimulated by the actions
of these organizations and by other factors which are described in
thi s chapter.
The study undertaken by this researcher was designed to provide
data related to several of these areas, but in particular addressed
the: 1) design, development and implementation of curriculum to
facilitate the teaching/1earning of thinking skills and processes;
2) effectiveness of the direct teaching of thinking skills; and 3)
application by students of those skills in content areas. Specific-
ally, the focus of the research was upon the effectiveness (results)
of the teaching of certain cognitive (thinking) skills to elementary
school students. The study was entered into in an attempt to inves-
tigate the hypothesis that certain curriculum frameworks will enhance
the teaching and learning of specified cognitive skills and strate-
gies. Hypotheses were tested, data were collected and analyzed,


3
which revealed that the relationship between particular curriculum
and the application of cognitive skills is positive. The value of
such research, of a quasi-experimental design, is supported by, among
others, Campbell and Stanley (1963).
The current investigation contributed to the body of knowledge
related to the design of models for the teaching of thinking.
Particular evaluation tasks were selected to require the learner to
demonstrate, in subject area settings and in non-subject related
situations, the skills/processes taught via a curriculum framework
that infused thinking skills and subject area content. Thus, appli-
cation of the cognitive skills was noted in a measurable way. The
results of this study added to understandings held by educators
concerning the teaching and evaluation of specific thinking skills at
the elementary level of education. This study contributed to the
decision-making processes related to curriculum design and implemen-
tation in one school district, specifically in these areas: 1)
infusion of thinking skills in the science and social studies
curriculums, 2) the impact of peer-assisted strategies during imple-
mentation phases, and 3) the evaluation of learning outcomes.
Background
In 1984 this investigator and a colleague reviewed data that had
been gathered in School District No. 12, Adams County, Colorado,
regarding the status of instruction in science and social studies at
the elementary level. An instrument had been developed and adminis-
tered in order to gather information from teachers concerning their
perceptions of what science and social studies outcomes "should be,"
their attitudes toward these disciplines, their preparation to teach


4
them, and the perceptions they held of 1imitations in the teaching of
science and social studies at grades kindergarten through six. The
survey data confirmed what observations and informal discussions had
indicated regarding instruction in those areas at the elementary
level in that school district. The descriptions provided by teachers
reflected very little congruence with what authorities in the fields
of science and social studies education (Joyce & Ryan, 1977; Penick
& Yager, 1983; and others) indicated should be taking place
instructionally in these fields.
In fact, the "what is" and the "should be" as reported by many
teachers were inconsistent. A preponderance of teachers surveyed
judged themselves to be inadequately prepared for the teaching of
social studies and, especially ill-prepared for the teaching of
science. In addition, most teachers reported limitations of time,
materials, and in abilities of students "to grasp" science and social
studies concepts. An example of the social studies instrument and
survey results are in Appendix A.
This information motivated an investigation to determine ways to
facilitate improved instruction in science and social studies at the
elementary level. Many curricular programs and models were exam-
ined. One aspect of the investigation was the identification of the
commonalities of these areas, i.e., the similarities of natural and
social sciences, and how the commonalities could be taught in ways to
enhance their interrelatedness, and, by doing so, conserve instruc-
tional time and develop transfer of learnings. As the investigation
continued, it became obvious that the study, viewed with the earlier


5
survey data and recommendations from scholars in the discipline
areas, was leading to a position that something more than content
understanding was required to instill interest in these subject
areas. Indeed, another factor appeared to be necessary to provide
students with the skills to operate successfully as a learner in the
social studies and science fields. These generalizations were
supported by Goodlad's (1984) findings in A Place Called School:
Prospects for the Future: "The total body of data available leads me
to the hypothesis that neither science nor social studies as taught
and studied in our sample of schools, emphasized adequately those
intellectual abilities normally associated with both fields" (p.216).
Preliminary Investigation
Early in 1984 the results of the preliminary investigations had
led to the design of a curriculum framework that had at the core the
direct teaching of thinking skills and strategies which would be
applied in the content areas of science and social studies in as many
integrated or complementary ways as possible. The basic premises of
this integrated thinking skill s/science/social studies curriculum
design included: 1) a rationale for and an explanation of the direct
instruction of defined thinking skills and strategies, 2) an integra-
tion of these skills and strategies in the context of the social and
physical/1ife/earth sciences, and 3) a recognition of the interrelat-
edness of the content skills and processes applied in these sciences,
with those of particular thinking skills and strategies.
The curriculum framework was field tested by nine grade three
teachers during the 1985-1986 school year. Their critiques resulted


6
in revisions of the framework. An enlarged pilot of grade three
materials took place in the 1986-1987 school year. During that year
a limited number of teachers at grade four were invited by the
Division of Curriculum and Instruction to field test the grade four
curriculum framework. At the conclusion of that field test, revi-
sions were made to the grade four materials. The pilot of grade four
curriculum took place in the 1987-1988 school year and it is the
comparison of the achievements of the students involved in the pilot,
with achievements of students not a part of the pilot, that consti-
tuted this study.
Significance of the Problem
Ronald Brandt, Executive Editor, Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, stated in his overview to the September 1984
edition of Educational Leadership that:
The idea of teaching thinking may seem redundant. Good
teachers have always tried--with varying success--to
teach for" thinking: to teach academic content in a
way that strengthens students' cognitive abilities.(p.3)
Contributors to that issue of Educational Leadership, "Thinking
Skills in the Curriculum," and writers who prepared articles for the
May 1986 issue of that publication, "Frameworks for Teaching Think-
ing," pointed out that, due to multiple factors, ample evidence
exists to consider the teaching "of" thinking and teaching "about"
thinking requisite for the intellectual development of students. The
factors cited as evidence for this contention included changes in
society such as increasing technological advances and emphasis on
information as described in Megatrends (Naisbitt, 1982), The Third


7
Wave (Toffler, 1980), and In Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman,
1982). These changes, plus increased knowledge about the functioning
of the human brain and of cognitive psychology implied for the
contributors to those special issues of Education Leadership that
instruction in specific content alone is inadequate preparation for
the world outside the school.
In short, a curriculum designed with a stress on the intellectual
development of students should provide for teaching "of" thinking-
deliberate attention to particular cognitive skills; teaching "about"
thinking-helping students become more conscious of their own cogni-
tive processes; and teaching "for" thinkingproviding content and
strategies which challenge and strengthen cognitive abilities.
Several agencies have sponsored reports and studies that focused on
this need. The National Science Board Commission on Pre-College
Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (1983), the Educa-
tion Commission of the States (1982), the National Assessment of
Education Progress (1981), and The National Commission of Excellence
in Education (1983) have each provided similar recommendations.
Literature on thinking presents lists of cognitive processes that
can be considered thinking skills. In fact, as Nickerson (1984)
related, "Considerable research has been done in recent years on
human thinking...and this research has yielded enough new knowledge
about thinking to give the interest in the teaching of thinking
something of a scientific base" (p.29). The research as cited by it
provided, offers guidance for those interested in the teaching for,
of, and about thinking.


8
A challenging question remains for the researcher, curriculum
developer and/or teacher: What are the effects of attempts to improve
students' thinking? It is apparent from the literature cited both in
this chapter and in chapters to follow, that complete agreement among
researchers on particular aspects of the teaching of thinking is
lacking. However, certain consistencies regarding the ability to
teach specific thinking skills and processes and the importance of
focused instructional strategies geared toward the acquisition of
same, are held in common by most who are active in this field of
research and practice. The least defined and seemingly the most
disagreed upon area in this field of research is the evaluation of
the results of the teaching of thinking.
Purpose of the Study
What then, is thinking and how can it be taught? These are crit-
ical questions for the educator. For, if it is deemed important that
something be taught, one must assume there is some substance to the
"thing" and that one can determine how to teach it and if it has been
learned.
The following definition of thinking appeared in "Appendix A A
Glossary of Thinking Skills" in the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development publication, Developing Minds (Costa, 1985):
"The mental manipulation of sensory input to. formulate thoughts,
reason about, or judge" (p.312). The definitions appearing in that
appendix were derived from a variety of sources. Other definitions
of thinking are presented in Developing Minds, and similarities


9
appear in the definitions. A chapter by Presseisen in that ASCD text
focused upon definitions of thinking, thinking skills, and models of
the thinking process. She noted that various definitions of thinking
share these aspects:
- Thinking processes are related to other kinds of behavior
and require active involvement on the part of the
thinker.
- Products of thinking--thoughts, knowledge, reasons--and
higher processes, like judging can also be generated.
- Complex relationships are developed through thinking, as
in the use of evidence over time. These relationships
may be interconnected to an organized structure and may
be expressed by the thinker in a variety of ways.
- Thinking is a complex and reflective endeavor as well as
a creative experience (p.43).
A review of the literature identified several available programs
and models for the teaching of thinking and provided some evidence
that effects of teaching thinking are discernable.
Nickerson (1984) pointed out that, "The wide variety of
approaches [to the teaching of thinking] currently being tried is
testimony to the fact that people hold different opinions regarding
how best to proceed" (p.29). Perkins and Smith (quoted in Nickerson,
1984) have grouped approaches to the teaching of thinking into five
categories, cognitive-process, heuristics, formal thinking, language
and symbol manipulation and thinking as subject matter. These are
summarized below:
1. Cognitive-process approaches assume that thinking ability
depends on certain fundamental processes, such as comparing,
ordering, classifying, inferring, and predicting.
2. A heuristic is an approach to a goal that is believed to have
a good chance, but not certainty, of success. Heuristics are


10
roughly synonymous with strategies. These approaches show
strong influence of research in cognitive psychology (especi-
ally problem-solving) and artificial intelligence. How experts
solve problems or approach problems is at the heart of heuris-
tics.
3. Approaches that focus on a model of formal thinking in the
Piagetian sense (concrete to formal or abstract operations)
form another category.
4. Approaches that emphasize language and symbol manipulation and
focus especially on writing prose and computer programming
encompass yet another category.
5. Finally, there are approaches that focus on thinking as sub-
ject matter and assume that learning about thinking can im-
prove thinking.
The most current research cited in the ASCD publication, Toward
the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research, suggested that
thinking must pervade the entire school curriculum, for all students,
from the earliest grades. In addition, the editors of that
publication, Resnick and Klopfer (1989), stress, "Thinking skills and
subject-matter content are joined early in education and pervade
instruction. There is no choice to be made between a content
emphasis and a thinking-skill emphasis. No depth in either is possi-
ble without the other" (p.6).
The research study described in this dissertation focused upon an
investigation of the impact of the application of a model, in the


11
design of a curriculum framework, for the teaching of cognitive pro-
cesses. The curriculum model and the research activity focused
attention upon these areas: 1) The impact upon student learning of
the implementation of a curriculum designed for the teaching of
thinking skills and processes in conjunction with subject matter; and
2) The ability of students to demonstrate that skills and strategies
for thinking had been learned as well as subject matter.
Statement of the Problem
This study focused on the effect of the direct instruction of a
specific curriculum, which emphasized the teaching of thinking and
science and social studies contents, on the ability of students to
apply thinking skills to social studies and science related tasks and
to apply these skills to other non-content specific tasks. The
curriculum is referred to as the Explore Curriculum. The study in-
cluded the evaluation of the application of specific thinking skills
to general tasks requiring their use and the transferability of spe-
cific thinking skills to social studies and science learnings by
grade four students.
Two hypotheses were tested:
- The students who received direct instruction of thinking
skills (the independent variable) in conjunction with sub-
ject area study in social studies and science will demon-
strate a higher level of performance on The Assessment of
Cognitive Skills battery (a dependent variable) than will
students who did not receive direct instruction of thinking
skills infused with subject area study.


12
- The students who received direct instruction of thinking
skills (the independent variable) in conjunction with sub-
ject area study in social studies and science will demon-
strate a higher level of performance on the social studies
and science sections of the CTBS (a dependent variable) than
will those students who did not receive direct instruction
of thinking skills infused with subject area study.
For purposes of this study, these sub-questions were investi-
gated:
Did students in grade four--in the experimental and control
groups--perform differently on thinking skills tasks and on
subject area assessments with respect to the variables of:
- Socio-economic status;
- Gender; and
Extent of training which the teacher received in the
Explore Curriculum?
Conceptual Assumptions
Beyer (1984a) cautioned the teacher and curriculum developer to
avoid confusing levels of thinking and to clearly define skills (of
thinking). He suggested that the work of Bloom (1956), Guilford
(1967), and Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman & Miller (1980) offers useful
conceptual background about thinking skills and processes.
In fact, basic or essential skills of thinking can be discerned
from the body of research to date. Examples of basic or essential
thinking skills are found in Figure 1, drawn from the work of Bloom
and Guilford and designed by Presseisen (1985) and in Figure 2,


13
CAUSATION establishing cause and effect, assessment:
Predictions
Inferences
Judgments
Evaluations
TRANSFORMATIONS relating known to unknown characteristics,
creating meanings:
Analogies
Metaphors
Logical inductions
RELATIONSHIPS detecting regular operations:
Parts and wholes, patterns
Analysis and synthesis
Sequences and order
Logical deductions
CLASSIFICATION determining common qualities:
Similarities and differences
Grouping and sorting, comparisons
Either/or distinctions
QUALIFICATIONS finding unique characteristics:
Units of basic identity
Definitions, facts
Problem/task recognition
FIGURE 1 A Model of Thinking Skills: Basic Processes
Source: Barbara Z. Presseisen, "Thinking Skills: Meanings and
Models," Developing Minds (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-
sion and Curriculum Development, 1985, p.45). Used with permission.


14
Level I: The Discrete Skills of Thinking
This category includes individual, discrete mental skills that
are prerequisite to more complex thought, such as:
1. Input of data:
Gathering data through the senses (listening, observing,
smelling, tasting, and feeling)
0 Being alert to problems, discrepancies, and dilemmas
Being fascinated by the environment
2. Elaborating (processing) the data:
Comparing/contrasting
0 Analyzing/synthesizing
0 Classifying/categorizing
Inducing/deducing
Perceiving relationships (temporal, analogous, seriational,
spatial, hierarchical, syllogistic, transitive, symbolic)
3. Output of the products of elaboration:
0 Inferring
Hypothesizing
Predicting/forecasting/extrapol ating
0 Concluding/generalizi ng/summari zi ng
Evaluating
Level II: Strategies of Thinking
This category involves the linkage of the discrete skills to
strategies. People employ these tactics when faced with situations
to which the resolution or answers are not immediately known:
Problem-solving
Critical thinking
Decision-making
Strategic reasoning
Logic
Level III: Creative Thinking
These are the behaviors'of novelty and insight. We use them to
create new thought patterns, unique products, and innovative solu-
tions to problems. Because they are so idiosyncratic, they are
difficult to define and reproduce. It is believed, however, that
with properly designed instruction, they can be developed:
Creativity
0 Fluency
Metaphorical thinking
Complexi ty
Intuition
Model making
Insight
Imagery
FIGURE 2 Toward A Hierarchy of Thinking Skills, Strategies
and Creativity.
Source adapted from: Arthur L. Costa, "The Behaviors of
Intelligence," Developing Minds (Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 1985,
pp.67-68.) Used witn permission.


15
designed by Costa (1985), which represents a graphic conceptualiza-
tion of the work of several writers/researchers presented in Devel-
oping Minds.
In addition to considerations of which essential thinking skills
will be taught, there are assumptions related to how the information
(instruction) will be presented and what subject matter(s) the think-
ing skills and processes will be related to (what areas will more
likely facilitate transfer). These are important areas of decision-
making for the educator and were of considerable importance in the
development of the Explore Curriculum.
To summarize, some writers and researchers who have addressed the
teaching of thinking, have indicated certain strategies can be
employed in the various models or approaches to the teaching of,
about, and for, thinking to facilitate the development of students'
thinking ski 11s/processes. These strategies for instruction were
categorized in Developing Minds (Costa, 1985) as:
Directive strategies which help students acquire and
retain important facts, ideas, and skills.
Mediative strategies which help develop reasoning, con-
cepts, and problem-solving processes.
0 Generative strategies which help students develop new
solutions, insights, and creativity.
Collaborative strategies which help students learn to
relate to each other and work cooperatively in groups
(p.139).
Costa, Hanson, Silver and Strong (Costa, 1985) noted that, "A
strategy is appropriate when it stimulates, elicits, and models a
form of thinking that the teacher seeks to encourage" (p.181).


16
If the teacher is informed about and capable of instruction of
those skills and strategies, and is involved in the application of a
model or framework designed to assist in the delivery of thinking
skills and strategies, one might infer that the learners receiving
the benefits of that instruction will demonstrate effective intellec-
tual behavior.
Delimitations of the Study
This study involved test groups of fourth grade students enrolled
in test site elementary schools in School District Number Twelve,
Adams County, Colorado. The study also involved the teachers of the
fourth grade students at the test site schools. These teachers
received instruction in the content and delivery of the Grade Four
Explore Curriculum (Thinking Skills/Social Studies/Science). Students
and their teachers at control sites (elementary schools) in Adams
County School District Twelve were also involved in the study. These
classroom units were selected, at both test and control sites, based
upon specific criteria (see Chapter 4). The criteria were applied in
an attempt to reduce effects of extreme mobility of student popula-
tion and non-availability of classrooms on a random basis.
Li mi tati ons
Several limitations existed related to this study. These limita-
tions undoubtedly impacted the outcomes of the study, but those
affects could not be determined by the researcher.
1. The study involved one school district. The extent to which the
results are generalizable is uncertain. Nevertheless, the dis-
trict is typical of other school districts in several respects.


17
2. The study was not a true randomized experiment, hence inference
must be justified by nonstatistical arguments (Edgington, 1980).
3. The teachers involved in the pilot of the curriculum framework
(experimental curriculum) were volunteers and agreed to partici-
pate in staff development experiences related to the curriculum.
However, their participation in preparation to teach the curricu-
lum varied in duration of training time.
4. Because of the small sample of experimental classes, a single
teacher had impact upon results.
5. It was assumed that the experimental curriculum was taught by
teachers in the experimental classrooms.
6. The researcher-designed instrument used to measure attitude
toward science and social studies possessed face validity only.
Definitions
These definitions will be utilized in the review of research
presented in Chapter 2 of this dissertation and in the description of
the curriculum framework tested in this study and described in
Chapter 3.
CLASSIFY: To sort into clusters, objects, events, or people
according to their common elements, factors, or characteristics.
Includes giving that cluster a label that communicates those
essential characteristics.
COGNITION: Related to the various thinking processes characteris-
tic of human intelligence.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST: To examine objects in order to note attri-
butes that make them similar and different. To contrast is to set


18
objects in oppostion to each other or to compare them by emphasizing
their differences.
DECISION-MAKING: The process leading to the selection of one of
several options after consideration of facts or ideas, possible
alternatives, probable consequences, and personal values.
GROUP: To assemble objects according to a unifying relationship
or critical attribute.
HEURISTIC: A general strategy or "rule of thumb" that is used to
solve problems and make decisions. While it doesn't always produce a
correct answer, it is usually a helpful aid. ("Look before you leap"
as an example.)
INDUCE (INDUCTIVE REASONING): To combine one or more assumptions
or hypotheses with available information to reach a tentative
conclusion. Reaching a rule, conclusion, or principle by inference
from particular facts. Opposite of deduce (deductive reasoning).
INFER: To arrive at a conclusion that evidence, facts, or
admissions point toward but do not absolutely establish; to draw
tentative conclusions from incomplete data. Inferring is the result
of making an evaluation or judgment in the absence of one or more
relevant facts. Inference requires supposition and leads to
prediction.
METACOGNITION: Consciousness of one's own thinking processes.
PROBLEM SOLVE: To define or describe a problem, determine the
desired outcome, select possible solutions, choose strategies, test
trial solutions, evaluate the outcome, and revise these steps where
necessary.


19
TEST GENERALIZATIONS: To determine whether or not declarations,
conclusions, or systematically organized bodies of knowledge (pre-
pared by others) are justified and acceptable on the basis of accur-
acy and relationship to relevant data.
THINKING: The mental manipulation of sensory input to formulate
thoughts, reason about, or judge.
Convergent thinking: Thinking that requires a single answer
to a question or problem. (Compare
with divergent thinking.)
Creative thinking: The act of being able to produce along
new and original lines.
Critical thinking: Using basic thinking processes to ana-
lyze arguments and generate insight into
particular meanings and interpreta-
tions; also known as directed thinking.
Divergent thinking: The kind of thinking required to gener-
ate many different responses to the
same question or problem. (Compare with
convergent thinking.)
Outline of the Dissertation
The remainder of this dissertation is organized as follows:
Chapter 2: A Review of the Literature
Chapter 3: The Explore Curriculum
Chapter 4: Methodology and Procedures of Evaluation
Chapter 5: Analysis of the Data
Chapter 6: Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This review of the literature provides further support for the
study. The work of cognitive psychologists, philosophers, education-
al psychologists and educational theorists and practitioners is
reviewed to determine the nature of conscious thinking and its
relationship to learning, and to identify efforts to provide for the
purposeful teaching of thinking. Cognition, the nature of thinking
processes characteristic of human intelligence, has interested cogni-
tive psychologists and philosophers for many, many years. Numerous
studies were identified in the literature that focused upon the
nature of cognition and of intelligence. However, the literature of
primary significance for this study is drawn largely from the fields
of educational psychology, and educational theory and practice.
Therefore, studies were reviewed which focused on the teaching of
thinking. This delimited the number of reviews cited. The work of
certain cognitive psychologists and philosophers is cited if that
work has influenced the teaching of thinking.
Efforts by educators to comply with admonitions from boards of
education and committees representing varied interests at national,
state, and local levels to teach students to think have resulted in
dialogue, debate and much writing focused on what that means for the
learner (and teacher) and how thinking might be taught.
The Nature of Conscious Thinking
There appears to be some agreement that thinking is a cognitive
process, the mental operations by which individuals attempt to con-
struct meaning, or make sense of experience. This process may be


21
conscious or unconscious (Beyer, 1987; Presseisen, 1985; Nickerson,
Perkins & Smith, 1985; Dewey, 1933; McPeck, 1981; and Glatthorn &
Baron, 1985).
This study was concerned with conscious thinking. This focus
was important because conscious, intentional and directed thinking
can be influenced by instruction, and thus lies within the domain of
educati on.
The acts or processes of conscious thinking were delineated by
numerous scholars although there was not a clear-cut agreement upon
the specific processes or particular elements of these processes,
i.e., the skills of thinking. Considering thinking as a skilled
behavior was acceptable to several writers in the field (Nickerson,
Perkins & Smith, 1985; Bartlett, 1958; Paul, 1984; de Bono, 1984;
Nickerson, 1984; Beyer, 1987; Perkins, 1986; & Jackson, 1986).
McPeck (1981) and Cornbleth (1985) take exception to the view that
thinking, in particular critical thinking, can be identified and
taught through a formula of skills or steps to follow.
Sternberg (1981) stated that, "Intelligence consists of a set of
developed thinking and learning skills used in academic and everyday
problem-solving11 (p.18). He presented a list of nine such skills:
1. Problem identification
2. Process selection
3. Representation selection
4. Strategy selection
5. Processing allocation
6. Solution monitoring
7. Sensitivity to feedback
8. Translation of Feedback into an action plan, and
9. Implementation of the plan (pp.18-19).
Sternberg concluded his discussion of the skills necessary for
adaptive task performance by stating that, "Intelligence can usefully


22
be viewed as a set of thinking and learning skills, that potentially
at least, can be separately diagnosed and taught" (p.20).
Worsham and Stockton (1986) pointed out that the reader can be
overwhelmed by the data in the literature on the teaching of
thinking. They suggested that those working in the field need to
agree on definitions and offered those which they utilized in their
model for teaching thinking. They defined conscious thinking as "The
mental manipulation of sensory perceptions to formulate thoughts,
knowledge, reasons, or judgments" (p.9). They described two
categories of thinking: critical and creative. The first has to do
with utilizing sensory input to construct meaning and interpretations
while the latter involves many processes which result in original
products or aesthetic ideas. Further, they specified two complex
thinking processes (decision-making and problem-solving) which
involve the use of specific thinking skills. In summary they stated:
Thinking skills then, are processes used by the
learner to operate more effectively at various thinking
levels. They are not the same for each learner. That
is, learners do not all use the same steps to accomplish
a task. However, there are some skills that are basic
and common to most curriculum tasks (for example, gath-
ering information, finding the main idea, determining
meaning) (p.ll).
Their view is similar to that Beyer offered in Practical Strate-
gies for the Teaching of Thinking (1987). He suggested while educa-
tors, cognitive psychologists, philosophers and others have identi-
fied a long list of cognitive skills and strategies that can and
should be taught, his research led him to offer a list of thinking
processes "... that seem to cut across a wide variety of subject
areas and disciplines and that are often included in inventories of


23
thinking operations for teaching" (p.26). He declared these to be the
mental operations most frequently used by individuals when they
think. Figure 3 presents these operations. Beyer's representation
of skills and strategies is very much like that presented in Chapter
1, Figure 2.
While critical and creative thinking are frequently described by
cognitive psychologists and educators as different types of thinking,
Marzano and his associates (1988) argued that they should be consid-
ered cognitive processes comparable to problem solving and decision
making. They are the way thinking processes are carried out. These
researchers suggested that highly creative thinking is often highly
critical and vice-versa. They stated:
We have discussed critical and creative thinking
in the classroom together rather than separately
to stress that they are complementary and that
both are necessary to attain any worthy goal.
Both can and should be taught in the context of
regular academic instruction (p.28).
Nickerson (1981) suggested that any programmatic effort to
teach thinking should include four focus areas, or as he referred to
them, objectives: abilities, methods, knowledge, and attitudes. He
described them as follows:
The term abilities is intended to connote
specific things one might want students to be able to
do. Methods refers to the structured ways of
approaching tasks and subsumes the notions of
strategies, procedures, and heuristics. Knowledge
refers to facts, concepts or principles that one might
want students to adopt. Attitudes include the habit
of making use of tools and knowledge useful on
cognitively demanding tasks. They are not easy to
teach and may be best acquired by example (pp.21,24).


24
I. THINKING STRATEGIES
Problem Sol ving
1. Recognize a problem
2. Represent the problem
3. Devise/choose solution
pi an
4. Execute the plan
5. Evaluate the solution
Decision Making
1. Define the goal
2. Identify alternatives
3. Analyze alternatives
4. Rank alternatives
5. Judge highest-ranked
alternatives
6. Choose "best" alternatives
Conceptualizing
1. Identify examples
2. Identify common attributes
3. Classify attributes
4. Interrelate categories of attributes
5. Identify additional examples/nonexamples
6. Modify concept attributes/structure
II. CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
1. Distinguishing between verifiable facts and value claims
2. Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information,
claims, or reasons
3. Determining the factual accuracy of a statement
4. Determining the credibility of a source
5. Identifying ambiguous claims or arguments
6. Identifying unstated assumptions
7. Detecting bias
8. Identifying logical fallacies
9. Recognizing logical inconsistencies in a line
of reasoning
10. Determining the strength of an argument or claim
III. MICRO-THINKING SKILLS
1. Recall
2. Translation
3. Interpretation
4. Extrapolation
5. Application
6. Analysis (compare, contrast,
classify, seriate, etc.)
7. Synthesis
8. Evaluation
Reasoning
Inductive
Deductive
Analogical
FIGURE 3 Major Cognitive Operations
Source: Barry K. Beyer, Practical Strategies for the Teaching of
Thinking, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1987, p.44). Used with
permission.


25
In his work with Perkins and Smith (1985), Nickerson expanded
upon certain of these focus areas. For example, the interdependence
of knowledge and thinking skills was discussed at some length.
Several investigators were cited as those who have emphasized the
importance of knowledge in the performance of intellectually demand-
ing tasks (e.g., Greeno, 1980; Hayes, 1980; Goldstein and Papert,
1977; Simon, 1980). This view has also been supported by McPeck
(1981); Cornbleth (1985); and Chall & Wittrock (1981).
This aspect of the review of literature was related to defining
thinking and identifying characteristics of conscious thinking. It
identified diverse perspectives of the nature of thinking as
described by cognitive psychologists, educators, and philosophers.
Generally, four types or categories of thinking were described: crit-
ical (also referred to as analytic, deductive, rigorous, constrained,
convergent, and formal); creative (labeled in addition, as synthetic,
inductive, expansive, unconstrained, divergent, informal, and
diffuse); skills (micro or basic, such as observing, noting similari-
ties and differences); and strategies (problem-solving,
decision-making, etc.). While there was less uniformity among inves-
tigators regarding specific strategies or processes and skills of
thinking, many writers agreed that there are processes and skills of
thinking and that instruction in these skills and strategies is poss-
ible and desirable. Notable among writers who presented this conten-
tion in their research were Costa (1985); Hanson, Silver & Strong
(1985); Beyer (1987); Paul (1985); Seiger-Ehrenberg (1985); Perkins
(1985); Sternberg (1985); Meeker (1985); deBono (1985); Feuerstein


(1985); Lipman (1985); Whimbey (1985); and Marzano, et al. (1988).
The Relationship of Thinking and Learning
26
If it is accepted that thinking is carried on consciously by all
individuals, that thinking is viewed as including complex cognitive
processes which in turn entail particular mental skills, and that
these skills and processes are exhibited through the behavior of the
individual as he or she approaches tasks, problems, or opportunities,
then thinking can be observed to be more or less effective. That is,
thinkers can be observed performing (as thinkers) in a qualitative
manner (Glatthorn and Baron, 1985).
This proposition gives rise to the question of the teachability
of thinking. Even though certain investigators differed in their
views regarding specific characteristics of thinking, most of the
investigators referred to in this review agreed that the thinker's
effectiveness will likely be improved through instruction in the
operations involved in thinking.
Nickerson, Perkins & Smith (1985) offered an interesting
statement concerning the proposition that thinking (like processes
and skills in the psyco-motor domain) can be taught.
The assumption that thinking skills can be taught,
if they cannot, should, at worst, lead to unsuccessful
attempts to teach them. In time the futility of the
quest would become apparent, and the only loss would be
the effort that had been devoted to the task. But
suppose we reject the assumption that thinking skills
can be taught when in fact it is true. How profound
might be the consequences of failing to attempt to teach
what obviously should be taught (pp.59-60).


27
Many writers acknowledged that the teaching of thinking is the
teaching of skills and processes designed to enhance conscious,
categorical thinking, i.e. critical and creative thinking in particu-
lar. The teaching of skills and processes constitutes the major
aspect to be considered by educators who propose that thinking is
learned behavior and can be taught. This assumption that the teaching
of thinking is possible forms the basis upon which most thinking
skills programs are constructed. Figure 4 identifies such programs.
However, certain of these programs are based not only on the
assumption that the processes and skills of thinking can be (and
should be) taught, but that in order for such teaching "to take",
other considerations must be met. Hart argued in 1986 that schools
are "brain incompatible" (p.47). Costa (1981) cited several studies
which pointed out the effects of teacher behaviors which seem to sup-
port (or detract from) intellectual growth in students. These studies
offered evidence that thinking effectively is learned and the learn-
ing environment can contribute to that learning. Brandt (1984)
referred to the importance of creating school and classroom condi-
tions that are conducive to thinking as teaching FOR thinking.
Further support of these positions is described by Resnick and
Klopfer in their recent overview for the 1989 ASCD yearbook. They
identify the themes of the publication and thus of recent cognitive
research to be, "...the centrality of knowledge in learning; the
close link between [thinking] skill and content that it enjoins; the
indivisibility of cognition and motivation; the need to shape dispo-
sitions for thinking; and the concept of cognitive apprenticeship"
(p.ll).


28
Examples of Thinking Skills Programs
BASICS, Sydelle Seiger-Ehrenberg and Lyle M. Ehrenberg
(based on Hilda Taba)
Building Thinking Skills, John D. Baker
Creative Problem Solving, Sidney J. Parnes (based on
Alex F. Osborn)
Future Problem Solving, E. Paul Torrance (based on
Osborn and Parnes)
Great Books, The Great Books Foundation
Instrumental Enrichment, Reuven Feuerstein
Learning to Learn, Marcia Heiman and Joshua Slomianko
Odyssey: A Curriculum for Thinking, Harvard University
researchers; Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.; and the
Venezuelan Ministry of Education
Philosophy for Children, Matthew Lipman
Project Impact, S. Lee Winocur
Strategic Reasoning, John J. Glade and Howard Citron
Structure of the Intellect, Mary N. Meeker (based on
Guil ford)
TACTICS, Robert J. Marzano and Daisy E. Arredondo
Teaching Decision Making with Guided Design,
Charles E. Wales
The California Writing Project, Carol Booth Olson,
Di rector
The CoRT Thinking Program, Edward deBono
FIGURE 4 Examples of Thinking Skills Programs


29
Metacognition
Learning how to learn is an aspect of thinking referred to as
metacognative instruction. "Metacognition refers to one's knowledge
concerning one's own cognitive processes and products" (Flavell,
1976, p.232). Presseisen (1987) provided additional clarification of
metacognition.
Metacognitive thinking has two main dimensions. The
first is task oriented and relates to monitoring the
actual performance of a skill. The second dimension is
strategic; it involves using a skill in a particular
circumstance and being aware of getting the most inform-
ative feedback from carrying out a particular strategy
(p.31).
Figure 6 illustrates these aspects of metacognitive thinking.
METACOGNITION^^
Monitoring Task Selecting and Understanding
Performance Appropriate Strategies
0 keeping place, sequence organizing work, following focusing attention on what i s needed
0 directing and correcting errors relating what is already known to material to be 1 earned
0 pacing of work 0 testing the correctness of a strategy
0 greater accuracy of performance / in thinking J
more powerful ability thinking processes to complete various
FIGURE 5 A Model of Metacognitive Thinking Skills
Source: Barbara Z. Presseisen, Thinking Skills Throughout the Cur-
riculurn, (Bloomington, IN: Pi Lamda Theta, Inc., 1987, p.32). Used
with permission.


30
Learning to Learn
Marzano and Arredondo (1986) developed a program which focused
upon a model originally set forth by Marzano that categorized think-
ing skills as: (1) learning to learn skills; (2) content thinking
skills; and (3) basic reasoning skills. Marzano (1986), cited learn-
ing strategy programs (e.g. McCombs, 1984) which include components
of attention training, goal setting, cognitive restructuring, and
self-evaluation. Attention training refers to teaching students to
recognize when they are and when they are not attending to a learning
task. The purpose is to afford the learner a sense of control over
the learning situation. Similarly, goal setting aims at helping
learners establish short-term learning goals and thereby gain control
and self-motivation through goal achievement. Affirmations--positive
statements related to self and a learning task--and mediation--either
talking to oneself or others about one's approach to a learning
task--are the character!' sties of cognitive restructuring.
Self-evaluation is another aspect of learning to learn and concerns
acquiring planning and monitoring techniques.
The metacognitive and learning to learn processes are similar,
and for both the purpose is to enable learners to think about think-
ing and gain understanding (self-awareness) and control of the cogni-
tive skills and processes they are learning and applying (Bondy,
1984).
The Purposeful Teaching of Thinking
Issues in the teaching of thinking revolve around the questions
of how and where thinking should be included in the school curricu-


31
lum. Some experts promoted establishing separate courses for the
teaching of cognitive and metacognitive processes and skills. Exam-
ples of the approach are Instrumental Enrichment, Strategic Reason-
ing, The CoRT Thinking Program, Philosophy for Children, Future Prob-
lem Solving, Teaching Decision Making with Guided Design, Odyssey,
Creative Problem Solving, and Building Thinking Skills. However, not
all experts in the field of cognition, and certainly not all educa-
tors, believe that "stand alone" programs are, or can be, especially
effective. Swartz, of the University of Massachusetts at Boston,
where the Critical and Creative Thinking Program was developed
(1984), stated that it is unnecessary and unwise, from a learning
theory perspective, to introduce a new course to teach thinking.
"Perhaps the best approach is to introduce critical thinking into the
existing curriculum--make it part of existing courses. Certainly, to
introduce critical thinking as a separate course without making it
part of the rest of the curriculum sends a mixed message to students"
(p.10). Beyer (1984b) concurred:
Research suggests that skills taught in isolation from
subject matter are not likely to transfer easily to
other situations where they can be used productively.
Research also suggests that skills taught in isolation
from one another are not likely to become functional.
Furthermore, research suggests that massed practice of
skills is not as effective in promoting learning as
intermittent practice and reinforcement over a long
period of time. Thus, the research that has been con-
ducted seems to argue for sequential instruction in
thinking skills across all subject areas and throughout
all grades, K-12. Few such curricula exist, but they
should be developed (p.21).
There are few published accounts of attempts to infuse the
direct instruction of thinking skills and processes with the instruc-
tion of content area knowledge and procedures.


32
The results of White's and Alexander's study (1984) indicated
that intermediate level students taught by direct instruction to use
specific steps in working through analogy problems significantly
improved in their ability to solve analogies.
Barhydt (1983) described a unit to teach reasoning and problem
solving skills which provided instruction to help children develop a
systematic approach to problem identification, to gather and analyze
data, arrive at inferences and keep from jumping to conclusions.
However, no data were offered in the report to support that the
fourth grade students to whom the unit was presented demonstrated
improved problem solving abilities.
In 1982 Cook and Dossey conducted an investigation of the rela-
tive efficacy of two approaches to teaching basic multiplication
facts to third graders. Support was indicated for what the investi-
gators termed the thinking strategies approach. Students instructed
in specific strategies for learning basic multiplication facts demon-
strated greater competency on facts tests than did students who did
not receive such instruction. Results also indicated it was possible
to train teachers in the instruction of the strategies in two days of
inservice.
FitzGerald (1972) studied the effects of productive thinking
instruction in two content areas: language arts and geography.
The primary question addressed was how this instruction affected
verbal productive thinking by teachers and their pupils. FitzGerald
reported: pupils in all classes followed (modeled) the cognitive
style of their teachers; an increase in productive thinking in


33
language arts lessons, but not in geography lessons; only a slight
affect of subject content on cognitive style; productive thinking
instruction in language arts did not significantly increase the
quantity and quality of students' written responses; that productive
thinking instruction in geography significantly increased the quanti-
ty, b'ut not the quality, of written responses; and that teachers
providing this instruction increased the quantity and quality of
their written responses. She noted that there was 5.5 percent more
productive thinking in language arts than in geography. Since the
study involved only three teachers, the conclusions are tentative.
Kendall and Mason (1982) reviewed metacognitive research and,
based on their review, stated that the current importance of metacog-
nition and learning, (especially related to learning to read) was due
to the more precise descriptions that have been developed regarding
metacognition. Furthermore, they summarized the review by suggesting
that researchers have provided evidence that modeling, or explicitly
teaching various metacognitive strategies, did improve students' com-
prehension. However, they also indicated that teachers should not
require children to demonstrate their conscious awareness of their
comprehension-monitoring strategies. This latter statement is in
disagreement with the recommendations of Flavell, Presseisen, Marzano
and Arredondo and Bondy.
Wollaston's dissertation (1980) focused on "A Study of Concept
Formation Changes Using a Non-Majors College Chemistry Course."
Wollaston's study assumed that the principal objectives of formal
education are the teaching of basic concepts that enable individuals
to function in our society, and teaching that concepts can be changed


34
on the basis of new knowledge and experience. An additional assump-
tion underlying the study was that before problem solving can occur,
the student must acquire an understanding of the concepts in a scien-
tific context. The Explore Curriculum also assumes that conceptual
understandings are key to learning in all areas, especially the
sciences. Wollaston's study investigated the structural form of
students' initial framing of concepts and their ability to learn new
ones. Subjects comprising the study were primarily elementary educa-
tion majors enrolled in a course in basic chemistry as a part of a
natural science requirement. Wollaston investigated the existing
conceptual structure in a student's memory for key words to ascertain
if the words were related to concept formation abilities and achieve-
ment in terms of the usage of the identified concepts for selected
science concepts in an instructional treatment. A word association
test was used to examine the existing concept structure in a stu-
dent's memory. (The word test consisted of a list of major concepts
from the instructional treatment). Wollaston found that performance
on the treatment achievement test was not related to the total number
of word responses given to the stimulus concept. He also examined
the question whether cognitive structure was defined by word associa-
tion responses and if that structure is measured by an achievement
test. He concluded that the assessments measured two different
cognitive structures. An interesting feature of the study was the
implication of the difficulty of assessing cognitive structure.
In 1966 the late Hilda Taba presented her report on the Coopera-
tive Research Project No. 2404, Teaching Strategies and Cognitive
Functioning in Elementary School Children, which she had conducted.


35
The study was actually the second which she and her colleagues
conducted based on an assumption about teaching cognitive
ski 11s--namely that appropriate teaching strategies can lead students
to master the abstract and symbolic forms of thought much earlier and
more systematically than could be expected if this development were
left solely to the accidents of experience or to less appropriate
strategies. The question which the study set out to answer was how
instructional strategies and the curriculum might accelerate the
development of abstract and symbolically mediated thought. The study
required translating theoretical precepts into appropriate teaching
strategies, training teachers in these strategies, and examinating
their impact on the development of children's thinking. After
reviewing the literature on strategies of thinking, Taba concluded
that the studies suggested a new teaching strategy and a new role for
the teacher. The new role she suggested was that of stimulating
cognitive processes. The theoretical assumptions about thinking that
governed the study were that thinking can be learned, and it can
therefore be taught. Several postulates about thinking were present-
ed, and to implement the postulates the concept of cognitive tasks
was devised. The study focused on three cognitive tasks: (1) concept
formation; (2) generalizing and inferring through interpretation of
raw data; and (3) the application of known principles and facts to
explain and predict new phenomena. The sample involved fourth,
fifth, and sixth-grade students from 20 schools in the San Francisco
Bay area. Taba's observations of the study included the following
statements:


36
The most important observation that can be made
from the data collected in this study is the centrality
and power of the teacher's role in initiating cognitive
operations and determining which kinds are open to
students .... The impact of curriculum guides that
supply either relatively meager or relatively rigid
guidance for teachers will be less [than desired]. This
conclusion reinforces the general impression that unless
teaching methods consistent with the innovative curricu-
lum are used in the classroom, that curriculum becomes
diluted, misused, and ineffectual (p.228).
Taba's summary of her study provided the impetus for future
studies related to the teaching of thinking. In fact, her work has
provided significant background for the development of the instruc-
tional strategies and curriculum upon which this dissertation is
based. Taba (1966) suggested that developing the cognitive potential
of learners was central to education and that children can learn more
and on a more mature intellectual level than they did if they were
redirected from mastering information preprocessed by others and
focused on mastering the systematic intellectual skills of processing
the information themselves. She stated, "... Any information lead-
ing to the development of more adequate skills of reasoning and of
inquiry is a useful contribution" (p.220).
Bereiter (1984) reviewed a variety of approaches for teaching
thinking and identified two that were not likely to work and a third
that was likely to work. The first was to teach thinking as "enrich-
ment" and the second was to teach thinking as subject matter. The
first was likely to fail, according to Bereiter, because it was seen
as something that was "added on" as if it were a separate curriculum
area. The difficulty with the second approach was that the practice
of thinking requires content if students are to transfer the use of
the knowledge to areas of study, i.e., areas of conscious


37
thinking. He suggested that a third approach was possible and
desirable. He refered to this as the "pervasive" approach meaning
that it was possible to pervade the curriculum with intellectual
process so that the teaching of thinking was an important component
of every school activity. He stated that models for teaching existed
that would allow for the teaching of thinking as well as increasing
the learning of subject matter and academic skills.
Joyce (1985) compared models of teaching, thinking skills, and
curriculum, and stated that the cognitive development and conceptual
models were specifically designed to facilitate cognitive growth.
He went on to report that all of the models he cited contributed
heavily to general growth in thinking ability. He also suggested
that if students were to be taught how to think and learn in a
certain way, according to a model, a program (curriculum) must be
established that was used on a regular basis.
The teaching of thinking requires a commitment to
solid instruction in the models of teaching that engen-
der those types of thinking and the willingness to per-
sist until students become effective in their use.
Thinking strategies are most effectively taught in con-
junction with appropriate content (p.7).
Solomon (1987) declared that the aims and content of social
studies were such that the advancement of thinking skills ought to be
an important focus. He described two general categories of thinking
that may be emphasized in elementary social studies: general problem
solving which he stated involves "thinking about one's thinking;" and
specific types of intellectual tasks: comprehending information,
solving specific problems, investigating or researching topics,
communicating with others, and making decisions.


38
Summary of Review of Related Literature
The literature cited in this chapter provided an examination of
the perceptions of the nature of cognition, thinking and knowing,
from philosophers (like John McPeck) psychologists (such as Robert
Sternberg) and educators (represented by, among others, Art Costa,
Berry Beyer and Robert Marzano) who indicated a reasonable generali-
zation to be that thinking--at least conscious, purposeful thought--
consists of skilled behavior that is learned. Further, the litera-
ture indicated that specific processes (such as problem solving) and
skills of thinking (for example observing and classifying) could be
taught. Finally, there was evidence to be drawn from the research
presented which suggested that the coupling of instruction in content
areas and thinking skills and processes should be incorporated in a
curricular program that was offered to students at all grades/ages.
Marzano, Brandt, Hughes, Jones, Presseisen, Rankin, & Suhor
(1988) stated: "Content instruction should be strongly linked with
instruction in thinking"(p.129).
The views and research of these and other authors reviewed in
this dissertation supported the purpose of the study. The curriculum
and instructional strategies which form the program of study in the
Explore Curriculum (Thinking Skills, Science and Social Studies),
being applied as the test curriculum in this research study, were
based upon the models of concept formation, concept attainment, group
investigation and scientific inquiry drawn largely from the research
of Taba (1964, 1966); Ehrenbergs (1982); Costa (1985); and Beyer
(1987).


CHAPTER 3
THE EXPLORE CURRICULUM
Theoretical Base
The review of the literature presented in Chapter 2 provided
support for a curriculum framework designed to operationalize princi-
ples related to the teaching of thinking. Thus, the development of
the curriculum framework was predicated upon assumptions related to
the teaching of thinking and, in addition, to assumptions pertaining
to content selection and to instructional strategies.
Particular assumptions that motivated the development of the
Explore Curriculum were that:
Skills and strategies which comprise thinking can be
i denti fied.
Such skills and strategies are learned and can be
taught. That is, there are cognitive processes, skills,
and strategies which are teachable.
A systematic introduction to these processes, skills and
strategies in the learning environment is desirable.
Systematic (planned), direct assistance in the acquisi-
tion of thinking skills, processes and strategies can be
facilitated through the application of a curriculum
framework and instructional techniques designed for such
purposes.
A relationship exists between the content selected for
investigation or study and the thinking skills, process-
es, and strategies called into operation in order for
the student to construct meaning about that content.


40
There is a sense of order to the acquisition of thinking
skills and a maturation and expansion of the individ-
ual's cognitive schema. Less complex cognitive skills
and processes support, or prepare one for the learning
of more complex strategies.
Subject area content and teaching strategies were examined,
selected, and recommended in light of their relationships to the
cognitive development of students. The likelihood that certain
content and teaching/! earning procedures facilitate and enhance the
acquisition and application of specific cognitive (thinking) skills
and strategies was a major premise underlying the curriculum develop-
ment.
The experimental curriculum, Explore, the focal point of
this study, incorporates the content areas of science (life/biologi-
cal, earth, physical), and the social studies, (especially geography,
history, and sociology) in integrative lessons which exemplify the
similar operations, such as methods of investigation, and complemen-
tary learnings, notably concepts, in the fields of study.
The study conducted in 1964 by Taba, Levine, and Elzey, Thinking
in Elementary School Children set forth a rationale for conceptualiz-
ing the processes of thinking and identified major strategies for
teaching thinking. In that study the effects of planned teaching
strategies on the development of children's thinking were examined in
a normal classroom setting. Taba's 1966 study, Teaching Strategies
and Cognitive Functioning in Elementary School Children extended and
modified the rationale of the 1964 study. Models of teaching strate-
gies and findings from the first study were used as training models


41
in the second. Taba was also interested in the relationship between
process and content. In each of these studies she sought to verify
this relationship.
Taba's 1966 study was based upon certain assumptions about the
nature of thinking and the interactions of the strategies to promote
thoughtfulness in the classroom. Some of these assumptions included:
1. Thinking was perceived as something which can
be taught, provided that the specific processes
and skills comprising it are identified, and
among those, the skills and processes that can
be enhanced by systematic assistance are dis-
tinguished. It was further assumed that this
systematic assistance required both a curricu-
lum and teaching strategies designed for this
purpose.
2. Thinking was perceived as an active transaction
between the individual and the data in the pro-
gram.
3. The processes of thought evolve by lawful
sequence. . Further, the development of
thought, understood in this way, is not linear
in the sense of simply adding increments, but
represents qualitative transformations in which
the organizing schema as well as the modes of
operation are altered.
4. Thought can be studied as both a psychological
phenomena and a logical system (pp.34-35).
In order to implement these and other assumptions, the concept
of cognitive tasks was developed. Taba's 1966 study focused on three
cognitive tasks, the development of which could be examined under
"optimal conditions." The optimal conditions for Taba and her
associates included the implementation of a curriculum designed to
emphasize inductive development of basic ideas which would provide
systemic opportunities for students to practice the skills involved
in the three cognitive tasks. In addition, two other conditions were
deemed optimal: the use of teaching strategies explicitly focused on


42
mastery of cognitive skills, and provision for adequate time for the
students to undergo a development sequence. (This was more a devel-
opment in learning to cope with specific cognitive tasks than an age
development.)
The cognitive tasks identified for the 1966 study were concept
formation, generalizing and inferring through interpretation of raw
data, and the application of known principles and facts to explain
and predict new phenomena. Taba noted that these tasks did not
necessarily encompass all processes of thought. They excluded, for
example, critical and evaluative thinking per se.
Criterion measures used by Taba to secure data on application of
thought processes were two paper and pencil tests and a system of
coding verbal interaction in the classroom. A standardized social
studies achievement test was also utilized in the 1966 study.
Taba considered the study, ". .modest indeed, compared to the
scope of the work that remains to be done" (p.232). Certainly, since
that study, much has been undertaken in the fields of cognitive and
educational psychology to promote understanding of areas Taba indi-
cated needed further study. Her recommendations for further study
were to: examine the effect of a greater number of variables affect-
ing teaching strategies; study the relationship between general
ability and level of thinking; utilize longitudinal studies that
would help determine the nature of the transformations hinted at in
her studies; conduct an analysis of the levels of cognitive opera-
tions and a simultaneous analysis of the level and the validity of
the content of the inferences, generalizations, predictions, and


43
hypotheses; and, conduct investigations of the processes by which
forms of thought are produced, not only their nature.
The development of the experimental curriculum, Explore, was
influenced by the work of Taba and her associates. In addition, the
initial design was strongly influenced by the Ehrenbergs in the
development of the BASICS Thinking/Learning Strategies (1982), a
program designed to prepare teachers to:
1. Analyze any curriculum. .and determine which
level of learning it requires students to
achieve--FACT, CONCEPT, PRINCIPLE, ATTITUDE, or
SKILL.
2. Develop and implement lesson plans which guide
students through the appropriate thinking/
learning strategy for each type of learn-
ing. .(and which help them develop skill in
the use of prerequisite thinking/1earning
strategies).
3. Make consistent application by a) regularly
analyzing/classifying learning objectives in
your own particular curriculum and developing/
implementing appropriate thi nki ng/1earning
strategy plans for their achievement by
students;. ." (p.l).
Overview of the Explore Curriculum
The Explore Curriculum identifies in a K-6 scope, a set of
thinking skills and strategies, and more complex thought processes,
which were considered by the developers to be necessary for the
student to become successful in content study, i.e., achieve the
level of learning anticipated. This scope is reflected in Figure 6.
The thinking skills are taught by teachers and utilized by stu-
dents as appropriate (necessary) for the study undertaken in science
and social studies at each grade level. The more complex processes,
for example, concept formation, require extensive focus and repeated
application within the domains of the content fields. The thinking


EXPLORE CURRICULUM
INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOME
As a result of using thinking skills and strategies, and relevant study skills, and by applying scientific
inquiry, K-6 students will develop an understanding of the ORDERLINESS, DIVERSITY, RELATIONSHIPS, and
CHANGES that exist/occur and are created in the natural world and in human experience. Further, they will
learn the thinking processes to enable them to make intelligent, responsible decisions/choices/judgments/
plans in the light of each understanding.
GRADE BY GRADE LEARNING FOCUS
Grades K-l Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
Become proficient
in the use of
thinking skills
for gathering in-
formation, i.e.,
Observing
*Retrieving
*Questioning
Apply to a vari-
ety of objects,
events, places,
etc.in nature
and i n own
experience.
Become proficient
in the use of
thinking skills
for organizing
information, i.e.,
Comparing
Contrasting
*Grouping
*C1assifying
Apply to a varie-
ty of objects,
events, etc. in
nature and in
own experience.
Become proficient in the use of
thinking strategies for developing
concepts and in scientif i c inquiry
Develop under-
standing of the
ORDERLINESS
(consistency,
pattern)
Develop under-
standing of
the DIVERSITY
(variety,
uniqueness)
Become proficient
thinking strategi
ing cause-effect
and in scientific
Develop under-
standing of the
RELATIONSHIPS
(i nteractions,
connections)
in the use of
es for develop-
generalization
inquiry
Develop under-
standing of the
CHANGES
(development,
growth)
that exist or are created:
*IN LIVING THINGS
*IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
*IN COMMUNITIES OF PEOPLE AND OTHER LIVING THINGS
- Learn to apply thinking processes in order to make reasoned deci-
sions, choices, judgments, plans in the light of each understanding.
- Develop awareness of occupations and avocations in which people
develop and/or use understanding of living things, the natural
environment, and communities.
FIGURE 6 Source: Sydelle Seiger-Ehrenberg and School District No.12, Adams County, Colorado. 1984


45
skills involved in concept formation are taught directly and content
investigations are intended to assist the student in the development
of relevant content-related concepts. Concept formation is the par-
ticular thinking strategy focus at grades three and four, the only
grade levels currently involved with the experimental curriculum.
The framework is structured for the development of casual relation-
ships (cause-effect) at grades five and six and problem-solving and
decision-making processes are taught throughout K-6, with qualitative
and quantitative distinctions.
Particular thinking skills, referred to by Beyer (1987) as
micro-thinking skills, and by the Ehrenbergs (1982) as prerequisite
thinking skills, or enabling skills, are to be taught by teachers and
practiced by teachers and students throughout the grades. The units
of study in grades three and four focus on concept formation and
concept extension. These thinking strategies require the application
of these prerequisite thinking skills: observing, retrieving, group-
ing and labeling, identifying similarities and differences, and
generalizing. The methodology outlined for the development of
concepts follows, by-and-1arge, an inductive learning mode. The
process, therefore, begins with examples of the concept and proceeds
to the development of a generalization, rather than beginning with a
generalization, the definition, and proving it with examples. The
rationale for this procedure was set forth by Klausmeier (1985), and
Ehrenberg and Ehrenberg (1982).
Each unit of study in the Explore Curriculum focuses instruction
on the formation of particular concepts. Thus, students are taught
the concept formation processes and begin the development of selected


46
concepts. The over-riding organizational process of the entire
curriculum is that of scientific inquiry, which means searching for
reasons or answers and predicting why something might be so. It
incorporates all other processes, i.e., problem-solving, decision-
making, conceptualization, critical thinking, and the core thinking
skills (focusing, information gathering, remembering, organizing,
analyzing, generating, integrating, and evaluating) as defined by
Marzano, et.al. (1988).
The program is implemented by staff members who have received
instruction in the thinking skills and processes to be taught,
instructional practices such as questioning techniques designed to
promote various student learning behaviors and the use of cooperative
learning procedures, scientific inquiry, and inductive learning pro-
cesses.
Structure and Major Content of the Explore Curriculum
Figure 7 illustrates the broad scope of the thinking skills and
content presentation of the curriculum framework at grade four. The
content was selected primarily for the opportunity it held for the
learner to apply thinking skills and strategies and apply the scien-
tific inquiry process. Interest for the learner constituted another
criterion considered in the selection of content. The identification
of thinking skills, strategies and processes as a continuum preceded
the selection of content in this curriculum, but the selection of
content was purposeful. It was selected carefully in support of the
contention that some content more appropriate than other content
for students to study, that is, it is more likely to: assist the
development of particular skills; provide a conceptual framework for


SCIENCE/SOCIAL STUDIES/THINKING STRATEGIES CURRICULUM
GRADE FOUR INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOME
Students will use thinking strategies and other relevant skills to develop and act on an understanding of
the following:
"There is DIVERSITY (variety, uniqueness) within the order that exists in nature and human experience.
Because this is so, we cannot over-generalize and need to look for and see the value in the unique
qualities of each person, thing, place, and experience."
"By investigating to find answers to questions, we have found evidence of diversity in the following:"
LIVING THINGS
- There are many types of plants and
animals, each having distinctive
characteristics.
- Each individual plant or animal
has distinctive characteristics
which make it unique.
- Each human being has distinctive
characteristics which make that
person unique.
- Each career or avocation dealing
with living things has a
particular focus and requires
particular qualifications.
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
- Each of the planets in our
solar system has distinctive
features.
- There are many different
forces that act on the
physical features in the
natural environments on earth.
- There are many different
natural environments on earth,
each with distinctive features
and supporting particular
forms of 1i fe.
- Each career or avocation
dealing with the natural
environment has a particular
focus and requires particular
quali fications.
COMMUNITIES OF PEOPLE AND
OTHER LIVING THINGS
- There are many different communi-
ties of people living on earth,
having their own environment,
their own unique ways of doing
things (culture) and their own
history.
- Our country is made up of differ-
ent regions, each having its own
distinctive character!-sties.
- Our state is made up of a variety
of communities and people from
many cultural groups.
- Each career or avocation having
to do with communities has a
particular focus and requires
particular qualifications.
FIGURE 7 Source: School District No.12, Adams County, Colorado. 1985


48
the area of study; and, develop learning-to-learn techniques. This
position was supported by Parker in his evaluation of the curriculum
in July, 1987. That report appears in Appendix B of this disserta-
tion.
The particular thinking skills and processes and the specific
subject area content taught in grade four are outlined in Figure 8.
The content areas, described in the left hand column, identify the
type of investigation that will take place. Students will attempt to
determine answers to the content-questions, such as, How do living
things differ as a result of differences in the natural environment?
In order for students to investigate such a question, certain cogni-
tive skills are required. Those skills are identified in the right
hand column and are taught to students. If these are necessary
skills for such investigation, they must be taught. It is not
assumed students "just know how to think," but they are helped to
think more effectively.
Certain questions arise in the minds of many individuals when
discussions of the teaching of thinking or learning-to-learn
approaches are presented. Similarly, questions arise about the
direct instruction of skills and strategies via an inductive pro-
cess. Will students learn facts, possess information, be informed?
How can direct instruction and student investigation proceed in the
same classroom? This curriculum framework proposes that a balance of
directed lessons with multi-task activities will assist students in
the acquisition of thinking skills and strategies which can be
actively applied in the development of concepts and application of
processes, such as problem-solving. This balance between teacher-


49
direction and student inquiry is delicate and received a great deal
of attention in the staff development program related to this
curriculum implementation. In addition, the framework structures
such experiences. The instructional lesson design is presented
below. This format is based upon the "scientific way of learning" to
which students are introduced at the beginning of the school year.
This design supports the concept development strategy suggested by
Erhenberg (1982).
Instructional Design Explore Curriculum
Principle: ORDERLINESS IN LIVING THINGS (A principle is a relation-
ship between two, or among more than two, concepts.)
Key Concept: Living Things (A concept is the name or label given
for a particular set of character!'sties or attributes that give mean-
ing to a thing or idea/abstraction.)
Main Idea: Needs of Living Things (Main idea is a major aspect of
the concept. The main idea identifies some critical characteristic/
attribute of the concept.)
Focus Question: What are the common needs of plants? (A question that
promotes investigation related to the main idea. An example is
given.)
Intended Learning Outcome: (A statement of what learning is expected
to be accomplished by all students.)
Teacher Background Information: (Information for the teacher related
to the particular content to be addressed in order to achieve the
main idea, and therefore, that aspect of the concept.)


50
EXPLORE CURRICULUM SPECIFIC CONCEPTS AND THINKING SKILLS/PROCESSES
FOURTH GRADE
These: Diversity
INTRODUCTORY LESSON: Eipphasizing scientific way of learning--lessons on different
kinds of research/forming hypothesis.
Current Concepts Thinking Introduced
LIVING THINGS UNIT
- Differences in characteristics of groups
of animals
- Differences in characteristics of groups
of pi ants
- Advantages of diversity in characteris-
tics of pi ants/animals
- Differences between/among famililies of
pi ants/animals
- Reasons for differences in individual
piants/animals
- Careers/Avocations dealing with living
things
ENVIRONMENT UNIT
- How the Earth's environment differs from
each of the other planets in the solar
system
- The special characteristics of Earth's
environment that make it possible for
life to exist.
- What are the different physical features
which shape the natural environment?
- Different natural events that change
physical features and kinds of forces
they produce.
- What's different about the physical
characteristics of the physical features
of the Earth's environment?
- How do living things differ as a result
of the differences in natural environ-
ments?
COMMUNITIES
- What are the differences in characteris-
tics of human communities?
- What are the factors that account for the
different characteristics?
- How have communities of people adapted to
or altered the factors that create
different communities?
- What makes Rocky Mountain Region differ-
ent from another region?
- How are lives of people different in the
Rocky Mountain Region from other regions?
- What are the characteristics of a state?
- What's true of Colorado that makes it
different from other states?
- How do the unique characteristics of
Colorado affect its citizens?
These processes (conceptualizing,
decision-making and research) are further
refined at grade four.
These supportive thinking strategies are
reinforced at grade four. They are:
- Predicting
- Hypothesizing
- Identifying attributes
- Identifying relationships and
patterns
- Generlizing and Concluding
These skills support the thinking strate-
gies listed above:
- Recalling
- Observing
- Grouping and Labeling
- Classifying
- Comparing and Contrasting
- Noting Similarities and Differences
- Retrieving
- Questioning
These skills are applied throughout the
investigations in the units of study.

FIGURE 8 Source: School District No.12, Adams County, Colorado. 1988


51
Thinking Skills: (Identified lessons to diagnose and instruct stu-
dents in the thinking skills needed for this part of the unit.)
Teaching Sequence: (This is the order of presentation of the learning
cycle, which also corresponds with the scientific way of learning
steps.)
1. Opener (The criterion for the opener is that the activity/approach
must relate to the focus question. That is, the purpose is to
draw students into the content.)
Purpose for the opener:
- Motivation
- Prepare teacher and students
- Diagnosis/prescription
- Relate past student experiences to the new learning
- Transition from one learning to another
- Hypothesizing (That is to allow students to project reasons
for certain phenomena based upon their prior knowledge--
to offer an explanation for some specified event or
given.)
- Predicting (That is to allow students to suggest, without
precision or calculation or prior knowledge, what might be
so--from a limited knowledge base.)
Development of the Learning: (Criterion for the selection of
approaches/1essons/activities to develop the learning includes a
direct relationship of content and thinking skills; and affords
experiential possibilities for students.)


52
Questioning will be critical at this point. This represents the
second step of the scientific way of learning and the "what do I need
to know" phase of the learning cycle.
- Students could pose a question or questions that they want
to investigate related to the focus question. This should
be a natural result of the opener.
- Teacher could identify a question or questions that they
want students to investigate.
- Teacher and students could identify a question or questions
for investigation, related to the focus question.
2. Hypothesizing
- Have students give a reason for what they think might happen
in the investigation.
- Encourage students to come up with a possible answer to a
question that they want to investigate.
3. Investigative Strategies for the Collection of Information:
- Reading
- Research Process
- Experiences
- Scientific investigations/experiments
- Media
- Use of computer technology
4. Strategies for Organizing Results of Investigation: (Criteria for
organizing strategies: activities should address a variety of
strategies; strategies must be repeated in order for the learner
to master a strategy; strategies should provide for interpreting/
reading the information, as from a chart, graph, map, or table;


53
and all strategies must be accompanied with a written or verbal
explanation that provides for the generalization of the learning)
Examples include:
- Retrieval chart
- Outlines
- Webbing
- Graphs
- Di agrams
- Tables
- Logs and Journals
- Narrative descriptions
- Charts
- Audio-visual representations
- Maps
5. Strategies for Interpreting/Analyzing Results of Information Gath-
ering and Organizing Steps Questioning strategies initiated by
the teacher which help students understand the meaning of the
information gathered are critical at this step. In organizing
data, students and teacher have pulled individual pieces of infor-
mation apart and displayed them--put in order--in some way. In
analysis, students must be helped to pull the data together in
order to be able to form a generalization or conclusion about the
information.
6. Strategies for Generalizing/Concluding
- Questioning strategies for the purpose of synthesizing
- Discussions
- Teacher and student interactions
- Student and student interactions


54


- Written and/or oral statement of the generalization or con-
clusion that students make on the basis of the information
gathered IS CRITICAL AT THIS STEP. This will be the state-
ment of the learning.
Evaluation/Confirmation of Learning This is the application of the
learning. The use of new and different materials and settings are
appropriate, but these must relate to the focus question. Students
must demonstrate the generalization of the learning.
Figure 9 represents another way of illustrating the design of
the instructional methodology.
"Covering the content" is an expression often repeated by teach-
ers. Facts, or basic knowledge as such information might be con-
sidered, are frequently seen as that which "knowing something" is all
about. The information explosion--the tremendous increase in the
amount of information generated by society--precludes any individual
being able to master more than a fraction of the facts in any field
of study. In addition, much of what was accepted at one time as
fact, is challenged or invalidated by new knowledge. Robert Stern-
berg is quoted in Beyer's work, Practical Strategies for the
Teaching of Thinking, as saying:
Bodies of knowledge are important, of course,
but they often become outdated. Thinking skills
never become outdated. To the contrary, they
enable us to acquire knowledge and to reason with
it, regardless of the time or place or the kinds of
knowledge to which they're applied (p.4).
This statement reflects the rationale of the Explore Curriculum.


55
FIGURE 9
Source: Kelley, T.D. (1985, April). A Teacher Looks at Distancing.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American.Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.


CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES OF EVALUATION
The problem of this study was to determine the effect of the
direct instruction of thinking skills on the ability of students to
apply those skills on non-content specific tasks and their ability to
apply those skills in science and social studies related tasks. In
this chapter the research design applied in the evaluation of the
effects of the implementation of the grade-four Explore Thinking
Skil1s/Science/Social Studies Curriculum is described and the proced-
ures which constituted the implementation of the design are identi-
fied. The chapter is organized in these sections:
1) an identification of curriculum implementation procedures;
2) a description of the research methodology and design;
3) the selection of subjects;
4) the selection of evaluation instruments;
5) data collection techniques;
6) data processing and analysis.
Overview
The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of
the Explore Curriculum at grade-four in terms of student learning
of certain thinking skills and strategies, and of content understand-
ings in science and social studies. The thinking skills, strategies,
and processes, and content knowledge presented in the curriculum were
identified in Chapter 3. The evaluation of curriculum effectiveness
focused on the application of identified skills, strategies, and
content understandings by students exposed to the curriculum as


57
compared to the application of those skills and understandings by
students who did not utilize the same curriculum, but who did receive
traditional instruction in science and social studies at grade-four.
Curriculum Implementation
The curriculum is currently in the second year of application in
School District No. Twelve, Adams County, Colorado. During the 1986-
1987 school year, 26 teachers at grade-four participated in present-
ing a limited number of lessons (sub-units) from the curriculum, in
what was referred to as the field test. At the conclusion of that
school year, these teachers offered suggestions for improving the
curriculum design--to make it more usable--from their perspectives.
In the 1987-1988 school year, additional teachers were involved
with the introduction of the curriculum to additional grade-four
students. A total of 44 teachers participated in this phase,
referred to as the pilot. Not all students and teachers at grade-
four were introduced to the curriculum in this school year. The
curriculum included the completed units from the pilot phase.
Therefore, all units of the curriculum were available to participat-
ing teachers, not just a few lessons as in the field test stage.
There are 24 elementary schools in the school district. Of
these, 18 were involved in the pilot of the Explore Curriculum at
grade-four.
Each principal at the elementary level and each grade four
teacher received an invitation to participate in the pilot of the
Explore Curriculum that was set for the 1987-1988 school year.
Teachers at the grade level and the building administrator were asked


58
to agree to become involved in the pilot of the curriculum. As indi-
cated 44 teachers and their principals responded in the affirmative
to this invitation. An element of choice by participants was intro-
duced into the process and thereby added another variable to the
study.
Table 1 presents the data on inservice participation by teachers
who piloted the Explore Curriculum. Forty-six hours of staff
development sessions were available to assist teachers with the
implementation of the curriculum. In addition, the services of
resource teachers (six classroom teachers who received peer coaching
preparation and demonstrated an understanding of the philosophy and
methodology of the curriculum) were available. These teachers were
provided some released time from their classrooms to work with their
colleagues in the implementation of the curriculum at the field test
and pilot stages. All staff involved in the pilot were required to
participate in a minimum of eight hours of staff development prepara-
tion. Additional inservice was optional; however, of the 44 teachers
involved in the pilot, 34 participated in more than the required
eight hours of inservice.
Research Methodology and Design
The quasi-experimental research approach, as described by Camp-
bell and Stanley (1963), was applied in this study. Lacking the
ability to randomize students to experimental and control conditions,
a true experimental research study was not possible. However, the
setting allowed for the application of the nonequivalent control
group design (Campbell and Stanley, 1963) or, as described by Isaac
and Michael (1984), the nonrandomized, control-group, pretest-


59
posttest design. The design may be indicated in this fashion:
Control Independent Dependent
Variables Variable Variables
0 0 0 - X 0 0 0
0 0 0 C 0 0 0
Campbell and Stanley (1963) discuss the instances in which
respondents are self-selected, that is the experimental group having
sought the treatment, but no control subjects were available from the
TABLE 1
EXPLORE Inservice Participation
Grade-Four Teachers
Hours of Inservice Available = 46
Total Number of Participants = 44
T
E
A
C
H
E
R
S
Mean = 26.36 hrs.
Median = 24 hours
Mode = 46 hours
HOURS


60
population of seekers. Although this design is weaker than the one
in which the researcher has a free choice in selecting subjects,
these writers state that the "self-selected" design
. .does provide information which in many instances
would rule out the hypothesis that X has an effect. The
control group, even if widely divergent in method of
recruitment and in mean level, assists in the interpre-
tation (p.50).
Due to the nature of the curriculum development and implementa-
tion design in effect in the school district, experimental subjects
could not be assigned randomly from the grade-four population to the
experimental and control groups. Therefore, procedures were employed
to minimize the dissimilarity of the groups, and these will be
explained in the section on selection of subjects.
The Isaac and Michael reference (1984) substantiated that in
order to observe changes in behavior, "It is first necessary to
establish baseline data against which to make meaningful comparisons"
(p.88). In this study the Test of Cognitive Skills (TCS) and the
science and social studies sections of the Comprehensive Tests of
Basic Skills (CTBS) were utilized as control variables and to provide
baseline (pretest) data for the experimental and control groups.
These served as covariants when an analysis of covariance was
applied. Mean scores on the CTBS and on the Cognitive Skills Index
were the comparative statistics.
The dependent variables examined in the study were: (1) the
degree of the application of the cognitive (thinking) skills, and (2)
the knowledge of content-specific information and skills. Instru-
ments were designed and/or selected for the assessment of these
variables.


61
Isaac and Michael (1984) also informed the prospective
researcher that,
Research design has two basic purposes: first and most
obvious, to provide answers to research questions and
second, to control variance (variability)(p.80).
The control of the extraneous variance--effects of variables
that might influence the outcome, but aren't objects of the study--is
critical to experimental, or as in this case, quasi-experimental
design.
A way to build in such control is to include the extraneous
variables in the design as if they were independent variables. This
has been done in this study. Teacher training, preparation to pre-
sent the experimental curriculum, and socioeconomic status of the
students at the test and control sites, were recognized as extraneous
variables. By including them in the design and statistical analysis,
control was heightened and additional information about their affect
on the dependent variables and possible interactions with other
variables, for example, gender, was possible. The variables were
evaluated with respect to the treatment effects at grade four.
Campbell and Stanley (1963) cautioned that:
Where controls are lacking in a quasi-experiment, one
must, in interpreting the results, consider in detail
the likelihood of uncontrolled factors accounting for
the results. The more implausible this becomes, the
more "valid" the experiement (p.36).
Another method of control for extraneous variables is statisti-
cal and is inherent in all research design. The statistical proced-
ures utilized in this study are described in the section on data
processing and analysis.


62
Another ancillary variable which could have influenced the out-
comes of the study was the volunteer/non-volunteer status of experi-
mental and control teachers. This refers to the element of choice by
teachers to participate in the pilot of the curriculum. Although
this self-selected aspect of the study might limit interpretation of
results, procedures to compensate for the differences between the
groups, experimental and control, were undertaken. These procedures
will be described in the section dealing with selection of subjects.
The two research hypotheses advanced in Chapter 1 of the disser-
tation were:
- The students who received direct instruction of thinking
skills (the independent variable) in conjunction with subject
area study in social studies and science will demonstrate a
higher level of performance on The Assessment of Cognitive
Skills battery (a dependent variable) than will students who
did not receive direct instruction of thinking skills infused
with subject area study.
- The students who received direct instruction of thinking
skills (the independent variable) in conjunction with subject
area study in social studies and science will demonstrate a
higher level of performance on the social studies and science
sections of the CTBS (a dependent variable) than will those
students who did not receive direct instruction of thinking
skills infused with subject area study.


63
Selection of Subjects
The experimental unit in this study was the classroom group, but
the individual students' scores were the observation unit (Hopkins,
1982). As Addleman (1970) noted:
The experimental unit is that entity that is allocated
to a treatment 'independently' of other entities. It
may contain several observational units (p.1,095).
Grade-four classrooms of students in School District No. Twelve,
Adams County, Colorado comprised the experimentally accessable popu-
lation from which the test and control subjects were selected for
this study. Certain constraints prevented a random selection of the
classrooms to be compared. Specific factors entered into the selec-
tion of classrooms to serve as experimental and control groups and
are described in this section.
As displayed in Table 2, attempts were made by the researcher to
identify classrooms in which the experimental and control groups were
similar in terms of mean scores, on the CTBS and the TCS administered
to the students as third graders in March, 1987. This procedure
provided a method to adjust for preexisting differences among groups.
(These test scores provided baseline data and served as covariants in
an analysis of covariance.)
These scores indicated that the experimental and control
subjects displayed quite similar abilities at the end of the third
grade when assessed using the instruments cited. These pretreatment
scores were used as covariants in the statistical analysis, as
previously stated. Twenty-nine tests were misplaced at the district
office of testing and evaluation.


64
TABLE 2
Baseline Data: Experimental and Control Groups
MEAN SCORES
Grade 3 CTBS*
Groups
Science
Mean N
Social Studies
Mean N
Experimental 52.604 (144) 53.248 (149)
Control 53.522 (134) 54.169 (130)
* Form U, Level E
** Level 1
Grade 3 TCS**
(Cognitive
Skills Index)
Mean
N
108.489 (147)
110.085 (129)
As previously stated, of the 24 elementary schools in the dis-
trict, only six were not involved with the pilot of the curriculum.
Therefore, the identification of control classrooms was limited to
one-fourth of the grade-four classes. One experimental school and
one control school were excluded from consideration in the study as
each was a school opened in the fall of 1987, and the grade three
CTBS and TCS scores were not readily available for the students who
entered these schools as fourth graders. These factors limited the
scope of the study as well as the ability of the researcher to util-
ize random selection of classroom units.
Other factors which limited the scope of the study, that is
limited the number of classrooms involved, were the ability of the
researcher to administer the Assessment of Cognitive Skills instru-
ment and the CTBS science and social studies sections to a number of
classrooms within a reasonable period of time, and the costs of the


65
CTBS. One school was involved in the field test of the Assessment of
Cognitive Skills and, therefore, could not be included in the study.
Finally, the researcher decided to administer the evaluation instru-
ments to two classrooms of students per experimental and control
site. This decision removed those schools with a single grade-four
class from the study.
Given these selection conditions, eight schools were identified
to be included in the study, four experimental and four control. Two
classrooms of grade-four students at each site were administered the
evaluation instruments. If more than two grade four classes existed
at an experimental or control site, the researcher arbitrarily
selected the two classrooms of students to be evaluated.
At the beginning of the 1987-88 school year, 200 students were
enrolled in the experimental classrooms and 206 students were
enrolled in the control classrooms. Students who entered the
experimental and control classrooms during the year were included in
the study only if grade three TCS and CTBS data were available. The
actual number of subjects for whom complete grade three data were
available was 149 experimental subjects and 134 control subjects.
This resulted in a total number of 283 subjects.
These students were similar as a population drawn from the total
school district population and the school district population was
typical of those in any mid-sized, middle class, suburban school
district. The student population was 20,649. There were 1,598 grade
four students. The ethnic make-up of the school district included:
American Indians or Alaskan Natives; Asians or Pacific Islanders;


66
Blacks, Hispanics; and Whites. The largest group in the population
was White, not of Hispanic origin, and the largest minority group in
the population was Hispanic. The population of the fourth grade
represented this make-up in proportion to the total population.
In the 1987-88 school year, the district mean and standard
deviation on the TCS and the CTBS administered at grade three were:
TCS, mean 102.5/no standard deviation score available (n_ = 1384).
CTBS total battery: mean 51.7/standard deviation 16.9 (n_ = 1484).
Instrumentation
Achievement tests, the CTBS, were given annually to students in
grades three, six, nine, and eleven. CTBS scores were utilized to
determine if test subjects performed at least as well as control
subjects on the content knowledge and skills evaluated via the CTBS.
Form U, Level F of the CTBS Science and Social Studies Tests, copy-
right 1981, were administered. This test, Form U, Level F, is the
next level of assessment to follow the test (Form U, Level E) which
the subjects took as third graders. The test publishers reported that
the two test levels are complementary. Performances on each section
were compared for experimental units and observation units. Mean
scores were utilized in the comparison.
The CTBS, Forms U and V items, were written to both content
categories and broad process classifications. The content categories
were determined by examining state and school district curriculum
guides, published tests, instructional programs and criterion-
references instruments. The process classifications were derived in
part from Bloom's taxonomy. The CTBS Technical Report described the


67
procedures used to determine reliability and validity of the
individual test levels and presented the statistical data on the
tests.
The TCS Technical Report manual reported that the process for
the item selection for the TCS involved the application of Item
Response Theory and the implementation of a three-parameter statisti-
cal model that took into account item discrimination, difficulty, and
guessing. Those items with the best overall statistical quality that
also met the established content criteria were chosen for the
Standardized Edition. For more information about the specific
statistical procedures used in the item selection for the TCS and the
CTBS, the reader is referred to the CTBS Technical Report and to the
TCS Technical Report. The TCS, which the subjects were administered
in grade three, addressed these cognitive skills: sequence, which
involves analysis and recognition of a rule or pattern; memory, which
assesses ability to recall; analogies, which measures recognition of
concrete and abstract relationships and classification by attributes;
and, verbal reasoning, which assesses the ability to discern
relationships and reason logically. There was a correlation between
the skills evaluated via the TCS and the skills inherent in the
Explore Curriculurn--the treatment (Refer to Figure 8, page 52). But,
the researcher determined that another level (level 2) of the TCS
would not allow the subjects to demonstrate the ability to apply the
additional types of cognitive skills inherent in the Explore Curricu-
lum, as described in Chapter 3. Therefore, in order to assess the
ability of students to apply certain cognitive (thinking) skills


68
inherent in the test curriculum, an instrument was assembled that
focused on evaluation of students1 performance on these skills and
strategies:
- Information processing/organizing skills, specifically,
observing, questioning (to determine "best" data), comparing,
contrasting, and grouping;
- Concept formation and elaboration skills such as noting sim-
ilarities and differences, concluding, classifying, and gen-
eralizing; and,
- Inductive strategies of inferring attributes and inferring
meani ng.
These skills and strategies were presented repeatedly throughout
the curriculum and were selected for evaluation over some less
frequently presented cognitive skills.
Many instruments were reviewed for content which correlated with
that of the thinking processes and skills taught via the experimental
curriculum. In addition, the available instruments were examined to
determine what criterion measures had been utilized by the test
developer in producing the items, and finally, the construct validity
of the instrument was of major importance, as the researcher sought
to determine if subjects were reflecting application of thinking
ski 11s/strategies and not other attributes such as intelligence.
Two instruments were found to assess certain cognitive skills
(thinking skills) contained in the Explore Curriculum and identified
to be evaluated. These were acceptable for use by students in the
intermediate grades, grades four, five and six. Permission was
granted by the developers of these instruments to utilize portions of


69
each in the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery prepared as part
of this research study.
The Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes developed by John
D. Ross and Catherine M. Ross was one such instrument. The authors
stated that the test may be utilized for different purposes, one of
which was assessing the effectiveness of a special program or cur-
riculum dealing with cognitive skills. Another purpose was to assess
individual students' higher-level thinking skills.
Technical data related to reliability and validity of the Ross
Test are included in the manual. The test was normed on samples of
527 gifted and 610 non-gifted students attending public schools in
nine districts in the state of Washington.
Construct validity for the Ross Test was determined by
correlation of total score with students' chronological ages (age
differentiation), group differentiation (gifted vs. non-gifted), and
correlation with an intelligence test. The age-differentiation
method of construct validity showed the test to be related to
chronological age. Additionally, a study was made comparing
students' performance on the Ross Test with the Lorge-Thorndike
Intelligence Test to (1) investigate the relationship of higher-level
thinking skills to intelligence, and to (2) ascertain if the Ross
Test was a test of general intelligence. The obtained correlation
coefficient of r = .397 for mean IQ score and mean score on the Ross
Test for non-gifted students, indicated that a statistically signifi-
cant relationship may exist between IQ and use of higher-level
thinking skills in the regular student population of the intermediate
grades. However, this correlation indicated a relevant relationship,


70
but it did not indicate that IQ and ability to apply higher cognitive
processes are the same thing. The obtained correlation coefficient
of r = .156, for mean IQ scores and mean test scores for gifted
students, did not attain significance and suggested the existence of
only a limited relationship between IQ and higher-level thinking
skills for gifted students at the intermediate grade levels. The
researchers concluded, "Summarily, these results indicate that the
Ross Test is not a test of general intelligence" (Ross & Ross, 1976,
p.22). The construct validity measure was important for this study
as an intelligence test was not desired but rather an instrument was
required that had been determined valid to assess the application of
specific cognitive skills. Because this study was not concerned with
norms, the appropriate sections of the Ross Test could be utilized
(as opposed to the application of the entire instrument).
The Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests developed as a
result of a project begun under the leadership of Harry H. Harman
resulted in the production of 72 factor-referenced cognitive tests
for 23 aptitude factors. In 1976 Ekstrom, French and Harman, with
Dermen, updated, modified, and extended the 1963 Kit of cognitive
tests. The current Kit was reprinted in 1987 by Educational Testing
Service.
In revising this set of cognitive tests, the researchers
accepted as valid only those factors (abilities) for which the
construct underlying it had been found in at least three factor
analyses performed in at least two different laboratories or by two
different investigators. Thus, the construct validity of the tests


71
were heightened. Validation and reliability statistics are presented
i n the test manual.
The data cited in the manual for the establishment of the fac-
tors (elements) and for the selection of marker (cognitive) tests,
were drawn both from the research literature and from the field
experiments in the research project which led to the 1976 revision of
the Kit. The data were based on the use of adolescent or adult
subjects. Certain of the tests have been used with students at grade
six. The researchers suggest that the cognitive structure associated
with younger persons was different from that of adults, usually being
more simple or general in form.
A part of this difference may be caused by
difficulty in reading or fully understanding the test
directions and items. . Except for tests that are
verbally complex or dependent on reading, it is possible
that many of these tests can be used with younger
children by having the examiner read the directions
aloud (pp.7-8).
That strategy was followed by this researcher in the administra-
tion of the sections of the Assessment of Cognitive Skills instrument
which included tests from the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive
Tests. These tests which were age-appropriate and correlated with
skills and strategies from the Explore Curriculum being evaluated
were selected for use in this study.
Not all learnings presented in the Explore Curriculum were
included in the instruments selected or designed for this study.
Time available for student evaluation limited the scope of the
assessment, therefore, key skills of thinking were identified by the
researcher from the curriculum and assessment items identified to
assess those skills.


72
The particular items selected from the Ross Test and from the
Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests and the relationship of
those items to the thinking skills, strategies and processes of the
Explore Curriculum evaluated in this study are illustrated in Table
3. In addition, Table 4 identifies the science and social studies
content correlation between the CTBS and the Explore Curriculum.
These tables provide information which illustrates that the content
of the instruments used in this study, The Assessment of Cognitive
Skills Battery, derived from the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive
Tests and the Ross Test, and the CTBS science and social studies
sections, sample the content of the Explore Curriculum.
Field Test of the Assessment of Cognitive Skills
The instrument that was developed to assess cognitive (thinking)
skills application by grade-four students was field tested in a
classroom setting which included 30 students. The purposes of the
field test were to ascertain that grade-four students could read and
comprehend the items, that directions were understood by students,
and that estimated time allocations for each section of the test were
reasonable. The researcher administered the field test instrument to
grade-four students as a classroom unit. This field test of the cog-
nitive skills instrument did allow the researcher to note faulty, or
insufficient general directions for the test situation, as well as
difficulties with specific instructions. During the field test it
was also noted when students were ready for a break (rest) from the
test and how well the recommended time allocations (per section)
matched the working rate of the students. The commentary gathered by
the researcher was utilized to modify directions to be given by the


TABLE 3
Correlation of Explore curriculum content with items drawn from the Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes and the Kit of
Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests.
Explore
Thinking Skills, Strategies, Processes
- Recalling*
- Observing*
- Grouping and Labeling*
- Classifying*
- Comparing and Contrasting*
- Noting similarities and
di fferences*
- Questioning*
- Hypothesizing*
- Identifying attributes*
- Identifying relationships
and patterns*
- Generalizing and concluding*
- Induction
- Conceptualizing*
- Scientific inquiry (research)
- Decision making*
- Problem solving
Items (Sections) Drawn from the
Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes
Three of the sections of this test
correlated with Explore. Items selec-
ted measured the ability to:
- Observe*
- Identify attributes*
- Identify relationships*
- Classify and pattern*
- Generalize and conclude*
- Conceptuali ze*
- Question*
- Hypothesi ze*
- Deci si on making*
Cognitive Tests Drawn from the
Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests
Tests to assess the factor of induction
were selected. This factor identifies
the kinds of reasoning abilities in-
volved in forming and trying out hypoth-
eses that will fit a set of data. The
particular test utilized assessed:
- Observing*
- Noting similarities and differences*
- Identifying attributes*
- Comparing and contrasting*
- Concluding*
Tests to assess the ability to evaluate
the correctness of a conclusion were
selected. The particular test utilized
assessed:
- Recalling*
- Classifying*
- Identifying relationships*
- Generali zi ng*
- Conceptualizing*
The third broad category (factor) selec-
ted was flexibility of use. The particu-
lar test utilized assessed:
- Grouping and labeling*
- Identifying relationships*
- Identifying attributes*
- Generalizing* ^
co
*Skills/processes evaluated via
Assessment of Cognitive Skills instrument


TABLE 4
Correlation of Explore curriculum content with CTBS science and social studies sections.
Explore
Science Content/Skills
Characteristics of animals
Characteristics of plants
Diversity in plants and
animals
Reasons for differences in
individual piants/animals
Environmental character-
i sties
Characteristics of Earth
and the other planets in
the Solar System
Physical features
Natural events that create
forces
Differences of living things
in different.environments
Careers/avocations
Scientific inquiry
1 CTBS
Science Content/Skill s*
Items 7,11,14,15,33,36,38
Items 1,12,16,17,18,34,35,
39,40
Items 30, 31
0
Item 3 (see also social
studies items 13, 14, 18)
Items 8, 24, 27, 29
(See also social studies
regions)
Items 13, 23
0
0
Items 6, 22, 37
/ Explore
Social Studies Content/Skills
- Characteristics of regions
- Characteristics of human
communities
- Characteristics of states
- Characteristics of the
Rocky Mountain region and
of Colorado
- Map/globe/charts/graphs
use
- Careers/avocations
- Decision-making
*40 items in this section
/ CTBS
Social Studies Content/Skill s*
Item 2
Items 15, 16, 17, 19
0
Items 37, 38
Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 23, 24,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35
0
Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
*40 items in this section


75
test administrators, some vocabulary used in the test, and to set
time recommendations for each section of the test. This information
became part of a script developed by the researcher which was
followed during the test administration (in the study).
Data Collection
During the assessment of test and control subjects, the same
testing procedures were applied to both groups. Students were
informed that they were participating in an assessment of understand-
ings held by grade-four students of certain knowledge and skills
related to science and social studies and of other skills used when
people study in these and other subject areas. Students were advised
that this evaluation included fourth grade students from several
schools in the school district. Test administrators, who were
certified teachers, utilized the same script in providing this
information and test instructions to students. The experimental and
control subjects (not identified as such to teachers or students)
were assured that no grades would be taken on this assessment and
that individual scores would not be reported to their teachers. They
were urged to be thoughtful in providing answers.
The researcher estimated that an eight-day block of time should
be allowed for the assessment procedures. That would provide for
testing to occur within a reasonably close timeframe for all class-
rooms and would allow the researcher and three trained test admini-
strators to administer all tests to the experimental and control
groups, thereby maintaining integrity in the conditions of the
testing procedures.


76
Teachers were advised of the test date and time a week in
advance. (This week's notification was requested by building
principals.) Teachers were asked to advise their students, only one
day in advance of the test date, that another teacher would be with
them the next day and that they would be involved in activities
different from the usual daily events. Neither teachers nor
administrators had access to the evaluation instruments.
Data Processing and Analysis
The research hypotheses tested by this study are directional,
therefore, one-tailed tests of the null hypotheses were performed.
They were tested for significance at the p = .05 level. A three
factor analysis of variance, with two levels for each (E and C),
which utilized the pretreatment measures as covariants was applied to
test the hypotheses. The analysis of covariance is a particularly
useful statistical method suitable for analysis of studies in which
the researcher is unable to select experimental and control subjects
at random and, therefore, was employed in this study. Analysis of
covariance was applied to adjust for initial differences between the
experimental and control groups and for the correlation between
means. This statistical procedure allowed for the comparison of the
groups on all variables. Groups were equated statistically by using
the TCS and CTB5 (Grade 3) as covariants.
The statistical computations were performed by using these
statistical programs from the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSSX, 1986): Frequencies; (to verify input of raw data);
T-Test (to compare pretest and posttest mean change scores); Analysis
of Variance (to test for significant differences between groups,


77
genders, and for interaction effects) and Analysis of Covariance.
Pearson correlations were made between two different variables on
some of the data such as subject area (science, social studies) and
gender. The Missing Values command was applied in all situations.
This command assured that only those scores that reflected a complet-
ed test would be entered into total scores and sets of data. If a
part or section of a test was not complete, the subject's score was
not entered into class or group totals. The reliability of the Grade
Four Assessment of Cognitive Skills was calculated by using
Cronbach's Alpha (SPSSX, Inc. p.857).


CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This study focused on the effect of the direct instruction of a
specific curriculum, which emphasized the teaching of thinking skills
in conjunction with science and social studies contents, on the
ability of students to apply thinking skills to social studies and
science related tasks and to apply these skills to other non-content
specific tasks.
In this chapter the statistical operations performed on the data
gathered are described and the statistics summarized. An analyses of
the data are presented in order to test the hypotheses of the study,
which are that students in the experimental group will score higher
on the grade four science and social studies sections of the CTBS,
and will score higher on the Assessment of Cognitive Skills instru-
ment than will the students in the control group. These null
hypotheses were used as the basis for making statistical comparisons
between groups: 1. There will be no differences between means of
scores of the subjects in the experimental and control groups on the
measures of science achievement and social studies achievement;
2. There will be no differences between means of scores of the
subjects in the experimental and control groups on the measure to
assess cognitive skills achievement.
Other data were collected and analyzed in order to determine the
affects upon the outcomes of the ancillary variables of gender and
the extent of teacher training.


79
The chapter is organized in five sections which include an over-
view of the process of analysis; two sections in which the statistics
generated related to the dependent and ancillary variables are
summarized and analyzed; a fourth section in which correlation data
are presented; a fifth section in which information gathered through
administration of an affective measure is described; and, a final
section in which all results are summarized. The reader should refer
to Chapter 1 for a complete description of the research questions and
hypotheses and to Chapter 4 for an explanation of the research
methodology employed in the study as well as descriptions of the
instruments utilized and the subjects of the study.
This study investigated the effects of a particular thinking
skills, science and social studies curriculum (the treatment) on 451
grade four students in one suburban school district. Three evalua-
tion instruments were utilized to assess the effects of the treat-
ment. The dependent variables and their measures are listed below:
Overview
Dependent Variables
Measures
A. Knowledge of science
A. CTBS Science Section
content
Form U, Level F
B. Knowledge of social
B. CTBS Social Studies
studies content
Section, Form U, Level F
C. Knowledge of selected C. Grade Four Assessment of
cognitive skills
*Reproduced in Appendix C
Cognitive Skills*


80
As indicated in Chapter 4, the Assessment of Cognitive Skills
evaluated five areas of cognition. The particular thinking skills
included in the assessment were inductive skills of inferring attri-
butes and inferring meaning; skills of noting similarities and diff-
erences and grouping; questioning strategies; skills of observing and
classifying; and determining relationships. The Cronbach alpha index
of reliability was calculated for each scale and ranged from .11 to
.71. The total scale reliability index was .32. The Cronbach alpha
test allowed for a measure of internal consistency on only a single
test administration. Carmines & Zeller (1979) advised that whatever
method is used to determine reliability, an important use is to
"correct" correlations for unreliability due to random measurement
error.
The results of the Cronbach alpha test and correction for
attenuation (random measurement error) are shown in Table 5. The
attenuated alpha was a satisfactory level of reliability though the
observed reliability was not. However, the fourth and the fifth
scales, Questioning Strategies and Analysis of Attributes, had only
six and ten items, respectively, and may not have provided valid
measures in those areas.
In Table 6 the statistical procedures employed to analyze the
data obtained from the administration of the grade three science and
social studies sections of the CTBS and of the Test of Cognitive
Skill s--pretreatment variables--and those utilized in the analysis of
the data collected through the administration of the Assessment of
Cognitive Skills instrument and the grade four science and social
studies sections of the CTBS are summarized.


81
TABLE 5
Reliability Analysis
Correlation Matrix C0G1 C0G2 C0G3 C0G4
C0G1 Induction
C0G2 Attri butes-Groupi ng .20
C0G3 Diagraming Relationships .12 .23
C0G4 Questioning Strategies .11 .17 .40
C0G5 Analysis of Attributes .12 .14 .38 .71
Reliability Coefficients 5 Items _N of cases = 404
ALPHA = .32 Standardized ITEM ALPHA = .64
TABLE
Statistical Procedures Employed
Statistical Procedures
1. Frequencies (SPSSX program
used to verify that data were
accurately entered into the
computer program)
2. T-tests
a. Science knowledge (E,C)
b. Social studies knowledge
(E,C)
c. Cognitive skills knowledge
(E,C)
6
with Evaluation Instrunents
Instruments 1 2
1. Grade 3 CTBS Science and
Social Studies Sections
and the Test of Cognitive
Skills; Grade 4 Science and
Social Studies Sections of
the CTBS and the Assessment
of Cognitive Skills Battery
2. Grade 3 Science and Social
Studies Sections CTBS and
the Test of Cognitive
Skills; Grade 4 Science and
Social Studies Sections of
the CTBS and the Assessment
of Cognitive Skills Battery
(table continues)


82
Statistical. Procedures
3. Analysis of Covariance
(ANCOVAs)
a. Grade 3 Science and Social
Studies covary with Grade 4
Science and Social Studies
(E, C)
b. Grade 3 TCS covary with
Grade 4 Assessment of
Cognitive Skills Battery
(E,C)
4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs)
a. Science knowledge (E,C)
b. Social studies knowledge
(E, C)
c. Cognitive skills knowledge
(E,C)
d. Treatment (E,C) by gender
(01,02)
Instruments
3. Grade 3 CTBS Science and
Social Studies Sections
and Grade 3 TCS and
dependent variables:
Grade 4 CTBS Science and
Social Studies Sections
and Assessment of Cogni-
tive Skills Battery
4. CTBS, Grade 4 Science and
Social Studies Sections
and the Assessment of
Cognitive Skills Battery
e. Treatment (E,C) by teacher
training (00-09)
Certain data were gathered that substantiate the similarities of
the subject groups (school populations) and, therefore, strenghthened
the generalizability of the effects of the study to a population of
students like these. Data utilized to compare the student popula-
tions at test and control sites were the percentages of each school's
population receiving reduced-cost or free lunch (SES data) for the


83
school year when the study was conducted. Table 7 displays the
reduced-cost and free lunch data for each school site involved in the
study. As evidenced by the data, experimental and control sites were
quite similar in socio-economic makeup, as determined by the criteria
of reduced cost or free lunch populations. The groups represented
similar populations. These data allowed for a comparison of schools,
however, the data were not obtainable at the student or even the
classroom level and the researcher was unable to compare in a
meaningful way treatment outcomes with the affects of the ancillary
variable of socio-economic status. Therefore, no tables are provided
related to that variable. The researcher anticipates a follow-up
study in which the socio-economic status of each subject can be
considered.
TABLE 7
Reduced/Free Lunch Percentage of Student Body at
Experimental and Control Sites
School N Reduced n Free N Total N Enrollment Percent Reduced/ Free
Experimental
#1 43 75 118 747 15.8
#2 21 74 95 568 16.7
#3 31 63 94 366 25.7
#4 22 12 34 586 5.8
(table continues)


84
School Control Reduced Free Total Enrollment Free
#5 24 22 46 692 6.7
#6 22 46 68 526 12.9
#7 20 89 109 408 26.7
#8 21 73 94 500 18.8
In Table 8 other pretreatment data that were utilized to
determine the similarities of the populations, experimental and
control, were the grade three mean scores on the science and social
studies sections of the CTBS and the TCS.
TABLE 8
Pretreatment Testing Results
Experimental and Control Groups
CTBS and TCS Mean Scores
Mean Mean Mean
Mean Science Social Studies
School (N) CSI* OO CTBS (N) CTBS
Experimental
#1 42 100.02 42 48.89 43 49.96
#2 36 105.57 37 61.15 38 59.88
#3 36 102.46 34 50.14 36 52.92
#4 31 102.51 31 51.78 32 51.35
145 144 149
(table continues)


85
Mean Mean Mean
Mean Science Social Studies
School m CSI* IN). CTBS IN). CTBS
Control
#5 37 102.88 39 55.69 38 58.32
#6 31 105.20 32 53.19 30 53.50
#7 37 105.90 39 52.79 39 50.51
#8 21 98.77 24 51.69 23 54.06
126 134 130
* Cognitive Skills Index
By retaining the individual scores in the analysis, the ANOVA
model could be employed to evaluate the effect of teacher training.
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the
magnitude and direction of the relationships between the science
section of the CTBS, grades three and four, the social studies
section of the CTBS, grades three and four, the grade three Test of
Cognitive Skills and the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery given
at grade four. In addition, multiple correlations were calculated on
these assessments and on the ancillary variables of gender and
teacher training. The results of the calculations are presented in
the fourth section of this chapter.
Since the n's were unequal, a test for homogeneity of variance
was conducted. The F-procedure, termed the Bartlett-Box test of
homogeneity of variance in the SPSSX programs, was used. Table 9
displays the means and standard deviations for the experimental and
control groups, each F-ratio, and the significance of the Bartlett


86
test for homogeneity of variance for each dependent variable. The
homogeneity of variance for all dependent variables was found tena-
ble, as indicated by the significance levels obtained from this test.
TABLE 9
Means, Standard Deviations, F-Ratio for Treatment from Two-Factor
ANOVAS, and Significance of Tests for Homogeneity of Variance for
Each Dependent Variable from the CTBS Science and Social Studies
Sections and the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery
Dependent Variable Xe Xc F SDe SDC P*
CTBS Science Section 53.27 51.49 1.24 7.02 6.79 .651
CTBS Social Studies
Section 55.23 54.44 .80 8.92 8.50 .500
Assessment of Cognitive
Skills Battery 89.31 89.44 .01 17.34 14.78 .032
*From Bartlett-Box Test for Homogeneity of Variance
Attitude Component
An attitude component was added to this study although it was not
a part of the formal research investigation. The results of the
attitude survey, which was administered to both experimental and
control subjects, are presented in a section of this chapter because
of the researcher's recognition that students' perceptions of the
school environment and what goes on there reflects the nature of the
learning experiences presented and the value given to certain areas
of learning. Resnick & Klopfer (1989) report that, "...The school
setting lets students know that elements of critical thought...are


87
socially valued...and that basic skill and subject matter should be
taught as occasions for thought, elaboration, and interpretation
throughout the school" (p.9). The importance and usefulness of and
interest in science and social studies were the areas addressed
through the survey. Questions were developed and employed to check
the effects of socially desirable responses. Six of the 21
questions that comprised the survey constituted the Response
Integrity Scale. A frequency of responses was tabulated and then
means were calculated for the experimental and control groups on the
total survey, on the Response Integrity Scale (6 questions) and on
each of the attitude scales of the survey. The five scales, and the
number of questions on the survey that reflected each were:
Importance of Science and Social Studies (2 questions); Usefulness of
Science and Social Studies (2 questions); Interesting to Study (8
questions); Relationship of Science and Social Studies (1 question);
and Self-Rate in Science and Social Studies (2 questions).
Analysis of Pretreatment Data
As indicated in Chapter 4, the pretreatment variables of student
performance on the grade three science and social studies sections of
the CTBS and performance on the Test of Cognitive Skills were util-
ized to establish that the experimental and control populations were
similar and represented the general population of the school
district. In addition, the performances of subjects on these instru-
ments provided baseline data which allowed for comparisons to be made
about growth in the areas of science and social studies skills and
content and in cognitive skills as assessed by the administration of
the grade four science and social studies sections of the CTBS and


88
the grade four science and social studies sections of the CTBS and
the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery. T-tests were performed
on each of the pretreatment variable assessments for the experimental
and control groups. These data are reported in Table 10. T-tests
were also performed on each of the assessments of the dependent vari-
ables. All differences were tested for significance at the p = .05
level. These data are report in Table 11. Mean score gains for the
experimental and control groups in science and social studies
achievement and in cognitive skills achievement are also shown in
Table 11.
In Table 10 for each of the t-tests performed on the pretreatment
variables, the critical values for t were: 1.65. (The same value was
obtained for each assessment). In each case, the critical values of
t were greater than the observed values, which are shown in Table 10,
panels A, B, and C. Because there were no statistical differences
between the groups, these tests indicated that the populations were
similar and that the mean scores represented scores from a common
population. This strengthened the generalizability of the study.
The post-treatment data are displayed on Table 11, panels A, B,
and C. The t-tests performed on these data indicated that the null
hypothesis of no difference between groups could not be rejected as
the observed t values on the assessments of the dependent variables
for the groups, E and C, were less than the critical values of t.
Those critical values were 1.65 for each test.
By referring to Table 11, in which the data gathered on the
groups on science achievement is displayed, one can note (panel D)
that a mean loss was exhibited by the control group (pre-post) while


89
the experimental group exhibited a mean gain. Although the experi-
mental group obtained a higher mean score at grade four, the
difference is not statistically significant. The data related to
social studies achievement (panel B, Table 10) revealed that on the
pretreatment assessment the experimental group obtained a lower mean
score and lower standard deviation than the control group. On the
grade four assessment, shown on Table 11, panel B, the experimental
group exhibited a higher mean score and a greater standard deviation
than the control group. The experimental group obtained a higher
mean score gain than did the control group (panel E). But, as with
science achievement, there was no statistical evidence that the
difference can be attributed to the treatment.
In the area of cognitive skills at grade four, the control group
demonstrated a higher mean score than did the experimental group
(Table 11, panel C). However, by reviewing the pretreatment data on
the TCS in panel C of Table 10, it will be noted that the experiment-
al group held a lower mean score than did the control group. So
while neither group displayed a net gain of mean score in this
achievement area at the end of the study, the data revealed that the
experimental group entered the study with a lower cognitive skills
mean score and did not demonstrate as great a mean score loss as did
the control group. The differences in the area of cognitive skills
were not statistically significant.
Analysis of Dependent Variables
Wildt and Ahtola (1978) suggested that "One of the principal uses
of analysis of covariance is to reprove bias which may result when
test units cannot be assigned at random to experimental conditions


90
TABLE 10
T-tests on Pretreatment Assessments for
Experimental and Control Groups
Assessment
N Mean/Sd t-value P
Grade Three (Pretreatment)
A. Experimental
Science Section, CTBS
Control Group
Science Section, CTBS
B. Experimental Group
Social Studies Section, CTBS
Control Group
Social Studies Section, CTBS
C. Experimental Group
Test of Cognitive Skills
144 52.60
15.80
-.45 .327
134 53.52
17.89
149 53.25
16.09
-.45 .327
130 54.17
17.99
147 108.49
69.44
-.22 .412
Control Group
Test of Cognitive Skills 129 110.09
52.67


Full Text

PAGE 1

A STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIRECT INSTRUCTION OF THINKING SKILLS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIAL STUDIES ACHIEVEMENT AND ON COGNITIVE SKILLS APPLICATION by Patricia J. Willsey A.A., Pueblo Junior College, 1960 B.A., Southern Colorado State College, 1965 M.A., University of Northern Colorado, 1978 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education School of Education 1989

PAGE 2

This dissertation for the Doctor of Education degree by Patricia J. Wi 11 sey has been approved for School of Education by Date ;

PAGE 3

iii Willsey, Patricia J. (Ed.D., Education) A Study of the Effectiveness of the Direct Instruction of Thinking Skills on Science and Social Studies Achievement and on Cognitive Skills Application Dissertation directed by Professor Bob L. Taylor This study focused on the effect of the direct instruction of a specific curri cul urn, which emphasized the teaching of thinking and science and social studies contents, on the ability of students to apply thinking skills to social studies and science-related tasks and to apply these skills to other non-content-specific tasks. The curri cul urn is referred to as the Explore Curri cul urn. The study included the evaluation of the application of specific thinking skills to general tasks requiring their use and the transferability of specific thinking skills to social studies and science learnings by grade four students. Sixteen classrooms of students in grade four were examined, eight experimental classrooms and eight control classrooms. Teachers in the experimental classrooms had received preparation in the implementation of the curri cul urn, although the extent of their preparation varied. Student performance was eva 1 uated through the admi ni strati on of the science and social studies sections of the Comprehensive Tests of liasic Skills and the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery, developed by the researcher. The students scores on the third-grade administration of the CTBS and the Test of Cognitive Skills were used

PAGE 4

iv as covariates in the study and allowed for a comparison of student growth from the conclusion of the third grade to the end of the fourth grade. Students in the experimental group ex hi bi ted higher mean scores at grade four in science and social studies than did the students in the control group. However, these gains were not statistically significant. Neither the experimental nor the control group achieved gains in the area of cognitive skills. Both genders in the experimental group demonstrated gain in the areas of science and social studies. The effect of te.acher training on student achievement was not clearly demonstrated in this study. Students in the class room with the teacher who had received the most preparation in the curriculum did exhibit the highest mean scores on the science and social studies assessments. However, for the other class rooms, in which teachers had received varying degrees of preparation, the student outcomes were varied. No relationship of teacher preparation and student achievement caul d be generalized from the study. A parallel assessment was administered that evaluated student attitudes toward the study of science and social studies. The survey results indicated that students in the experimental group found science and social studies to be more interesting and useful, than did students in the control group. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Signed

PAGE 5

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is dedicated to my colleagues in School District Number Twelve, Adams County, Col or ado who have 1 abo red to bring thinking and excitement to the study of science and social studies in the elementary grades. I have shared many rewarding hours with them in the development of the Explore Curriculum, as well as some frustrating ones. To the many parents who have indicated to me the joy they have felt watching their child become 11a scientist11 and .. a thinker, .. I express equal joy in knowing that parents are noticing a difference in the education their child is receiving. I am indebted to many who encouraged me to begin and to continue this study. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Bob Taylor for the guidance he provided throughout my doctor a 1 program, and particularly, during the period of this study. Dr. Kenneth Hopkins was of tremendous assistance in the design of the study. Dr. Richard Heaton offered continual, patient counsel throughout the statistical analysis of the data. A debt of gratitude is owed to Mrs. Betty Casey who typed the dissertation. My son deserves my thanks for demonstrating kindness and encouragement at those times when I felt thoroughly frustrated and helpless while conducting this study. Hopefully, my efforts will convince him that learning never stops, and that determination is a powerful motivator.

PAGE 6

CONTENTS List of Tables .................. viii List of Figures................................................ x CHAPTER: 1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE................................... 1 Background............................................. 3 Significance of the Problem............................ 6 Purpose of the Study................................... 8 Statement of the Problem............................... 11 Conceptual Assumptions................................. 12 Delimitations of the Study............................. 16 L imitations............................................ 16 Definitions............................................ 17 Outline of the Dissertation............................ 19 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............................. 20 The Nature of Conscious Thinking....................... 20 The Relationship of Thinking and Learning.............. 26 The Purposeful Teaching of Thinking.................... 30 Summary of Review of Related Literature................ 38 3. THE EXPLORE CURRICULUM................................... 39 Theoretical Base....................................... 39 Structure and Major Content of the Explore Curriculum................................... 46 4. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES OF EVALUATION................. 56 Overview............................................... 56 Curri cul urn Implementation.............................. 57

PAGE 7

5. 6. vii Research Methodology and Design........................ 58 Selection of Subjects.................................. 63 Instrumentation ........................................ 66 Data Collection .......... 75 Data Processing and Analysis........................... 76 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 78 Overview............................................... 79 Analysis of Pretreatment Data.......................... 87 Analysis of Dependent Variables........................ 89 Analysis of Data Related to the Ancillary Variables.... 93 Analysis of Correlation Results .......... 105 Discussion of Data Gathered Through An Attitude Survey. 107 Discussion and Summary of Findings ............ CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 110 114 Purpose of the Study................................... 114 Methodology o.f the Study............................... 115 Summary of Findings .................................... 117 Conclusions ........ 119 Recommendations and Implications .......... 120 References .................... 125 Appendix A..................................................... 135 Appendix B..................................................... 149 Appendix C ............ 163 Appendix D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

PAGE 8

viii TABLES Table 1. EXPLORE Inservice Participation, Grade-Four Teachers...................................... 59 2 . Baseline Data: Experimental and Control Groups........... 64 3. Correlation of Explore Curriculum Content With Items Drawn From the Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes and the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cogn1 ti ve Tests. . . . . . . . . 73 4. Correlation of Explore Curriculum Content With CTBS Science and Social Studies Sections .. 74 5. Reliability Analysis..................................... 81 6. Statistical Procedures Employed with Evaluation I nstrlBllents.............................................. 81 7. Reduced/Free Lunch Percentage of Student Body at Experimental and Control Sites........................ 83 8. Pretreatment Testing Results, Experimental and Control Groups, CTBS and TCS Mean Scores................. 84 9. T-tests on Pretreatment Assessments for Experimental and Control Groups....................................... 86 10. T-tests on Posttreatment Assessments of the Dependent Variables for Experimental and Control Groups............ 92 11. T-tests on Posttreatment Assessments of the Dependent Variables for Experimental and Control Groups ... 91 12. Analysis of Covariance -Grade 3 Covariates, CTBS Science and Social Studies, and the TCS, with Grade 4 Dependent Variables, CTBS Science, CTBS Social Studies, Assessment of Cognitive Skills...................................... 94 13. Means Scores for Females and Males on Pretreatment Variable and Dependent Variable of Science Achievement... 95 14. Means Scores for Females and Males on Pretreatment Variable and Dependent Variable of Social Studies Achievement.. . . . . 96

PAGE 9

Tables (continued) Table 15. Means Scores for Females and lvtales on Pretreatment Variable and Dependent Variable of Cognitive ix Skills Achievement....................................... 96 16. Analysis of Variance, Interaction of Treatment and Gender............................................... 98 17. Cell Means for Teacher Training and Dependent Variables . 101 18. Pre and Post Comparisons on the Dependent Variables with the Effects of Teacher Training ... 103 19. Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficients: Covariates, Ancillary Variables and Dependent Variables . 106 20. Comparison of Mean Scores of Experimental and Control Groups on the Total Attitude Survey, the Response Integrity Scale and on the Scales of the Attitude Survey. 109

PAGE 10

X FIGURES Figure 1. A Model of Thinking Skills: Basic Processes............. 13 2. Toward a Hierarchy of Thinking Skills, Strategies and Creativity............................... 14 3. Major Cognitive Operations.............................. 24 4. Examples of Thinking Skills Programs.................... 28 5. A Model of Metacognitive Thinking Skills................ 29 6. Explore Curriculum Intended Learning Outcome............ 44 7. Science/Social Studies/Thinking Strategies Curri cul urn.............................................. 47 8. Explore Curriculum Specific Concepts and Thinking Skills/Processes (Fourth Grade)................ 50 9. Focus, Restructure, Exploration, Focus.................. 55 10. Grade 3 (Pretreatment) Mean Scores on the TCS and Gender, and Grade 4 (Posttreatment) Mean Scores the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery and Gender....... 99 11. Interaction of Teacher Training and Student Achievement on of the Dependent Variables Compared with Student Achievement on the Pretreatment Variables ................. 104

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE In 1985 a number of education associations combined forces in efforts designed to emphasize priorities and programs related to the teaching of skills of thinking. Many of the organizations have sponsored conferences and publications that were focused on the teaching of thinking. These organizations were identified by Brandt (1986) as members of The Collaborative o,n Teaching Thinking: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education American Federation of Teachers American Association of School Administrators American Educational Research Association Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Council of Great City Schools Home Economics Education Association Institute for Development of Educational Activities International Listening Association International Reading Association Music Educators National Conference National Art Education Association National Association of Black School Educators National Association of Elementary School Principals National Council for the Social Studies National Council of Teachers of English National Council of Teachers of Mathematics National Education Association National School Boards Association National Science Teachers Association National Congress of Parents and Teachers National Association of Secondary School Principals National School Public Relations Association (p.6) Their collaboration highlighted the magnitude of a national focus within the education community--and indeed in other institutions as well--to address, or perhaps re-address, the issue of the intellec-tual status of the children and youth of the United States. Further, the agreed upon tasks which members of these organizations set forth established a purposefulness for their attention to the improvement of instruction of thinking. Those tasks, as described by Brandt

PAGE 12

(1986) were to: 1. Sponsor the refinement of terms and definitions related to thinking skills and processes. 2. Suggest changes in preservice and inservice teacher education that will enable teachers to gain expertise in developing students thinking abilities. 3. Ask publishers of textbooks and tests to design materials that will contribute to student thinking. 4. Promote continuing research to learn more about human thinking and the effectiveness of approaches and materials that develop it. 5. Solicit public support for teaching thinking (p.6) 2 The tasks of the Collaborative on Teaching Thinking illustrate that a great number of organizations devoted to teaching and learning believe that research is necessary in the field of thinking and that such research should include study of the methods and programs of instruction utilized to advance intellectual proficiency. The think ing skills movement in education has been stimulated by the actions of these organizations and by other factors which are described in this chapter. The study undertaken by this researcher was designed to provide data related to several of these areas, but in particular addressed the: 1) design, development and implementation of curriculum to facilitate the teaching/learning of thinking skills and processes; 2) effectiveness of the direct teaching of thinking skills; and 3) application by students of those skills in content areas. Specific ally, the focus of the research was upon the effectiveness (results) of the teaching of certain cognitive (thinking) skills to elementary school students. The study was entered into in an attempt to inves-tigate the hypothesis that certain curriculum frameworks will enhance the teaching and learning of specified cognitive skills and strategies. Hypotheses were tested, data were call ected and analyzed,

PAGE 13

3 which revealed that the relationship between particular curriculum and the application of cognitive skills is positive. The value of such research, of a quasi-experimental design, is supported by, among others, Campbell and Stanley (1963). The current i nvesti gati on contributed to the body of knowledge related to the design of models for the teaching of thinking. Particular evaluation tasks were selected to require the learner to demonstrate, in subject area settings and in non-subject related situations, the skills/processes taught via a curriculum framework that infused thinking skills and subject area content. Thus, cati on of the cognitive skills was noted in a measurable way. The results of this study added to understandings held by educators concerning the teaching and evaluation of specific thinking skills at the elementary 1 evel of education. This study contributed to the decision-making processes related to curriculum design and implementation in one school district, specifically in these areas: 1) infusion of thinking skills in the science and social studies curriculums, 2} the impact of peer-assisted strategies during imple mentation phases, and 3} the evaluation of learning outcomes. Background In 1984 this investigator and a colleague reviewed data that had been gathered in School District No. 12, Adams County, Colorado, regarding the status of instruction in science and social studies at the elementary level. An instrument had been developed and administered in order to gather information from teachers concerning their perceptions of what science and social studies outcomes "should be," their attitudes toward these disciplines, their preparation to teach

PAGE 14

4 them, and the perceptions they held of limitations in the teaching of science and social studies at grades kindergarten through six. The survey data confirmed what observations and informal discussions had indicated regarding instruction in those areas at the elementary level in that school district. The descriptions provided by teachers reflected very little congruence with what authorities in the fields of science and social studies education (Joyce & Ryan, 1977; Penick & Yager, 1983; and others) indicated should be taking place instructionally in these fields. In fact, the 11What is" and the 11Shoul d be11 as reported by many teachers were inconsistent. A preponderance of teachers surveyed judged themselves to be inadequately prepared for the teaching of social studies and, especially ill-prepared for the teaching of science. In addition, most teachers reported 1 imitations of time, materials, and in abilities of students "to grasp .. science and social studies concepts. An example of the social studies i nstrurnent and survey results are in Appendix A. This information motivated an investigation to determine ways to facilitate improved instruction in science and social studies at the elementary 1 evel. Many curricular programs and models were examined. One aspect of the investigation was the identification of the commonalities of these areas, i.e., the similarities of natural and social sciences, and how the commonalities could be taught in ways to enhance their interrelatedness, and, by doing so, conserve instructional time and develop transfer of learnings. As the investigation continued, it became obvious that the study, viewed with the earlier

PAGE 15

5 survey data and recommendati ons from scholars in the discipline areas, was leading to a position that something more than content understanding was required to instill interest in these subject areas. Indeed, another factor appeared to be necessary to provide students with the skills to operate successfully as a learner in the social studies and science fields. These generalizations were supported by Goodlads {1984} findings in A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future: 11The total body of data available leads me to the hypothesis that neither science nor social studies as taught and studied in our sample of schools, emphasized adequately those intellectual abilities normally associated with both fields .. (p.216}. Preliminary Investigation Early in 1984 the results of the preliminary i nvesti gati ons had led to the design of a curriculum framework that had at the core the direct teaching of thinking skills and strategies which would be applied in the content areas of science and social studies in as many integrated or complementary ways as possible. The basic premises of this integrated thinking skills/science/social studies curriculum design included: 1} a rationale for and an explanation of the direct instruction of defined thinking skills and strategies, 2} an integration of these skills and strategies in the context of the social and physical/life/earth sciences, and 3} a recognition of the interrelatedness of the content skills and processes applied in these sciences, with those of particular thinking skills and strategies. The curriculum framework was field tested by nine grade three teachers during the 1985-1986 school year. Their critiques resulted

PAGE 16

6 in revisions of the framework. An enlarged pilot of grade three materials took place in the 1986-1987 school year. During that year a 1 imi ted number of teachers at grade four were invited by the Division of Curriculum and Instruction to field test the grade four curriculum framework. At the conclusion of that field test, revisions were made to the grade four The pilot of grade four curriculum took place in the 1987-1988 school year and it is the comparison of the achievements of the students involved in the pilot, with achievements of students not a part of the pilot, that consti-tuted this study. Significance of the Problem Ronald Brandt, Executive Editor, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, stated in his overview to the September 1984 edition of Educational Leadership that: The idea of teaching thinking may seem redundant. Good teachers have always tried--with varying success--to teach 11fOr11 thinking: to teach academic content in a way that strengthens students cognitive abilities.(p.3) Contributors to that issue of Educational Leadership, .. Thinking Skills in the Curriculum, .. and writers who prepared articles for the May 1986 issue of that publication, 11Frameworks .for Teaching Think-ing, .. pointed out that, due to multiple factors, ample evidence exists to consider the teaching 110f11 thinking and teaching 11about11 thinking requisite for the intellectual development of students. The factors cited as evidence for this contention included changes in society such as increasing technological advances and emphasis on information as described in Megatrends (Naisbitt, 1982), The Third

PAGE 17

7 Wave (Toffler, 1980), and In Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman, 1982). These changes, plus increased knowledge about the functioning of the human brain and of cognitive psychology implied for the contributors to those special issues of Education Leadership that instruction in specific content alone is inadequate preparation for the world outside the school. In short, a curriculum designed with a stress on the intellectual development of students should provide for teaching 110f11 thinking-deliberate attention to particular cognitive skills; teaching 11about11 thinking--helping students become more conscious of their own cognitive processes; and teaching 11for11 thinking--providing content and strategies which challenge and strengthen cognitive abilities. Several have sponsored reports and studies that focused on this need. The National Science Board Commission on Pre-College Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (1983), the Education Commission of the States (1982}, the National Assessment of Education Progress (1981}, and The National Commission of Excellence in Education (1983) have each provided similar recommendations. Literature on thinking presents lists of cognitive processes that can be considered thinking skills. In fact, as Nickerson (1984} related, 11Consi derabl e research has been done in recent years on human thinking and this research has yielded enough new knowledge about thinking to give the interest in the teaching of thinking something of a scientific base11 (p.29}. The research as cited by it. provided, offers guidance for those interested in the teaching for, of, and about thinking.

PAGE 18

8 A challenging question remains for the researcher, curriculum developer and/or teacher: What are the effects of attempts to improve students' thinking? It is apparent from the literature cited both in this chapter and in chapters to follow, that complete agreement among researchers on particular aspects of the teaching of thinking is lacking. However, certain consistencies regarding the ability to teach specific thinking skills and processes and the importance of focused i nstructi anal strategies geared toward the acqui si ti on of same, are held in common by most who are active in this field of research and practice. The least defined and seemingly the most disagreed upon area in this field of research is the evaluation of the results of the teaching of thinking. Purpose of the Study What then, is thinking and how can it be taught? These are critical questions for the educator. For, if it is deemed important that something be taught, one must assume there is some substance to the "thing" and that one can determine how to teach it and if it has been learned. The following definition of thinking appeared in "Appendix A -A Glossary of Thinking Skills" in the Association for Supervision and Curriculum DeveloJlllent publication, Developing Minds (Costa, 1985): "The mental mani pul ati on of sensory input to, formulate thoughts, reason about, or judge" (p.312). The definitions appearing in that appendix were derived from a variety of sources. Other definitions of thinking are presented in Developing Minds, and similarities

PAGE 19

9 appear in the definitions. A chapter by Presseisen in that ASCD text focused upon definitions of thinking, thinking skills, and models of the thinking process. She noted that various definitions of thinking share these aspects: Thinking processes are related to other kinds of behavior and require active involvement orr the part of the thinker. Products of thinking--thoughts, knowledge, reasons--and higher processes, like judging can also be generated. Complex relationships are developed through thinking, as in the use of evi.dence over time. These relationships may be interconnected to an organized structure and may be expressed by the thinker in a variety of ways. Thinking is a complex and reflective endeavor as well as a creative experience (p.43). A review of the literature identified several available programs and models for the teaching of thinking and provided some evidence that effects of teaching thinking are discernable. Nickerson (1984) pointed out that, 11The wide variety of approaches [to the teaching of thinking] currently being tried is testimony to the fact that people hold different opinions regarding how best to proceed11 (p.29). Perkins and Smith (quoted in 1984) have grouped approaches to the teaching of thinking into five categories, cognitive-process, heuristics, formal thinking, language and symbol manipulation and thinking as subject matter. These are summarized below: 1. Cognitive-process approaches assume that thinking ability depends on certain fundamental processes, such as comparing, ordering, classifying, inferring, and predicting. 2. A heuristic is an approach to a goal that is believed to have a .good chance, but not certainty, of success. Heuristics are

PAGE 20

10 roughly synonymous with strategies. These approaches show strong influence of research in cognitive psychology (especially problem-solving) and artificial intelligence. How experts solve problems or approach problems is at the heart of heuristics. 3. Approaches that focus on a model of formal thinking in the Pi ageti an sense (concrete to formal or abstract operations) form another category. 4. Approaches that emphasize language and symbol manipulation and focus especially on writing prose and computer programming encompass yet another category. 5. Finally, there are approaches that focus on thinking as subject matter and assume that 1 earning about thinking can improve thinking. The most current research cited in the ASCD publication, Toward the Thinking Curri cul urn: Current Cognitive Research, suggested that thinking must pervade the entire school curriculum, for all students, from the earliest grades. In addition, the editors of that publication, Resnick and Klopfer (1989), stress, 11Thinking skills and subject-matter content are joined early in education and pervade instruction. There is no choice to be made between a content emphasis and a thinking-skill emphasis. No depth in either is possi ble without the other11 (p.6). The research study described in this dissertation focused upon an i nvesti gati on of the impact of the application of a model, in the

PAGE 21

11 design of a curriculum framework, for the teaching of cognitive processes. The curri c ul urn model and the rese.arch activity focused attention upon these areas: 1) The impact upon student 1 earning of the implementation of a curriculum designed for the teaching of thinking skills and processes in conjunction with subject matter; and 2) The ability of students to demonstrate that skills and strategies for thinking had been learned as well as subject matter. Statement of the Problem This study focused on the effect of the direct instruction of a specific curricul urn, which emphasized the teaching of thinking and science and social studies contents, on the ability of students to apply thinking skills to social studies and science related tasks and to apply these skills to other non-content specific tasks. The curri cul urn is referred to as the Explore Curri cul urn. The study included the evaluation of the application of specific thinking skills to general tasks requiring their use and the transferability of specific thinking skills to social studies and science learnings by grade four students. Two hypotheses were tested: The students who received direct instruction of thinking skills (the independent variable) in conjunction with subject area study in social studies and science will demonstrate a higher 1 evel of performance on The Assessment of Cognitive Skills battery (a dependent variable) than will students who did not receive direct instruction of thinking skills infused with subject area study.

PAGE 22

12 -The students who received direct instruction of thinking skills (the independent variable) in conjunction with sub ject area study in social studies and science will demon strate a higher level of performance on the social studies and science sections of the CTBS (a dependent variable) than will those students who did not receive direct instruction of thinking skills infused with subject area study. For purposes of this study, these sub-questions were i nvesti gated: IJid students in grade four--in the experimental and control groups--perform differently on thinking skills tasks and on subject area assessments with respect to the variables of: Socio-economic status; Gender; and Extent of training which the teacher received in the Explore Curriculum? Conceptual Assumptions Beyer (1984a) cautioned the teacher and curriculum developer to avoid confusing levels of thinking and to clearly define skills (of thinking). He suggested that. the work of Bloom (1956), Guilford (1967), and Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman & tvliller (1980) offers useful conceptual background about thinking skills and processes. In fact, basic or essential skills of thinking can be discerned from the body of research to date. Examples of basic or essential thinking skills are found in Figure 1, drawn from the work of Bloom and Gui 1 ford and designed by Pressei sen ( 1985) and in Figure 2,

PAGE 23

CAUSATION -establishing cause and effect, assessment: Predictions Inferences Judgments Evaluations TRANSFORMATIONS -relating known to unknown characteristics, creating meanings: Analogies Metaphors Logical inductions RELATIONSHIPSdetecting regular operations: Parts and wholes, patterns Analysis and synthesis Sequences and order Logical deductions CLASSIFICATION determining common qualities: Similarities and differences Grouping and sorting, comparisons Either/or distinctions QUALIFICATIONS finding unique characteristics: Units of basic identity Definitions, facts Problem/task recognition FIGURE 1 -A Model of Thinking Skills: Basic Processes 13 Source: Barbara Z. Presseisen, 11Thinking Skills: Meanings and Models, .. Developing Minds (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi sion and Curriculum Development, 1985, p.45). Used with permission.

PAGE 24

level I: The Discrete Skills of Thinking This category includes individual, discrete mental skills that are prerequisite to more complex thought, such as: 1. Input of data: o Gathering data through the senses (listening, observing, smelling, tasting, and feeling) o Being alert to problems, discrepancies, and dilemmas o Being fascinated by the environment 2. Elaborating (processing) the data: o Comparing/contrasting o Analyzing/synthesizing o Classifying/categorizing o Inducing/deducing 14 o Perceiving relationships (temporal, analogous, seriational, spatial, hierarchical, syllogistic, transitive, symbolic) 3. Output of the products of elaboration: o Inferring o Hypothesizing o Predicting/forecasting/extrapolating o Concluding/generalizing/summarizing o Evaluating Level II: Strategies of Thinking This category involves the linkage of the discrete skills to strategies. People employ these tactics when faced with situations to which the resolution or answers are not immediately known: o Problem-solving o Critical thinking o Decision-making o Strategic reasoning o Logic Level III: Creative Thinking These are the behaviors 'of novelty and insight. We use them to create new thought patterns, unique products, and innovative solu tions to problems. Because they are so idiosyncratic, they are difficult to define and reproduce. It is believed, however, that with properly designed instruction, they can be developed: o Creativity o Fluency o Metaphorical thinking o Complexity o Intuition o Model making o Insight o Imagery FIGURE 2 -Toward A Hierarchy of Thinking Skills, Strategies and Creativity. Source adapted from: Arthur L. Costa, 11The Behaviors of Intelligence," Developing Minds (Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 1985, pp.67-68.) Used w1th perm1ss1on.

PAGE 25

15 designed by Costa (1985), which represents a graphic conceptualiza-tion of the work of several writers/researchers presented in Devel-oping In addition to considerations of which essential thinking skills will be taught, there are assumptions related to how the information (instruction) will be presented and what subject matter(s) the think ; ng ski 11 s and processes wi 11 be related to (what areas wi 11 more likely facilitate transfer). These are important areas of decision-making for the educator and were of considerable importance in the development of the Explore Curriculum. To summarize, some writers and researchers who have addressed the teaching of thinking, have indicated certain strategies can be employed in the various models or approaches to the teaching of, about, and for, thinking to facilitate the development of students1 thinking skills/processes. These strategies for instruction were categorized in Developing Minds (Costa, 1985) as: 0 0 0 0 Directive strategies which help students acquire and retain important facts, ideas, and skills. Mediative strategies which help develop reasoning, concepts, and problem-solving processes. Generative strategies which help students develop new solutions, insights, and creativity. Collaborative strategies which help students learn to relate to each other and work cooperatively in groups (p.l39). Costa, Hanson, Silver and Strong (Costa, 1985) noted that, 11A strategy is appropriate when it stimulates, elicits, and models a form of thinking that the teacher seeks to encourage II ( p.181).

PAGE 26

16 If the teacher is informed about and capable of instruction of those skills and strategies, and is involved in the application of a model or framework designed to assist in the delivery of thinking skills and strategies, one might infer that the learners receiving the benefits of that instruction will demonstrate effective intellectual behavior. Delimitations of the Study This study involved test groups of fourth grade students enrolled in test site elementary schools in School District Number Twelve, Adams County, Colorado. The study also involved the teachers of the fourth grade students at the test site schools. These teachers received instruction in the content and delivery of the Grade Four Explore Curriculum (Thinking Skills/Social Studies/Science). Students and their teachers at control sites (elementary schools) in Adams County School District Twelve were also involved in the study. These classroom units were selected, at both test and control sites, based upon specific criteria (see Chapter 4). The criteria were applied in an attempt to reduce effects of extreme mobility-of student population and non-availability of classrooms on a random basis. Li mi tati ons Several limitations existed related to this study. These limitations undoubtedly impacted the outcomes of the study, but those affects could not be determined by the researcher. 1. The study involved one school district. The extent to which the results are generalizable is uncertain. Nevertheless, the district is typical of other school districts in several respects.

PAGE 27

17 2. The study was not a true randomized experiment, hence inference must be justified by nonstatistical arguments (Edgington, 1980). 3. The teachers involved in the pilot of the curriculum framework (experimental curriculum) were volunteers and agreed to participate in staff development experiences related to the curriculum. However, their participation in preparation to teach the curriculum varied in duration of training time. 4. Because of the small sample of experimental classes, a single teacher had impact upon results. 5. It was assumed that the experimental curriculum was taught by teachers in the experimental classrooms. 6. The researcher-designed instrument used to measure attitude toward science and social studies possessed face validity only. Definitions These definitions will be utilized in the review of research presented in Chapter 2 of this dissertation and in the description of the curriculum framework tested in this study and described in Chapter 3. CLASSIFY: To sort into clusters, objects, events, or people according to their common elements, factors, or characteristics. Includes giving that cluster a label that communicates those essential characteristics. COGNITION: Related to the various thinking processes characteristic of human intelligence. COMPARE AND CONTRAST: To examine objects in order to note attributes that make them similar and different. To contrast is to set

PAGE 28

18 objects in oppostion to each other or to compare them by emphasizing their differences. DECISION-MAKING: The process leading to the selection of one of several options after consideration of facts or ideas, possible alternatives, probable consequences, and personal values. GROUP: To assemble objects according to a unifying rel ati onshi p or critical attribute. HEURISTIC: A general strategy or 11rule of thumb11 that is used to solve problems and make decisions. While it doesn't always produce a correct answer, it is usually a helpful aid. (11Look before you leap" as an example.) INDUCE (INDUCTIVE REASONING): To combine one or more assumptions or hypotheses with available information to reach a tentative conclusion. Reaching a rule, conclusion, or principle by inference from particular facts. Opposite of deduce (deductive reasoning). INFER: To arrive at a conclusion that evidence, facts, or admissions point toward but do not absolutely establish; to draw tentative conclusions from incomplete data. Inferring is the result of making an evaluation or judgment in the absence of one or more relevant facts. Inference requires supposition and leads to prediction. METACOGNITION: Consciousness of one's own thinking processes. PROBLEM SOLVE: To define or describe a problem, determine the desired outcome, select possible solutions, choose strategies, test trial solutions, evaluate the outcome, and revise these steps where necessary.

PAGE 29

19 TEST GENERALIZATIONS: To determine whether or not declarations, conclusions, or systematically organized bodies of knowledge (pre pared by others) are justified and acceptable on the basis of accuracy and relationship to relevant data. THINKING: The mental manipulation of sensory input to formulate thoughts, reason about, or judge. Convergent thinking: Thinking that requires a single answer to a question or problem. (Compare with divergent thinking.) Creative thinking: The act of being able to produce along new and original lines. Critical thinking: Using basic thinking processes to ana lyze arguments and generate insight into particular meanings and interpretations; also known as directed thinking. Divergent thinking: The kind of thinking required to generate many different responses to the same question or problem. (Compare with convergent thinking.) Outline of the Dissertation The remainder of this dissertation is organized as follows: Chapter 2: A Review of the Literature Chapter 3: The Explore Curriculum Chapter 4: Methodology and Procedures of Evaluation Chapter 5: Analysis of the Data Chapter 6: Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations

PAGE 30

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This review of the literature provides further support for the study. The work of cognitive psychologists, philosophers, education al psychologists and educational theorists and practitioners is reviewed to determine the nature of conscious thinking and its relationship to learning, and to identify efforts to provide for the purposeful teaching of thinking. Cognition, the nature of thinking processes characteristic of human intelligence, has interested cognitive psychologists and philosophers for many, many years. Numerous studies were identified in the literature that focused upon the nature of cognition and of intelligence. However, the literature of primary significance for this study is drawn largely from the fields of educational psychology, and educational theory and practice. Therefore, studies were reviewed which focused on the teaching of thinking. This delimited the number of reviews cited. The work of certain cognitive psychologists and philosophers is cited if that work has influenced the teaching of thinking. Efforts by educators to comply with admonitions from boards of education and committees representing varied interests at national, state, and local levels to teach students to think have resulted in dialogue, debate and much writing focused on what that means for the learner (and teacher) and how thinking might be taught. The Nature of Conscious Thinking There appears to be some agreement that thinking is a cognitive process, the mental operations by which individuals attempt to construct meaning, or make sense of experience. This process may be

PAGE 31

21 conscious or unconscious (Beyer, 1987; Presseisen, 1985; Nickerson, Perkins & Smith, 1985; Dewey, 1933; McPeck, 1981; and Gl atthorn & Baron, 1985). This study was concerned with conscious thinking. This focus was important because conscious, i ntenti anal and directed thinking can be influenced by instruction, and thus lies within the domain of education. The acts or processes of conscious thinking were delineated by numerous scholars although there was not a clear-cut agreement upon the specific processes or particular elements of these processes, i.e., the skills of thinking. Considering thinking as a skilled behavior was acceptable to several writers in the field (Nickerson, Perkins & Smith, 1985; Bartlett, 1958; Paul, 1984; de Bono, 1984; Nickerson, 1984; Beyer, 1987; Perkins, 1986; & Jackson, 1986). McPeck (1981) and Cornbleth (1985) take exception to the view that thinking, in particular critical thinking, can be identified and taught through a forrnul a of skills or steps to fall ow. Sternberg (1981) stated that, 11lntelligence consists of a set of developed thinking and learning skills used in academic and everyday problem-solving .. (p.18). He presented a list of nine such skills: 1. Problem identification 2. Process selection 3. Representation selection 4. Strategy selection 5. Processing allocation 6. Solution monitoring 7. Sensitivity to feedback 8. Translation of Feedback into an action plan, and 9. Implementation of the plan (pp.18-19). Sternberg concluded his discussion of the skills necessary for adaptive task performance by stating that, 11Intelligence can usefully

PAGE 32

22 be viewed as a set of thinking and learning skills, that potentially at least, can be separately diagnosed and taught" (p.20). Worsham and Stockton (1986) pointed out that the reader can be overwhelmed by the data in the literature on the teaching of thinking. They suggested that those working in the field need to agree on definitions and offered those which they utilized in their model for teaching thinking. They defined conscious thinking as "The menta 1 mani pul ati on of sensory perceptions to formulate thoughts, knowledge, reasons, or judgments" ( p.9). They described two categories of thinking: critical and creative. The first has to do with utilizing sensory input to construct meaning and interpretations while the latter involves many processes which result in original products or aesthetic ideas. Further, they specified two complex thinking processes ( deci si on-making and problem-solving) which involve the use of specific thinking skills. In summary they stated: Thinking skills then, are processes used by the learner to operate more effectively at various thinking levels. They are not the same for each learner. That is, learners do not all use the same steps to accomplish a task. However, there are some skills that are basic and common to most curriculum tasks (for example, gath ering information, finding the main ide a, determining meaning) (p.ll). Their view is similar to that Beyer offered in Practical Strategies for the Teaching of Thinking (1987). He suggested while educators, cognitive psychologists, philosophers and others have identified a long list of cognitive skills and strategies that can and should be taught, his research led him to offer a list of thinking processes that seem to cut across a wide variety of subject areas and disciplines and that are often included in inventories of

PAGE 33

23 thinking operations for teaching .. (p.26). He declared these to be the mental operations most frequently used by individuals when they think. Figure 3 presents these operations. Beyer's representation of skills and strategies is very much like that presented in Chapter 1, Figure 2. While critical and creative thinking are frequently described by cognitive psychologists and educators as different types of thinking, and his associates ( 1988) argued that they should be consi d-ered cognitive processes comparable to problem solving and decision making. They are the way thinking processes are carried out. These researchers suggested that highly creative thinking is often highly critical and vice-versa. They stated: We have discussed .critical and creative thinking in the classroom together rather than separately tq stress that they are complementary and that both are necessary to attain any worthy goal. Both can and should be taught in the context of regular academic instruction (p.28). Nickerson ( 1981) suggested that any programmatic effort to teach thinking should include four focus areas, or as he referred to them, objectives: abilities, methods, knowledge, and attitudes. He described them as follows: The term abilities is intended to connote specific things one might want students to be able to do. Methods refers to the structured ways of approaching tasks and subsumes the notions of strategies, procedures, and heuristics. Knowledge refers to facts, concepts or principles that one might want students to adopt. Attitudes inc 1 ude the habit of making use of tools and knowledge useful on cogni tively demanding tasks. They are not easy to teach and may be best acquired by example (pp.21,24).

PAGE 34

I. THINKING STRATEGIES Problem Solving 1. Recognize a problem 2. Represent the problem 3. Devise/choose solution plan 4. Execute the plan 5. Evaluate the solution Decision Making 1. Define the goal 2. Identify alternatives 3. Analyze alternatives 4. Rank alternatives 5. Judge highest-ranked alternatives 6. Choose 11best11 alternatives Conceptualizing 1. Identify examples 2. Identify common attributes 3. Classify attributes 4. Interrelate categories of attributes 5. Identify additional examples/nonexamples 6. Modify concept attributes/structure II. CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS 24 1. Distinguishing between verifiable facts and value claims 2. Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information, claims, or reasons 3. Determining the factual accuracy of a statement 4. Determining the credibility of a source 5. Identifying ambiguous claims or arguments 6. Identifying unstated assumptions 7. Detecting bias 8. Identifying logical fallacies 9. Recognizing logical inconsistencies in a line of reasoning 10. Determining the strength of an argument or claim III. MICRO-THINKING SKILLS 1. Recall 2. Translation 3. Interpretation 4. Extrapolation 5. Application 6. Analysis (compare, contrast, classify, seriate, etc.) 7. Synthesis 8. Evaluation FIGURE 3 -Major Cognitive Operations Reasoning Inductive Deductive Analogical Source: Barry K. Beyer, Practical Strategies for the Teaching of Thinking, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1987, p.44). Used with pe rm1 s s 1 on.

PAGE 35

25 In his work with Perkins and Smith (1985), Nickerson expanded upon certain of these focus areas. For example, the interdependence of knowledge and thinking skills was discussed at some length. Several investigators were cited as those who have emphasized the importance of knowledge in the performance of intellectually demanding tasks (e.g., Greeno, 1980; Hayes, 1980; Goldstein and Papert, 1977; Simon, 1980). This view has also been supported by McPeck (1981); Cornbleth (1985); and Chall & Wittrock (1981). This aspect of the review of literature was related to defining thinking and identifying characteristics of conscious thinking. It identified diverse perspectives of the nature of thinking as described by cognitive psychologists, educators, and philosophers. Generally, four types or categories of thinking were described: critical (also referred to as analytic, deductive, rigorous, constrained, convergent, and formal); creative (labeled in addition, as synthetic, inductive, expansive, unconstrained, divergent, informal, and diffuse); skills (micro or basic, such as observing, noting similarities and differences}; and strategies (problem-solving, decision-making, etc.). While there was less uniformity among investigators regarding specific strategies or processes and skills of thinking, many writers agreed that processes and skills of thinking and that instruction in these skills and strategies is possible and desirable. Notable among writers who presented this contention in their research were Costa (1985); Hanson, Silver & Strong (1985); Beyer (1987); Paul (1985); Seiger-Ehrenberg (1985); Perkins (1985}; Sternberg ( 1985); ( 1985); deBono (1985); Feuerstein

PAGE 36

26 (1985); LiJlllan (1985); Whirnbey (1985); and et al. (1988). The Relationship of Thinking and Learning If it is accepted that thinking is carried on consciously by all individuals, that thinking is viewed as including complex cognitive processes which in turn entail particular mental skills, and that these skills and processes are exhibited through the behavior of the individual as he or she approaches tasks, problems, or opportunities, then thinking can be observed to be more or less effective. That is, thinkers can be observed performing (as thinkers) in a qualitative manner (Gl atthorn and Baron, 1985). This proposition gives rise to the question of the teachability of thinking. Even though certain investigators differed in their views regarding specific characteristics of thinking, most of the investigators referred to in this review agreed that the thinker s effectiveness will 1 i kely be improved through instruction in the operations involved in thinking. Nickerson, Perkins & Smith (1985) offered an interesting statement concerning the propositi on that thinking (1 ike processes and skills in the psyco-motor domain) can be taught. The assumption that thinking skills can be taught, if they cannot, should, at worst, 1 ead to unsuccessful attempts to teach them. In time the futility of the quest would become apparent, and the only loss would be the effort that had been devoted to the task. But suppose we reject the assumption that thinking skills can be taught when in fact it is true. How profound might be the consequences of failing to attempt to teach what obviously should be taught (pp.59-60).

PAGE 37

27 Many writers acknowledged that the teaching of thinking is the teaching of skills and processes designed to enhance conscious, categorical thinking, i.e. critical and creative thinking in particu-1 ar. The teaching of skills and processes constitutes the major aspect to be considered by educators who propose that thinking is learned behavior and can be taught. This assumption that the teaching of thinking is possible forms the basis upon which most thinking skills programs are constructed. Figure 4 identifies such programs. However, certain of these programs are based not only on the assumption that the processes and ski 11 s of thinking can be (and should be) taught, but that in order for such teaching 11to take11, other considerations must be met. Hart argued in 1986 that schools are 11brain incompatible .. (p.47). Costa (1981) cited several studies which pointed out the effects of teacher behaviors which seem to sup port (or detract from) intellectual growth in students. These studies offered evidence that thinking effectively is learned and the learn ing environment can contribute to that learning. Brandt (1984) referred to the importance of creating school and class room conditions that are conducive to thinking as teaching FOR thinking. Further support of these positions is described by Resnick and Klopfer in their recent overview for the 1989 ASCD yearbook. They identify the themes of the publication and thus of recent cognitive research to be, ..... the centrality of knowledge in 1 earning; the close link between [thinking] skill and content that it enjoins; the indivisibility of cognition and motivation; the need to shape dispositions for thinking; and the concept of cognitive apprenticeship .. (p.ll).

PAGE 38

Examples of Thinking Skills Programs BASICS, Sydelle Seiger-Ehrenberg and Lyle M. Ehrenberg (based on Hilda Taba) Building Thinking Skills, John D. Baker Creative Problem Solving, Sidney J. Parnes (based on Alex F. Osborn) Future Problem Solving, E. Paul Torrance (based on Osborn and Parnes) Great Books, The Great Books Foundation Instrumental Enrichment, Reuven Feuerstein Learning to Learn, Marcia Heiman and Joshua Slomianko Odyssey: A Curriculum for Thinking, Harvard University researchers; Bolt Beranek and Inc.; and the Venezuelan Ministry of Education Philosophy for Children, Matthew Lipman Project Impact, s. Lee Winocur Strategic Reasoning, John J. Glade and Howard Citron Structure of the Intellect, Mary N. Meeker (based on Gui 1 ford) TACTICS, Robert J. Marzano and Daisy E. Arredondo Teaching Decision Making with Guided Design, Charles E. Wales The California Writing Project, Carol Booth Olson, Director The CoRT Thinking Program, Edward deBono FIGURE 4 -Examples of Thinking Skills Programs 28

PAGE 39

29 Metacogni ti on Learning how to learn is an aspect of thinking referred to as metacognati ve instruction. "Metacogni ti on refers to one s knowledge concerning one s own cognitive processes and products11 (Flavell, 1976, p.232). Presseisen (1987) provided additional clarification of metacognition. Metacognitive thinking has two main dimensions. The first is task oriented and relates to monitoring the actual performance of a ski 11. The second dimension is strategic; it involves using a skill in a particular circumstance and being aware of getting the most informative feedback from carrying out a particular strategy (p.31). Figure 6 illustrates these aspects of metacognitive thinking. Monitoring Task Selecting and Understanding Performance Appropr1ate Strateg1es o keeping place, sequence organizing work, following o directing and correcting errors o pacing of work o greater accuracy of in thinking o focusing attention on what is needed o relating what is already known to material to be 1 earned o testing the correctness of performanc: o more powerful ability to complete various thinking processes FIGURE 5 -A Model of Metacognitive Thinking Skills Source: Barbara Z. Presseisen, Thinking Skills Throughout the Cur riculum, (Bloomington, IN: Pi Lamda Theta, Inc., 1987, p.32}. Used with permission.

PAGE 40

30 Learning to Learn Marzano and Arredondo (1986) developed a program which focused upon a model originally set forth by Marzano that categorized think ing skills as: (1) learning to learn skills; (2) content thinking skills; and (3) basic reasoning skills. Marzano (1986), cited learn ing strategy programs (e.g. McCombs, 1984) which include components of attention training, goal setting, cognitive restructuring, and self-evaluation. Attention training refers to teaching students to recognize when they are and when they are not attending to a learning task. The purpose is to afford the learner a sense of control over the learning situation. Similarly, goal setting aims at helping learners establish short-term learning goals and thereby gain control and self-motivation through goal achievement. Affirmations--positive statements related to self and a learning task--and mediation--either talking to oneself or others about ones approach to a learning task--are the characteristics of cognitive restructuring. Self-evaluation is another aspect of learning to learn and concerns acquiring planning and monitoring techniques. The metacognitive and learning to learn processes are similar, and for both the purpose is to enable learners to think about think ing and gain understanding (self-awareness) and control of the cognitive skills and processes they are learning and applying (Bondy, 1984). The Purposeful Teaching of Thinking Issues in the teaching of thinking revolve around the questions of how and where thinking should be inc 1 uded in the school curri cu-

PAGE 41

31 1 um. Some experts promoted establishing separate courses for the teaching of cognitive and metacognitive processes and skills. Exam-ples of the approach are Instrumental Enrichment, Strategic Reasoning, The CoRT Thinking Program, Philosophy for Children, Future Prob lem Solving, Teaching Decision Making with Guided Design, Odyssey, Creative Problem Solving, and Building Thinking Skills. However, not all experts in the' field of cognition, and certainly not all educa-tors, believe that 11Stand alone11 programs are, or can be, especially effective. Swartz, of the University of Massachusetts at Boston, where the Critical and Creative Thinking Program was developed (1984), stated that it is unnecessary and unwise, from a learning theory perspective, to introduce a new course to teach thinking. 11Perhaps the best approach is to introduce critical thinking into the existing curriculum--make it part of existing courses. Certainly, to introduce critical thinking as a separate course without making it part of the rest of the curriculum sends a mixed message to students11 (p.10). Beyer (1984b) concurred: Research suggests that skills taught in isolation from subject matter are not 1 ikely to transfer easily to other situations where they can be used productively. Research also suggests that skills taught in isolation from one another are not 1 ike ly to become functi ona 1 Furthermore, research suggests that massed practice of skills is not as effective in promoting learning as intermittent practice and reinforcement over a long period of time. Thus, the research that has been conducted seems to argue for sequential instruction in thinking skills across all subject areas and throughout all grades, K-12. Few such curricula exist, but they should be developed (p.21). There are few published accounts of attempts to infuse the direct instruction of thinking skills and processes with the instruction of content area knowledge and procedures.

PAGE 42

32 The results of Whites and Alexanders study (1984) indicated that intermediate level students taught by direct instruction to use specific steps in working through analogy problems significantly improved in their ability to solve analogies. Barhydt (1983) described a unit to teach reasoning and problem solving skills which provided instruction to help children develop a systematic approach to problem identification, to gather and analyze data, arrive at inferences and keep from jumping to conclusions. However, no data were offered in the report to support that the fourth grade students to whom the unit was presented demonstrated improved problem solving abilities. In 1982 Cook and Dossey conducted an investigation of the relative efficacy of two approaches to teaching basic multiplication facts to third graders. Support was indicated for what the investigators termed the thinking strategies approach. Students instructed in specific strategies for learning basic multiplication facts demonstrated greater competency on facts tests than did students who did not receive such instruction. Results also indicated it was possible to train teachers in the instruction of the strategies in two days of inservice. FitzGerald (1972) studied the effects of productive thinking instruction in two content areas: language arts and geography. The primary question addressed was how this instruction affected verbal productive thinking by teachers and their pupils. FitzGerald reported: pupils in all classes followed (modeled) the cognitive style of their teachers; an increase in productive thinking in

PAGE 43

33 language arts lessons, but not in geography lessons; only a slight affect of subject content on cognitive style; productive thinking instruction in language arts did not significantly increase the quantity and quality of students written responses; that productive thinking instruction in geography si gnifi can .tly increased the quantity, b'ut not the quality, of written responses; and that teachers pro vi ding this instruction increased the quantity and quality of their written responses. She noted that there was 5.5 percent more productive thinking in language arts than in geography. Since the study involved only three teachers, the conclusions are tentative. Kendall and Mason (1982) reviewed metacognitive research and, based on their review, stated that the current importance of metacognition and learning, (especially related to learning to read) was due to the more precise descriptions that have been developed regarding metacognition. Furthermore, they summarized the review by suggesting that researchers have provided evidence that modeling, or explicitly teaching various metacognitive strategies, did improve students comprehension. However, they also indicated that teachers should not require children to demonstrate their conscious awareness of their comprehensi on-monitoring strategies. This 1 atter statement is in disagreement with the recommendations of Flavell, Presseisen, Marzano and Arredondo and Bondy. Wollastons dissertation (1980) focused on 11A Study of Concept Formation Changes Using a Non-Majors College Chemistry Course ... Wollaston s study assumed that the principal objectives of formal education are the teaching of basic concepts that enable individuals to function in our society, and teaching that concepts can be changed

PAGE 44

34 on the basis of new knowledge and experience. An additional assumption underlying the study was that before problem solving can occur, the student must acquire an understanding of the concepts in a scientific context. The Explore Curri cul urn also assumes that conceptual understandings are key to learning in all areas, especially the sciences. Wollaston's study investigated the structural form of students' initial framing of concepts and their ability to learn new ones. Subjects comprising the study were primarily elementary educa tion majors enrolled in a course in basic chemistry as a part of a natural science requirement. Wollaston investigated the existing conceptual structure in a student's memory for key words to ascertain if the words were related to concept formation abilities and achievement in terms of the usage of the identified concepts for selected science concepts in an instructional treatment. A word association test was used to examine the existing concept structure in a student's memory. (The word test consisted of a list of major concepts from the instructional treatment). Wollaston found that performance on the treatment achievement test was not related to the total number of word responses given to the stimulus concept. He also examined the question whether cognitive structure was defined by word association responses and if that structure is measured by an achievement test. He concluded that the assessments measured two different cognitive structures. An interesting feature of the study was the implication of the difficulty of assessing cognitive structure. In 1966 the late Hilda Taba presented her report on the Cooperative Research Project No. 2404, Teaching Strategies and Cognitive Functioning in Elementary School Chi 1 dren, which she had conducted.

PAGE 45

35 The study was actually the second which she and her colleagues conducted based on an assumption about teaching cognitive skills--namely that appropriate teaching strategies can lead students to master the abstract and symbolic forms of thought much earlier and more systematically than could be expected if this development were 1 eft solely to the accidents of experience or to 1 ess appropriate strategies. The question which the study set out to answer was how instructional strategies and the curri cul urn might accelerate the development of abstract and symbolically mediated thought. The study required translating theoretical precepts into appropriate teaching strategies, training teachers in these strategies, and ex aminating their impact on the development of childrens thinking. After reviewing the literature on strategies of thinking, Taba concluded that the studies suggested a new teaching strategy and a new role for the teacher. The new role she suggested was that of stimulating cognitive processes. The theoretical assumptions about thinking that governed the study were that thinking can be 1 earned, and it can therefore be taught. Several postulates about thinking were presented, and to implement the postulates the concept of cognitive tasks was devised. The study focused on three cognitive tasks: (1} concept formation; (2} generalizing and inferring through interpretation of raw data; and (3} the of known and facts to explain and predict new phenomena. The sample involved fourth, fifth, and sixth-grade students from 20 schools in the San Francisco Bay area. Tabas observations of the study included the following statements:

PAGE 46

The most important observation that can be made from the data collected in this study is the centrality and power of the teachers role in initiating cognitive operations and determining which kinds are open to students The impact of curriculum guides that supply either relatively meager or relatively rigid guidance for teachers will be less [than desired]. This conclusion reinforces the general impression that unless teaching methods consistent with the innovative curriculum are used in the classroom, that curriculum becomes diluted, misused, and ineffectual (p.228). 36 Taba s summary of her study provided the impetus for future studies related to the teaching of thinking. In fact, her work has provided significant background for the development of the instructi anal strategies and curri cul urn upon which this dissertation is based. Taba (1966) suggested that developing the cognitive potential of learners was central to education and that children can learn more and on a more mature intellectual level than they did if they were redirected from mastering information preprocessed by others and focused on mastering the systematic intellectual skills of processing the information themselves. She stated, 11 Any information leading to the development of more adequate skills of reasoning and of inquiry is a useful contribution .. (p.220). Bereiter (1984) reviewed a variety of approaches for teaching thinking and identified two that were not likely to work and a third that was likely to work. The first was to teach thinking as .. enrichment .. and the second was to teach thinking as subject matter. The first was likely to fail, according to Bereiter, because it was seen as something that was .. added on11 as if it were a separate curriculum area. The difficulty with the second approach was that the practice of thinking requires content if students are to transfer the use of the knowledge to areas of study, i.e., areas of conscious

PAGE 47

37 thinking. He suggested that a third approach was possible and desirable. He refered to this as the 11pervasive11 approach meaning that it was possible to pervade the curriculum with intellectual process so that the teaching of thinking was an important component of every school activity. He stated that models for teaching existed that would allow for the teaching of thinking as well as increasing the learning of subject matter and academic skills. Joyce (1985) compared models of teaching, thinking skills, and curriculum, and stated that the cognitive development and conceptual models were specifically designed to facilitate cognitive growth. He went on to report that all of the models he cited contributed heavily to general growth in thinking ability. He also suggested that if students were to be taught how to think and 1 earn in a certain way, according to a model, a program (curriculum) must be established that was used on a regular basis. The teaching of thinking requires a commitment to solid instruction in the models of teaching that engen der those types of thinking and the willingness to persist until students become effective in their use. Thinking strategies are most effectively taught in con junction with appropriate content (p.7). Solomon (1987) declared that the aims and content of social studies were such that the advancement of thinking skills ought to be an important focus. He described two general categories of thinking that may be emphasized in elementary social studies: general problem solving which he stated involves 11thinking about ones thinking; .. and specific types of intellectual tasks: comprehending information, solving specific problems, investigating or researching topics, communicating with others, and making decisions.

PAGE 48

38 Summary of Review of Related Literature The 1 iterature cited in this chapter provided an ex ami nation of the perceptions of the nature of cognition, thinking and knowing, from philosophers (1 ike John McPeck) psychologists (such as Robert Sternberg) and educators (represented by, among others, Art Costa, Berry Beyer and Robert Marzano) who indicated a reasonable generalization to be that thinking--at least conscious, purposeful thought-consists of skilled behavior that is learned. Further, the literature indicated that specific processes (such as problem solving) and skills of thinking (for example observing and classifying) could be taught. Finally, there was evidence to be drawn from the research presented which suggested that the coupling of instruction in content areas and thinking skills and processes should be incorporated in a curricular program that was offered to students at all grades/ages. Marzano, Brandt, Hughes, Jones, Presseisen, Rankin, & Suhor (1988) stated: 11Content instruction should be strongly linked with instruction in thinking11(p.129). The views and research of these and other authors reviewed in this dissertation supported the purpose of the study. The curriculum and instructional strategies which form the program of study in the Explore Curriculum (Thinking Skills, Science and Social Studies), being applied as the test curriculum in this research study, were based upon the models of concept formation, concept attainment, group investigation and scientific inquiry drawn largely from the research of Taba ( 1964, 1966); Ehrenbergs (1982); Costa (1985); and Beyer ( 198 7).

PAGE 49

CHAPTER 3 THE EXPLORE CURRICULUM Theoretical Base The review of the 1 i terature presented in Chapter 2 provided support for a curriculum framework designed to operationalize principles related to the teaching of thinking. Thus, the development of the curri cul urn framework was predicated upon assumptions related to the teaching of thinking and, in addition, to assumptions pertaining to content selection and to instructional strategies. Particular assumptions that motivated the development of the Explore Curriculum were that: Skills and strategies which comprise thinking can be i denti fi ed. Such skills and strategies are learned and can be taught. That is, there are cognitive processes, skills, and strategies which are teachable. A systematic introduction to these processes, skills and strategies in the 1 earning environment is desirable. Systematic (planned), direct assistance in the acquisition of thinking skills, processes and strategies can be facilitated through the application of a curriculum framework and instructional techniques designed for such purposes. A relationship exists between the content selected for investigation or study and the thinking skills, processes, and strategies called into operation in order for the student to construct meaning about that content.

PAGE 50

40 There is a sense of order to the acquisition of thinking ski 11 s and a maturation and expansion of the i ndi vi d ual's cognitive schema. Less complex cognitive skills and processes support, or prepare one for the learning of more complex strategies. Subject area content and teaching strategti es were ex ami ned, selected, and recommended in 1 i ght of their rel ati onshi ps to the cognitive development of students. The likelihood that certain content and teaching/learning procedures facilitate and enhance the acquisition and application of specific cognitive (thinking) skills and strategies was a major premise underlying the curriculum develop ment. The experimental curri cul urn, Explore, the focal point of this study, incorporates the content areas of science (life/biological, earth, physical), and the social studies, (especially geography, history, and sociology) in integrative lessons which exemplify the similar operations, such as methods of investigation, and complementary learnings, notably concepts, in the fields of study. The study conducted in 1964 by Taba, Levine, and Elzey, Thinking in Elementary School Children set forth a rationale for conceptualiz ing the processes of thinking and identified major strategies for teaching thinking. In that study the effects of plan ned teaching strategies on the development of children's thinking were examined in a normal classroom setting. Taba' s 1966 study, Teaching Strategies and Cognitive Functioning in Elementary School Children extended and modified the rationale of the 1964 study. Models of teaching strategies and findings from the first study were used as training models

PAGE 51

41 in the second. Taba was also interested in the relationship between process and content. In each of these studies she sought to verify this relationship. Tabas 1966 study was based upon certain assumptions about the nature of thinking and the interactions of the strategies to promote thoughtfulness in the classroom. Some of these assumptions included: 1. Thinking was perceived as something which can be taught, provided that the specific processes and skills comprising it are identified, and those, the skills and processes that can be enhanced by systematic assistance are disti ngui shed. It was further assumed that this systematic assistance required both a curriculum and teaching strategies designed for this purpose. 2. Thinking was perceived as an active transaction between the individual and the data in the program. 3. The processes of thought evolve by lawful sequence. Further, the development of thought, understood in this way, is not linear in the sense of simply adding increments, but represents qualitative transformations in which the organizing schema as well as the modes of operation are altered. 4. Thought can be studied as both a psychological phenomena and a logical system (pp.34-35). In order to implement these and other assumptions, the concept of cognitive tasks was developed. Tabas 1966 study focused on three cognitive tasks, the development of which caul d be examined under 110ptimal conditions ... The optimal conditions for Taba and her associates included the implementation of a curriculum designed to emphasize inductive development of basic ideas which would provide systemic opportunities for students to practice the skills involved in the three cognitive tasks. In addition, two other conditions were deemed optimal: the use of teaching strategies explicitly focused on

PAGE 52

42 mastery of cognitive skillst and provision for adequate time for the students to undergo a development sequence. (This was more a development in learning to cope with specific cognitive tasks than an age development.) The cognitive tasks identified for the 1966 study were concept formationt generalizing and inferring through interpretation of raw datat and the application of known pri nci pl es and facts to explain and predict new phenomena. Tab a noted that these tasks did not necessarily encompass all processes of thought. They excluded, for examplet critical and evaluative thinking per se. Criterion measures used by Taba to secure data on application of thought processes were two paper and penci 1 tests and a system of coding verbal interaction in the classroom. A standardized social studies achievement test was also utilized in the 1966 study. Taba considered the study, 11 modest indeed, compared to the scope of the work that remains to be done11 (p.232). Certainlyt since that studyt much has been undertaken in the fields of cognitive and educational psychology to promote understanding of areas Taba indi cated needed further study. Her recommendations for further study were to: examine the effect of a greater number of variables affecting teaching strategies; study the relationship between general ability and level of thinking; utilize longitudinal studies that would help determine the nature of the transformations hinted at in her studies; conduct an analysis of the levels of cognitive operations and a simultaneous analysis of the level and the validity of the content of the inferences, generalizations, predictions, and

PAGE 53

43 hypotheses; and, conduct investigations of the processes by which forms of thought are produced, not only their nature. The deve 1 OJ)llent of the experimental curri cul urn, Explore, was influenced by the work of Taba and her associates. In addition, the initial design was strongly influenced by the Ehrenbergs in the development of the BASICS Thi nki ng/Learni ng Strategies ( 1982), a program designed to prepare teachers to: 1. Analyze any curriculum and determine which 1 evel of 1 earning it requires students to achieve--FACT, CONCEPT, PRINCIPLE, ATTITUDE, or SKILL. 2. Develop and implement lesson plans which guide students through the appropriate thinking/ learning strategy for each type of learning . (and which help them develop skill in the use of prerequisite thinking/learning strategies). 3. Make consistent application by a) regularly analyzing/classifying learning objectives in your own particular curriculum and developing/ implementing appropriate think i ng/1 earning strategy plans for their achievement by students;. . 11 ( p .1) Overview of the Explore Curriculum The Explore Curriculum identifies in a K-6 scope, a set of thinking skills and strategies, and more complex thought processes, which were considered by the developers to be necessary for the student to become successful in content study, i.e., achieve the level of learning anticipated. This scope is reflected in Figure 6. The thinking skills are taught by teachers and utilized by students as appropriate (necessary) for the study undertaken in science and social studies at each grade level. The more complex processes, for example, concept formation, require extensive focus and repeated application within the domains of the content fields. The thinking

PAGE 54

EXPLORE CURRICULUM INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOME As a result of using thinking skills and strategies, and relevant study skills, and by applying scientific inquiry, K-6 students will develop an understanding of the ORDERLINESS, DIVERSITY, RELATIONSHIPS, and CHANGES that exist/occur and are created in the natural world and in human experience. Further, they wi 11 learn the thinking processes to enable them to make intelligent, responsible decisions/choices/judgments/ plans in the light of each understanding. Grades K-1 Become proficient in the use of thinking skills for gathering in formatlon, 1.e., *Observing *Retrieving *Questioning Apply to a variety of objects, events, places, etc. in nature and in .own experience. Grade 2 Become proficient in the use of thi nk in g ski 11 s for organizing informat1on, 1.e., *Comparing *Contrasting *Grouping *Classifying Apply to a variety of objects, events, etc. in nature and in own experience. GRADE BY GRADE LEARNING FOCUS Grade 3 Grade 4 Become proficient in the use of thinking strategies for developing concepts and in scientif1c 1nqu1ry Develop under-Develop understanding of the standing of ORDERLINESS the DIVERSITY (consistency, (variety, pattern) uniqueness) Grade 5 Grade 6 Become proficient in the use of thinking strategies for develop ing cause-effect generalization and in scientific inquiry Develop under-Develop understanding of the standing of the RELATIONSHIPS CHANGES (interactions, (development, connections} growth) ----.........---that exist or are created: *IN LIVING THINGS *IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT *IN COMMUNITIES OF PEOPLE AND OTHER LIVING THINGS Learn to apply thinking processes in order to make reasoned deci sions, choices, judgments, plans in the light of each understanding. Develop awareness of occupations and avocations in which people develop and/or use understanding of living things, the natural environment, and communities. It FIGURE 6 Source: Syde11e Sei ger-Ehrenberg and School District No.12, Adams County, Colorado. 1984

PAGE 55

45 skills involved in concept formation are taught directly and content investigations are intended to assist the student in the of relevant content-related concepts. Concept formation is the particular thinking strategy focus at grades three and four, the only grade 1 evel s currently involved with the experimental curri cul urn. The framework is structured for the development of casual relationships (cause-effect) at grades five and six and problem-solving and decision-making processes are taught throughout K-6, with qualitative and quantitative distinctions. Particular thinking skills, referred to by Beyer (1987) as micro-thinking skills, and by the Ehrenbergs (1982) as prerequisite thinking skills, or enabling skills, are to be taught by teachers and practiced by teachers and students throughout the grades. The units of study in grades three and four focus on concept formation and concept extension. These thinking strategies require the application of these prerequisite thinking skills: observing, retrieving; group ing and identifying similarities and differences, and generalizing. The methodology outlined for the development of concepts follows, by-and-large, an inductive learning mode. The process, therefore, begins with examples of the concept and proceeds to the development of a generalization, rather than beginning with a generalization, the definition, and proving it with examples. The rationale for this procedure was set forth by Klausmeier (1985), and Ehrenberg and Ehrenberg (1982). Each unit of study in the Explore Curri cul urn focuses instruction on the formation of particular concepts. Thus, students are taught the concept formation processes and begin the development of selected

PAGE 56

concepts. 46 The over-riding organi zati anal process of the entire curriculum is that of scientific inquiry, which means searching for reasons or answers and predicting why something might be so. It incorporates all other processes, i.e., problem-solving, decisionmaking, conceptualization, critical thinking, and the core thinking skills (focusing, information gathering, remembering, organizing, analyzing, generating, integrating, and evaluating) as defined by Marzano, et.al. ( 1988). The program is implemented by staff members who have received instruction in the thinking skills and processes to be taught, i nstructi anal practices such as questi ani ng techniques designed to promote various student learning behaviors and the use of cooperative learning procedures, scientific inquiry, and inductive learning pro cesses. Structure and Major Content of the Explore Curriculum Figure 7 illustrates the broad scope of the thinking skills and content presentation of the curriculum framework at grade four. The content was selected primarily for the opportunity it held for the learner to apply thinking skills and strategies and apply the scientific inquiry process. Interest for the learner constituted another criterion considered in the selection of content. The identification of thinking skills, strategies and processes as a continuum preceded the selection of content in this curriculum, but the selection of content was purposeful. It was selected carefully in support of the contention that some content more appropriate than other content for students to study, that is, it is more likely to: assist the devel OJlllent of particular ski 11 s; provide a conce ptual framework for

PAGE 57

SCIENCE/SOCIAL STUDIES/THINKING STRATEGIES CURRICULUM GRADE FOUR -INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOME Students will use thinking strategies and other relevant skills to develop and act on an understanding of the following: 11There is DIVERSITY (variety, uniqueness) within the order that exists in nature and human experience. Because this is so, we cannot over-generalize and need to look for and see the value in the unique qualities of each person, thing, place, and experience." 11By investigating to find answers to questions, we have found evidence of diversity in the following: .. LIVING THINGS There are many types of plants and animals, each having distinctive characteristics. -Each individual plant or animal has distinctive characteristics which make it unique. -Each human being has distinctive characteristics which make that person unique. -Each career or avocation dealing with living things has a particular focus and requires particular qualifications. THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT -Each of the planets in our solar system has distinctive features. There are many different forces that act on the physical features in the natural environments on earth. There are many different natural environments on earth, each with distinctive features and supporting particular forms of life. -Each career or avocation dealing with the natural environment has a particular focus and requires particular qualifications. COMMUNITIES OF PEOPLE AND OTHER LIVING THINGS There are many different communities of people living on earth, having their own environment, their own unique ways of doing things (culture) and their own history. -Our country is made up of different regions, each having its own distinctive characteristics. -Our state is made up of a variety of communities and people from many cultural groups. -Each career or avocation having to do with communities has a particular focus and requires particular qualifications. FIGURE 7 Source: School District No.12, Adams County, Colorado. 1985

PAGE 58

48 the area of study; and, develop learning-to-learn techniques. This position was supported by Parker in his evaluation of the curriculum in July, 1987. That report appears in Appendix B of this dissertation. The particular thinking skills and processes and the specific subject area content taught in grade four are outlined in Figure 8. The content areas, described in the left hand column, identify the type of investigation that will take place. Students will attempt to determine answers to the content-questions, such as, How do living things differ as a result of differences in the natural environment? In order for students to investigate such a question, certain cognitive skills are required. Those skills are identified in the right. hand column and are taught to students. If these are necessary skills for such investigation, they must be taught. It is not assumed students 11just know how to think, .. but they are helped to think more effectively. Certain questions arise in the minds of many individuals when discussions of the teaching of thinking or learning-to-learn approaches are presented. Simi 1 arly, questions arise about the direct instruction of skills and strategies via an inductive process. Will students 1 earn facts, possess information, be informed? How can direct instruction and student investigation proceed in the same classroom? This curriculum framework proposes that a balance of directed lessons with multi-task activities will assist students in the acquisition of thinking skills and strategies which can be actively applied in the development of concepts and application of processes, such as problem-solving. This balance between teacher-

PAGE 59

49 direction and student inquiry is delicate and received a great deal of attention in the staff development program related to this curricul urn implementation. In addition, the framework structures such experiences. The instructional lesson design is presented below. This format is based upon the 11Scientific way of learning11 to which students are introduced at the beginning of the school year. This design supports the concept development strategy suggested by Erhenberg (1982). Instructional Design-Explore Curriculum Principle: ORDERLINESS IN LIVING THINGS -(A principle is a relationship between two, or among more than two, concepts.) Key Concept: Living Things -(A concept is the name or label given for a particular set of characteristics or attributes that give meaning to a thing or idea/abstraction.) Idea: Needs of Living Things -(Main idea is a major aspect of the concept. The main idea identifies some critical characteristic/ attribute of the concept.) Focus Question: What are the common needs of plants? (A question that promotes investigation related to the main idea. given.) An example is Intended Learning Outcome: (A statement of what learning is expected to be accomplished by all students.) Teacher Background Infonnation: (Information for the teacher related to the particular content to be addressed in order to achieve the main idea, and therefore, that aspect of the concept.)

PAGE 60

EXPLORE CURRICULUM SPECIFIC CONCEPTS AND THINKING SKILLS/PROCESSES FOURTH GRADE The.: Diversity INTRODUCTORY LESSON: Emphasizing scientific way of learning--lessons on different kinds of research/forming hypothesis. Current Concepts LIVING THINGS UNIT Differences in characteristics of groups of anima 1 s Differences in characteristics of groups of plants -Advantages of diversity in characteristics of plants/animals Differences between/among famililies of plants/animals -Reasons for differences in individual plants/animals -Careers/Avocations dealing with living things ENYIROfltENT UNIT -How the Earth's environment differs from each of the other planets in the solar system -The special characteristics of Earth's environment that make it possible for 1 ife to exist. -What are the different physical features which shape the natural environment? Different natural events that change physical features and kinds of forces they produce. -What's different about the physical characteristics of the physical features of the Earth's environment? -How do living things differ as a result of the differences in natural environments? C(JUIJ Nl TIES -What are the differences in characteristics of human communities? -What are the factors that account for the different characteristics? -How have communities of people adapted to or altered the factors that create different communities? -What makes Rocky Mountain Region different from another region? -How are lives of people different in the Rocky Mountain Region from other regions? -What are the characteristics of a state? -What's true of Colorado that makes it different from other states? -How do the unique characteristics of Colorado affect its citizens? Thinking Introduced These processes (conceptualizing, decision-making and research) are further refined at grade four. These supportive thinking strategies are reinforced at grade four. They are: Predicting Hypothesizing Identifying attributes Identifying relationships and patterns Generlizing and Concluding These skills support the thinking strategies listed above: Recalling -Observing -Grouping and Labeling Cl assi fyi ng -Comparing and Contrasting -Noting Similarities and Differences Retrieving Questioning These skills are applied throughout the investigations in the units of study. 50 FIGURE 8 Source: School District No.12, Adams County, Colorado. 1988

PAGE 61

51 Thinking Skills: (Identified lessons to diagnose and instruct stu dents in the thinking skills needed for this part of the unit.) Teaching Sequence: (This is the order of presentation of the learning cycle, which also corresponds with the scientific way of learning steps.) 1. Opener (The criterion for the opener is that the activity/approach must relate to the focus question. That is, the purpose is to draw students into the content.) Purpose for the opener: Motivation Prepare teacher and students Diagnosis/prescription Relate past student experiences to the new learning Transition from one learning to another Hypothesizing (That is to allow students to project reasons for certain phenomena based upon their prior knowledgeto offer an explanation for some specified event or given.) -Predicting (That is to allow students to suggest, without precision or calculation or prior knowledge, what might be so--from a 1 imi ted knowledge base.) Development of the Learning: (Criterion for the selection of approaches/lessons/activities to develop the learning includes a direct relationship of content and thinking skills; and affords experiential possibilities for students.)

PAGE 62

52 Questioning will be critical at this point. This represents the second step of the scientific way of learning and the "what do I need to know" phase of the learning cycle. Students could pose a question or questions that they want to investigate related to the focus question. This should be a natural result of the opener. Teacher could identify a question or questions that they want students to investigate. -Teacher and students could identify a question or questions for investigation, related to the focus question. 2. Hypothesizing -Have students give a reason for what they think might happen in the investigation. Encourage students to come up with a possible answer to a question that they want to investigate. 3. Investigative Strategies for the Collection of Information: -Reading Research Process Scientific investigations/experiments -Media -Use of computer technology 4. Strategies for Organizing Results of Investigation: (Criteria for organizing strategies: activities should address a variety of strategies; strategies must be repeated in order for the learner to master a strategy; strategies should provide for interpreting/ reading the information, as from a chart, graph, map, or table;

PAGE 63

53 and all strategies must be accompanied with a written or verbal explanation that provides for the generalization of the learning) Examples include: Retrieval chart Outlines -Webbing -Graphs -Diagrams Tables -Logs and Journals Narrative descriptions Charts Audio-visual representations -Maps 5. Strategies for Interpreting/Analyzing Results of Infonnation Gathering and Organizing Steps Questioning strategies initiated by the teacher which help students understand the meaning of the information gathered are critical at this step. In organizing data, students and teacher have pulled individual pieces of information apart and displayed them--put in order--in some way. In analysis, students must be helped to pull the data together in order to be able to form a generalization or conclusion about the information. 6. Strategies for Generalizing/Concluding Questioning strategies for the purpose of synthesizing Discussions Teacher and student interactions Student and student interactions

PAGE 64

54 -Written and/or oral statement of the generalization or conclusion that students make on the basis of the information gathered IS CRITICAL AT THIS STEP. This will be the state-ment of the learning. Evaluation/Confirmation of Learning-This is the application of the 1 earning. The use of new and different materials and settings are appropriate, but these must relate to the focus question. Students must demonstrate the generalization of the learning. Figure 9 represents another way of illustrating the design of the instructional methodology. "Covering the content" is an expression often repeated by teach-ers. Facts, or basic knowledge as such information might be considered, are frequently seen as that which "knowing something" is all about. The information explosion--the tremendous increase in the amount of information generated by society--precludes any i ndi vi dual being able to master more than a fraction of the facts in any field of study. In addition, much of what was accepted at one time as fact, is challenged or invalidated by new knowledge. Robert Stern-berg is quoted in Beyers work, Practical Strategies for the Teaching of Thinking, as saying: Bodies of knowledge are important, of course, but they often become outdated. Thinking skills never become outdated. To the contrary, they enable us to acquire knowledge and to reason with it, regardless of the time or place or the kinds of knowledge to which they re applied (p.4). This statement reflects the rationale of the Explore Curriculum.

PAGE 65

FIGURE 9 -------experience with objects ideas, end events open question 55 I I Source: Kelley, T.D. (1985, April). A Teacher Looks at Distancing. Paper presented at the meeting of the American. Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

PAGE 66

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES OF EVALUATION The problem of this study was to determine the effect of the direct instruction of thinking skills on the ability of students to apply those skills on non-content specific tasks and their ability to apply those skills in science and social studies related tasks. In this chapter the research design applied in the evaluation of the effects of the implementation of the gradefour Explore Thinking Skills/Science/Social Studies Curriculum is described and the proced ures which constituted the implementation of the design are identified. The chapter is organized in these sections: 1) an identification of curriculum implementation procedures; 2) a description of the research methodology and design; 3) the selection of subjects; 4) the selection of evaluation instruments; 5) data collection techniques; 6) data processing and analysis. Overview The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the Explore Curriculum at grade-four in terms of student learning of certain thinking skills and strategies, and of content understand ings in science and social studies. The thinking skills, strategies, and processes, and content knowledge presented in the curriculum were identified in Chapter 3. The evaluation of curriculum effectiveness focused on the application of identified skills, strategies, and content understandings by students exposed to the curri cul urn as

PAGE 67

57 compared to the application of those ski 11 s and understandings by students who did not utilize the same curriculum, but who did receive traditional instruction in science and social studies at grade-four. Curriculum Implementation The curriculum is currently in the second year of application in School District No. Twelve, Adams County, Colorado. During the 1986-1987 school year, 26 teachers at grade-four participated in present ing a 1 imited number of lessons (sub-units) from the curriculum, in what was referred to as the field test. At the conclusion of that schoo 1 year, these teachers offered suggestions for improving the curriculum design--to make it more usable--from their perspectives. In the 1987-1988 school year, additional teachers were involved with the introduction of the curriculum to additional grade-four students. A total of 44 teachers participated in this phase, referred to as the pilot. Not all students and teachers at grade four were introduced to the curriculum in this school year. The curriculum included the completed units from the pilot phase. Therefore, all units of the curriculum were available to participating teachers, not just a few lessons as in the field test stage. There are 24 elementary schools in the school district. Of these, 18 were involved in the pilot of the Explore Curri cul urn at grade-four. Each principal at the elementary 1 evel and each grade four teacher received an invitation to participate in the pilot of the Explore Curriculum that was set for the 1987-1988 school year. Teachers at the grade level and the building administrator were asked

PAGE 68

58 to agree to become involved in the pilot of the curriculum. As indicated 44 teachers and their principals responded in the affirmative to this invitation. An element of choice by participants was introduced into the process and thereby added another variable to the study. Table 1 presents the data on inservice participation by teachers who piloted the Explore Curriculum. Forty-six hours of staff development sessions were available to assist teachers with the i mpl ementati on of the curri cul urn. In addition, the services of resource teachers (six classroom teachers who received peer coaching preparation and demonstrated an understanding of the philosophy and methodology of the curriculum) were available. These teachers were provided some released time from their classrooms to work with their colleagues in the implementation of the curriculum at the field test and pilot stages. All staff involved in the pilot were required to participate in a minimum of eight hours of staff development preparation. Additional inservice was optional; however, of the 44 teachers involved in the pilot, 34 participated in more than the required eight hours of inservice. Research Methodology and Design The quasi -experimental research approach, as described by Campbell and Stanley (1963), was applied in this study. Lacking the ability to randomize students to experimental and control conditions, a true experimental research study was not possible. However, the setting allowed for the application of the nonequivalent control group design (Campbell and Stanley, 1963) or, as described by Isaac and Michael (1984), the nonrandomized, control-group, pretest-

PAGE 69

59 posttest design. The design may be indicated in this fashion: Control Independent Dependent Variables Variable Variables 0 0 0 0 0 0 X c 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campbell and Stanley (1963) discuss the instances in which respondents are self-selected, that is the experimental group having sought the treatment, but no control subjects were available from the 12 11 T 10 E 9 A 8 c 7 H 6 E 5 R 4 s 3 2 1 0 8 16 TABLE 1 EXPLORE Inservice Participation Grade-Four Teachers Hours of Inservice Available = 46 Total Number of Participants = 44 24 32 40 46 H 0 u R S Mean = 26.36 hrs. Median = 24 hours Mode = 46 hours

PAGE 70

60 population of seekers. Although this design is weaker than the one in which the researcher has a free choice in selecting subjects, these writers state that the 11Self-selected11 design does pro vi de information which in many instances would rule out the hypothesis that X has an effect. The control group, even if widely divergent in method of recruitment and in mean level, assists in the interpretation ( p.50). Due to the nature of the curriculum development and implementation design in effect in the school district, experimental subjects could not be assigned randomly from the grade-four population to the experimental and control groups. Therefore, procedures were employed to minimize the dissimilarity of the groups, and these will be explained in the section on selection of subjects. The Isaac and reference (1984) substantiated that in order to observe changes in behavior, 111t is first necessary to establish baseline data against which to make meaningful comparisons11 (p.88). In this study the Test of Cognitive Skills (TCS) and the science and social studies sections of the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS) were utilized as control variables and to provide baseline (pretest) data for the experimental and control groups. These served as covariants when an analysis of covariance was applied. Mean scores on the CTBS and on the Cognitive Skills Index were the comparative statistics. The dependent variables examined in the study were: (1) the degree of the application of the cognitive (thinking) skills, and (2) the knowledge of content-specific information and skills. Instruments were designed and/or se 1 ected for the assessment of these variables.

PAGE 71

61 Isaac and Michael (1984) also informed the prospective researcher that, Research design has two basic purposes: first and most obvious, to provide answers to research questions and second, to control variance (variability)(p.80). The control of the extraneous variance--effects of variables that might influence the outcome, but arent objects of the study--is critical to experimental, or as in this case, quasi-experimental design. A way to build in such control is to include the extraneous variables in the design as if they were independent variables. This has been done in this study. Teacher training, preparation to pre-sent the experimental curri cul urn, and socioeconomic status of the students at the test and control sites, were recognized as extraneous variables. By including them in the design and statistical analysis, control was heightened and additional information about their affect on the dependent variables and possible interactions with other variables, for example, gender, was possible. The variables were evaluated with respect to the treatment effects at grade four. Campbell and Stanley (1963) cautioned that: Where controls are lacking in a quasi-experiment, one must, in interpreting the results, consider in detail the likelihood of uncontrolled factors accounting for the results. The more implausible this becomes, the more 11Valid11 the experiement (p.36). Another method of control for extraneous variables is statisti-cal and is inherent in all research design. The statistical procedures utili zed in this study are described in the section on data processing and analysis.

PAGE 72

62 Another ancillary variable which could have influenced the outcomes of the study was the volunteer/non-volunteer status of experimental and control teachers. This refers to the element of choice by teachers to participate in the pilot of the curri cul urn. Although this self-selected aspect of the study might limit interpretation of results, procedures to compensate for the differences between the groups, experimental and control, were undertaken. These procedures will be described in the section dealing with selection of subjects. The two research hypotheses advanced in Chapter 1 of the dissertation were: -The students who received direct instruction of thinking skills (the independent variable) in conjunction with subject area study in social studies and science wi 11 demonstrate a higher level of performance on The Assessment of Cognitive Skills battery (a dependent variable) than will students who did not receive direct instruction of thinking skills infused with subject area study. -The students who received direct instruction of thinking skills (the independent variable) in conjunction with subject area study in soci a 1 studies and science wi 11 demonstrate a higher level of performance on the social studies and science sections of the CTBS (a dependent variable) than will those students who did not receive direct instruction of thinking skills infused with subject area study.

PAGE 73

63 Selection of Subjects The experimental unit in this study was the classroom group, but the individual students scores were the observation unit (Hopkins, 1982). As Addleman (1970) noted: The experimental unit is that entity that is allocated to a treatment independently of other entities. It may contain several observational units (p.1,095). Grade-four classrooms of students in School District No. Twelve, Adams County, Colorado comprised the experimentally accessable population from which the test and control subjects were selected for this study. Certain constraints prevented a random selection of the classrooms to be compared. Specific factors entered into the selec-tion of class rooms to serve as experimental and control groups and are described in this section. As displayed in Table 2, attempts were made by the researcher to identify classrooms in which the experimental and control groups were similar in terms of mean scores, on the CTBS and the TCS administered to the students as third graders in March, 1987. Th i s procedure provided a method to adjust for preexisting differences among groups. (These test scores provided baseline data and served as covariants in an analysis of covariance.) These scores indicated that the experimental and control subjects displayed quite simi 1 ar abi 1 i ties at the end of the third grade when assessed using the instruments cited. These pretreabnent scores were used as covariants in the statistical analysis, as previously stated. Twenty-nine tests were misplaced at the district off1ce of testing and evaluation.

PAGE 74

TABLE 2 Baseline Data: Experimental and Control Groups M E A N S C 0 R E S Grade 3 CTBS* Grade 3 TCS** Science Social Studies (Cognitive Skills Index) Groups Mean Experimental 52.604 Control 53.522 Form u, Level E ** Level 1 N 1'1\ean (144) 53.248 (134) 54.169 N ( 149) ( 130) Mean N 108.489 (147) 110.085 (129) 64 As previously stated, of the 24 elementary schools in the district, only six were not involved with the pilot of the curriculum. Therefore, the identification of control classrooms was 1 imited to one-fourth of the grade-four classes. One experimental school and one control school were excluded from consideration in the study as each was a school opened in the fall of 1987, and the grade three and TCS scores were not readily available for the students who entered these schools as fourth graders. These factors limited the scope of the study as well as the ability of the researcher to util-ize random selection of classroom units. Other factors which 1 imi ted the scope of the study, that is 1 imi ted the number of class rooms involved, were the abi 1 i ty of the researcher to administer the Assessment of Cognitive Skills instru-ment and the CTBS science and social studies sections to a number of classrooms within a reasonable period of time, and the costs of the

PAGE 75

65 CTBS. One school was involved in the field test of the Assessment of Cognitive Skills and, therefore, could not be included in the study. Finally, the researcher decided to administer the evaluation instruments to two class rooms of students per experimental and control site. This decision removed those schools with a single grade-four class from the study. Given these selection conditions, eight schools were identified to be included in the study, four experimental and four control. Two classrooms of grade-four students at each site were administered the evaluation instruments. If more than two grade four classes existed at an experimental or control site, the researcher arbitrarily selected the two classrooms of students to be evaluated. At the beginning of the 1987-88 school year, 200 students were enrolled in the experimental classrooms and 206 students were enrolled in the control class rooms. Students who entered the experimental and control classrooms during the year were included in the study only if grade three TCS and CTBS data were available. The actual number of subjects for whom complete grade three data were avai 1 able was 149 experimental subjects and 134 control subjects. This resulted in a total number of 283 subjects These students were similar as a population drawn from the total school district population and the school district population was typical of those in any mid-sized, middle class, suburban school district. The student population was 20,649. There were 1,598 grade four students. The ethnic make-up of the school district included: American Indians or Alaskan Natives; Asians or Pacific Islanders;

PAGE 76

66 Blacks, Hispanics; and Whites. The largest group in the population was White, not of Hispanic origin, and the largest minority group in the population was Hispanic. The population of the fourth grade represented this make-up in proportion to the total population. In the 1987-88 school year, the district mean and standard deviation on the TCS and the CTBS administered at grade three were: TCS, mean 102.5/no standard deviation score available (n = 1384). CTBS total battery: mean 51.7/standard deviation 16.9 (n = 1484). Instrumentation Achievement tests, the CTBS, were given annually to students in grades three, six, nine, and eleven. CTBS scores were utilized to determine if test subjects performed at least as well as control subjects on the content knowledge and skills evaluated via the CTBS. Form U, Level F of the CTBS Science and Social Studies Tests, copyright 1981, were administered. This test, Form U, Level F, is the next level of assessment to follow the test (Form U, Level E) which the subjects took as third graders. The test publishers reported that the two test levels are complementary. Performances on each section were compared for experimental units and observation units. lean scores were uti 1 i zed in the comparison. The CTBS, Forms U and V i terns, were written to both content categories and broad process classifications. The content categories were determined by ex ami ni ng state and school district curri cul urn guides, published tests, instructional programs and criterionreferences instruments. The process classifications were derived in part from Blooms taxonomy. The CTBS Technical Report described the

PAGE 77

67 procedures used to determine reliability and validity of the individual test levels and presented the statistical data on the tests. The TCS Technical Report manual reported that the process for the item selection for the TCS involved the application of Item Response Theory and the implementation of a three-parameter statistical model that took into account item discrimination, difficulty, and guessing. Those items with the best overall statistical quality that also met the established content criteria were chosen for the Standardized Edition. For more information about the specific statistical procedures used in the item selection for the TCS and the CTBS, the reader is referred to the CTBS Technical Report and to the TCS Technical Report. The TCS, which the subjects were administered in grade three, addressed these cognitive skills: sequence, which involves analysis and recognition of a rule or pattern; memory, which assesses ability to recall; analogies, which measures recognition of concrete and abstract relationships and classification by attributes; and, verbal reasoning, which assesses the ability to discern relationships and reason logically. There was a correlation between the ski 11 s eva 1 uated vi a the TCS and the ski 11 s inherent in the Explore Curriculum--the treatment (Refer to Figure 8, page 52). But, the researcher determined that another level (level 2) of the TCS would not allow the subjects to demonstrate the ability to apply the additional types of cognitive skills inherent in the Explore Curricu1 urn, as described in Chapter 3. Therefore, in order to assess the ability of students to apply certain cognitive (thinking) skills

PAGE 78

68 inherent in the test curri cul urn, an instrument was assembled that focused on eva 1 uati on of students' performance on these skills and strategies: Information processing/organizing skills, specifically, observing, questioning (to determine "best11 data}, comparing, contrasting, and grouping; Concept formation and elaboration skills such as noting similarities and differences, concluding, classifying, and generalizing; and, Inductive strategies of inferring attributes and inferring meaning. These skills and strategies were presented repeatedly throughout the curriculum and were selected for evaluation over some less frequently presented cognitive skills. instruments were reviewed for content which correlated with that of the thinking processes and skills taught via the experimental curriculum. In addition, the available instruments were examined to determine what criterion measures had been utilized by the test developer in producing the items, and finally, the construct validity of the instrument was of major importance, as the researcher sought to determine if subjects were reflecting application of thinking skills/strategies and not other attributes such as intelligence. Two instruments were found to assess certain cognitive ski 11 s (thinking skills) contained in the Explore Curriculum and identified to be evaluated. These were acceptable for use by students in the intermediate grades, grades four, five and six. Permission was granted by the developers of these instruments to utilize portions of

PAGE 79

69 each in the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery prepared as part of this research study. The Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes developed by John D. Ross and Catherine M. Ross was one such instrument. The authors stated that the test may be utilized for different purposes, one of which was assessing the effectiveness of a special program or cur riculunl dealing with cognitive skills. Another purpose was to assess individual students' higher-level thinking skills. Technical data related to reliability and validity of the Ross Test are included in the manual. The test was normed on samples of 5't.7 gifted and 610 non-gifted students attending public schools in nine districts in the state of Washington. Construct validity for the Ross Test was determined by carrel ati on of total score with students' chronol ogi ca 1 ages (age differentiation), group differentiation (gifted vs. non-gifted), and correlation with an intelligence test. The age-differentiation method of construct validity showed the test to be related to chronological age. Additionally, a study was made comparing students' performance on the Ross Test with the Large-Thorndike Intelligence Test to (1) investigate the relationship of higher-level thinking skills to intelligence, and to (2) ascertain if the Ross Test was a test of general intelligence. The obtained correlation coefficient of r = .397 for mean IQ score and mean score on the Ross Test for non-gifted students, indicated that a statistically significant relationship may exist between IQ and use of higher-level thinking skills in the regular student population of the intermediate grades. However, this correlation indicated a relevant relationship,

PAGE 80

70 but it did not indicate that IQ and ability to apply higher cognitive processes are the same thing. The obtai ned carrel ati on coefficient of r = .156, for mean IQ scores and mean test scores for gifted students, did not attain significance and suggested the existence of only a limited relationship between IQ and higher-level thinking skills for gifted students at the intermediate grade levels. The researchers concluded, .. Summarily, these results indicate that the Ross Test is not a test of general intelligence .. (Ross & Ross, 1976, p.22). The construct validity measure was important for this study as an intelligence test was not desired but rather an instrument was required that had been determined valid to assess the application of specific cognitive skills. Because this study was not concerned with norms, the appropriate sections of the Ross Test could be utilized (as opposed to the application of the entire instrument). The Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests developed as a result of a project begun under the leadership of Harry H. Harman resulted in the production of 72 factor-referenced cognitive tests for 23 aptitude factors. In 1976 Ekstrom, French and Harman, with Uermen, updated, modified, and extended the 1963 Kit of cognitive tests. The current Kit was reprinted in 1987 by Educational Testing Service. In revising this set of cognitive tests, the researchers accepted as valid only those factors (abilities) for which the construct underlying it had been found in at 1 east three factor analyses performed in at least two different laboratories or by two different investigators. Thus, the construct validity of the tests

PAGE 81

71 were heightened. Validation and reliability statistics are presented in the test manual. The data cited in the manual for the establishment of the fac-tors (elements) and for the selection of marker (cognitive) tests, were drawn both from the research 1 i terature and from the field experiments in the research project which led to the 1976 revision of the Kit. The data were based on the use of adolescent or adult subjects. Certain of the tests have been used with students at grade six. The researchers suggest that the cognitive structure associated with younger persons was different from that of adults, usually being more simple or general in form. A part of this difference may be caused by difficulty in reading or fully understanding the test directions and i terns. Except for tests that are verbally complex or dependent on reading, it is possible that many of these tests can be used with younger chi 1 dren by having the examiner read the directions aloud (pp.7-8). That strategy was followed by this researcher in the administration of the sections of the Assessment of Cognitive Skills instrument which included tests from the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. These tests which were age-appropriate and carrel a ted with skills and strategies from the Explore Curriculum being evaluated were selected for use in this study. Not all learnings presented in the Explore Curriculum were included in the instruments selected or designed for this study. Time available for student evaluation limited the scope of the assessment, therefore, key skills of thinking were identified by the researcher from the curri cul urn and assessment i terns identified to assess those skills.

PAGE 82

72 The particular i terns selected from the Ross Test and from the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests and the relationship of those items to the thinking skills, strategies and processes of the Explore Curriculum evaluated in this study are illustrated in Table 3. In addition, Table 4 identifies the science and social studies content carrel ati on between the CTBS and the Explore Curri cul urn. These tables provide information which illustrates that the content of the instruments used in this study, The Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery, derived from the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests and the Ross Test, and the CTBS science and social studies sections, sample the content of the Explore Curriculum. Field Test of the Assessment of Cognitive Skills The instrument that was developed to assess cognitive (thinking) skills application by grade-four students was field tested in a classroom setting which included 30 students. The purposes of the field test were to ascertain that grade-four students could read and comprehend the i terns, that directions were understood by students, and that estimated time allocations for each section of the test were reasonable. The researcher administered the field test instrument to grade-four students as a classroom unit. This field test of the cog nitive skills instrument did allow the researcher to note faulty, or insufficient general directions for the test situation, as well as difficulties with specific instructions. During the field test it was also noted when students were ready for a break (rest) from the test and how well the recommended time allocations (per section) matched the working rate of the students. The commentary gathered by the researcher was utilized to modify directions to be given by the

PAGE 83

TAOLE 3 Correlation of Explore curriculum content with items drawn from the Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes and the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. Explore Thinking Skills. Strategies. Processes Recalling* Ubservi ng* Grouping and labeling* Classifying* Comparing and Contrasting* Noting similarities and differences* Questioning* Hypothesizing* Identifying attributes* Identifying relationships and patterns* -Generalizing and concluding* Induction Conceptualizing* -Scientific inquiry (research) Decision making* Problem solving *Skills/processes evaluated via Items (Sections) Drawn from the Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes Three of the sections of this test correlated with Explore. Items selected measured the ability to: Observe* -Identify attributes* -Identify relationships* Classify and pattern* -Generalize and conclude* Conceptualize* Question* Hypothesize* Decision making* Assessment of Cognitive Skills instrument Cognitive Tests Drawn from the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests Tests to assess the factor of induction were selected. This factor identifies the kinds of reasoning abilities involved in forming andtrying out hypoth eses that will fit a set of data. The particular test utilized assessed: Observing* Noting similarities and differences* -Identifying attributes* Comparing and contrasting* Concluding* Tests to assess the ability to evaluate the correctness of a conclusion were selected. The particular test utilized assessed: -Reca 11 i ng* Cl assi fyi ng* -Identifying relationships* -Generalizing* -Conceptualizing* The third broad category (factor) selected was flexibility of use. The particu lar test utilized assessed: Grouping and labeling* -Identifying relationships* -Identifying attributes* -Generalizing* '-l w

PAGE 84

TABLE 4 Correlation of Explore curriculum content with CTBS science and social studies sections. Explore Science Content/Skills -Characteristics of animals -Characteristics of plants Diversity in plants and animals Reasons for differences in individual plants/animals Environmental characteristics -Characteristics of Earth and the other planets in the Solar System Physical features Natural events that create forces I -Differences of living things in different.environments Careers/avocations -Scientific inquiry CTBS Science Content/Skills* Items 7 ,11,14,15,33,36,38 Items 1,12,16,17,18,34,35, 39,40 Items 30, 31 0 Item 3 (see also social studies items 13, 14, 18) Items 8, 24, 27, 29 (See also social studies regions) I terns 13, 23 0 0 I terns 6, 22, 37 *40 items in this section I Explore I CTBS Social Studies Content/Skills Social Studies Content/Skills* Characteristics of regions Characteristics of human communities Characteristics of states -Characteristics of the Rocky Mountain region and of Colorado Map/globe/charts/graphs use Careers/avocations Decision-making I tern 2 Items 15, 16, 17, 19 0 Items 37, 38 Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. 33. 34. 35 0 Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 *40 items in this section -....J

PAGE 85

75 test administrators, some vocabulary used in the test, and to set time recommendations for each section of the test. This information became part of a script developed by the researcher which was followed during the test admi ni strati on (in the study). Data Collection During the assessment of test and control subjects, the same testing procedures were applied to both groups. Students were informed that they were participating in an assessment of understand ; ngs held by gradefour students of certain knowledge and ski 11 s related to science and social studies and of other skills used when people study in these and other subject areas. Students were advised that this evaluation included fourth grade students from several schools in the school district. Test administrators, who were certified teachers, utilized the same script in providing this information and test instructions to students. The experimental and control subjects (not identified as such to teachers or students) were assured that no grades would be taken on this assessment and that individual scores would not be reported to their teachers. They were urged to be thoughtful in providing answers. The researcher estimated that an eight-day block of time should be all owed for the assessment procedures. That would provide for testing to occur within a reasonably close timeframe for all classrooms and would allow the researcher and three trained test administrators to administer all tests to the experimental and control groups, thereby maintaining integrity in the conditions of the testing procedures.

PAGE 86

76 Teachers were advised of the test date and time a week in advance. (This weeks notification was requested by building principals.) Teachers were asked to advise their students, only one day in advance of the test date, that another teacher would be with them the next day and that they would be i nvo 1 ved in acti viti es different from the usual daily events. Neither teachers nor administrators had access to the evaluation instruments. Data Processing and Analysis The research hypotheses tested by this study are directional, therefore, one-tailed tests of the null hypotheses were performed. They were tested for significance at the p = .05 level. A three factor analysis of variance, with two levels for each (E and C), which utilized the pretreatment measures as covariants was applied to test the hypotheses. The analysis of covariance is a particularly useful statistical method suitable for analysis of studies in which the researcher is unable to select experimental and control subjects at random and, therefore, was employed in this study. Analysis of covariance was applied to adjust for initial differences between the experimental and control groups and for the correlation between means. This statistical procedure allowed for the comparison of the groups on all variables. Groups were equated statistically by using the TCS and CTBS (Grade 3) as covariants. The statistical computations were performed by using these stati sti ca 1 programs from the Stati sti ca 1 Package for the Social Sciences (SPSSx, 1986) : Frequencies; (to verify input of raw data); T-Test (to compare pretest and posttest mean change scores); Analysis of Variance (to test for si gni fi cant differences between groups,

PAGE 87

77 genders, and for interaction effects) and Analysis of Covariance. Pearson correlations were made between two different variables on some of the data such as subject area (science, social studies) and gender. The Missing Va 1 ues command was applied in all situations. This command assured that only those scores that reflected a complet ed test would be entered into total scores and sets of data. If a part or section of a test was not complete, the subject's score was not entered into class or group totals. The reliability of the Grade Four Assessment of Cognitive Skills was calculated by using Cronbach's Alpha (SPSSx, Inc. p.857).

PAGE 88

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This study focused on the effect of the direct instruction of a specific curriculum, which emphasized the teaching of thinking skills in conjunction with science and social studies contents, on the ability of students to apply thinking skills to social studies and science related tasks and to apply these skills to other non-content specific tasks. In this chapter the statistical operations performed on the data gathered are described and the statistics summarized. An analyses of the data are presented in order to test the hypotheses of the study, which are that students in the experimental group will score higher on the grade four science and social studies sections of the CTBS, and will score higher on the Assessment of Cognitive Skills instrument than will the students in the control group. These null hypotheses were used as the basis for making statistical comparisons between groups: 1. There will be no differences between means of scores of the subjects in the experimental and control groups on the measures of science achievement and social studies achievement; 2. There wi 11 be no differences between means of scores of the subjects in the experimental and control groups on the measure to assess cognitive skills achievement. Other data were collected and analyzed in order to determine the affects upon the outcomes of the anci 11 ary variables of gender and the of teacher training.

PAGE 89

79 The chapter is organized in five sections which include an overview of the process of analysis; two sections in which the statistics generated related to the dependent and ancillary variables are and analyzed; a fourth section in which correlation data are presented; a fifth section in which information gathered through administration of an affective measure is described; and, a final section in which all results are summarized. The reader should refer to Chapter 1 for a complete description of the research questions and hypotheses and to Chapter 4 for an explanation of the research methodology employed in the study as well as descriptions of the instruments utilized and the subjects of the study. Overview This study investigated the effects of a particular thinking skills, science and social studies curriculum (the treatment) on 451 grade four students in one suburban school district. Three evaluation instruments were uti 1 i zed to assess the effects of the treatment. The dependent variables and their measures are listed below: Dependent Variables Measures A. Knowledge of science A. CTBS Science Section, content Form U, Level F B. Knowledge of social B. CTBS Social Studies studies content Section, Form U, Level F c. Knowledge of selected c. Grade Four Assessment of cognitive ski 11 s Cognitive Skills* *Reproduced in Appendix c

PAGE 90

80 As indicated in Chapter 4, the Assessment of Cognitive Skills evaluated five areas of cognition. The particular thinking skills included in the assessment were inductive skills of inferring attri butes and inferring meaning; skills of noting similarities and diff erences and grouping; questioning strategies; skills of observing and classifying; and determining relationships. The Cronbach alpha index of reliability was calculated for each scale and ranged from .11 to .71. The total scale reliability index was .32. The Cronbach alpha test allowed for a measure of internal consistency on only a single test administration. Carmines & Zeller (1979) advised that whatever method is used to determine reliability, an important use is to 11Correc t11 carrel ati ons for unreliability due to random measurement error. The results of the Cronbach alpha test and correction for attenuation (random measurement error) are shown in Tab 1 e 5. The attenuated alpha was a satisfactory level of reliability though the observed reliability was not. However, the fourth and the fifth scales, Questioning Strategies and Analysis of Attributes, had only six and ten items, respectively, and may not have provided valid measures in those areas. In Table 6 the statistical procedures employed to analyze the data obtained from the administration of the grade three science and social studies sections of the CTBS and of the Test of Cognitive Skills--pretreatment variables--and those utilized in the analysis of the data call ected through the admi ni strati on of the Assessment of Cognitive Skills instrument and the grade four science and social studies sections of the CTBS are summarized.

PAGE 91

TABLE 5 Reliability Analysis 81 Correlation Matrix COG! Induction COG! COG2 COG3 COG4 COG5 COG2 Attributes-Grouping .20 COG3 Diagraming COG4 Questioning Strategies COG5 Analysis of Attributes .12 .11 .12 .23 .17 .14 .40 .38 71 Reliability Coefficients 5 Items N of cases = 404 ALPHA= .32 Standardized ITEM ALPHA = .64 TABLE 6 Statistical Procedures Employed with Evaluation Instruments Statistical Procedures Instruments 1. Frequencies (SPSSx program 1. Grade 3 CTBS Science and 2. used to verify that data were Social Studies Sections accurately entered into the and the Test of Cognitive computer program) Skills; Grade 4 Science and Social Studies Sections of the CTBS and the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery T-tests a. Science kn owl edge ( E, C) b. Social studies knowledge (E,C) c. Cognitive ski 11 s knowledge (E,C) 2. Grade 3 Science and Social Studies Sections CTBS and the Test of Cognitive Skills; Grade 4 Science and Social Studies Sections of the CTBS and the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery (table continues)

PAGE 92

Statistical. Procedures 3. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVAs) a. Grade 3 Science and Social Studies covary with Grade 4 Science and Social Studies (E,C) b. Grade 3 TCS covary with Grade 4 Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery (E,C) 4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs) a. Science knowledge (E,C) b. Social studies knowledge (E,C) c. Cognitive ski 11 s knowledge (E,C) d. Treatment (E,C) by gender (01,02) e. Treatment (E,C) by teacher training (00-09) Instruments 3. Grade 3 CTBS Science and Social Studies Sections and Grade 3 TCS and dependent variables: Grade 4 CTBS Science and Social Studies Sections and Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery 4. CTBS, Grade 4 Science and Social Studies Sections and the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery 82 Certain data were gathered that substantiate the similarities of the subject groups (school populations) and, therefore, strenghthened the generalizability of the effects of the study to a population of students like these. Data utilized to compare the student populations at test and control sites were the percentages of each school's population receiving reduced-cost or free lunch (SES data) for the

PAGE 93

83 school year when the study was conducted. Table 7 displays the reduced-cost and free lunch data for each school site involved in the study. As evidenced by the data, experimental and control sites were quite similar in socio-economic makeup, as determined by the criteria of reduced cost or free 1 unch populations. The groups represented similar populations. These data allowed for a comparison of schools, however, the data were not obtainable at the student or even the classroom level and the researcher was unable to compare in a meaningful way treatment outcomes with the affects of the ancillary variable of socio-economic status. Therefore, no tables are provided related to that variable. The researcher anticipates a follow-up study in which the socio-economic status of each subject can be considered. TABLE 7 Reduced/Free Lunch Percentage of Student at Experimental and Control Sites Percent N N N N Reduced/ School Reduced Free Total Enrollment Free Experimental #1 43 75 118 747 15.8 #2 21 74 95 568 16.7 #3 31 63 94 366 25.7 #4 22 12 34 586 5.8 (table continues)

PAGE 94

84 School Reduced Free Total Enrollment Free Control #5 #6 #7 #8 24 22 20 21 22 46 89 73 46 68 109 94 692 526 408 500 6.7 12.9 26.7 18.8 In Table 8 other pretreatment data that were utilized to determine the similarities of the populations, experimental and control, were the grade three mean scores on the science and social studies sections of the CTBS and the TCS. School Experimental #1 #2 #3 #4 TABLE 8 Pretreatment Testing Results Experimental and Control Groups CTBS and TCS Mean Scores Mean Mean Mean Science ( N) CSI* ( N) CTBS 42 100.02 42 48.89 36 105.57 37 61.15 36 102.46 34 50.14 31 102.51 31 51.78 145 144 Mean Social Studies ( N) CTBS 43 49.96 38 59.88 36 52.92 32 51.35 149 (table continues)

PAGE 95

85 Mean Mean Mean Science Social Studies School ( N) CSI* ( N) CTBS ( N) CTBS Control #5 37 102.88 39 55.69 38 58.32 #6 31 105.20 32 53.19 30 53.50 #7 37 105.90 39 52.79 39 50.51 #8 21 98.77 24 51.69 23 54.06 126 134 130 *Cognitive Skills Index By retaining the individual scores in the analysis, the ANOVA model could be employed to evaluate the effect of teacher training. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the magnitude and direction of the rel ati onshi ps between the science section of the CTBS, grades three and four, the social studies section of the CTBS, grades three and four, the grade three Test of Cognitive Skills and the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery given at grade four. In addition, multiple correlations were calculated on these assessments and on the ancillary variables of gender and teacher training. The results of the calculations are presented in the fourth section of this chapter. Si nee the n s were unequal, a test for homogeneity of varia nee was conducted. The F -procedure, termed the Bartlett-Box test of homogeneity of variance in the SPSSx programs, was used. Table 9 displays the means and standard deviations for the experimental and control groups, each F-ratio, and the significance of the Bartlett

PAGE 96

86 test for homogeneity of variance for each dependent variable. The homogeneity of variance for all dependent variables was found tena ble, as indicated by the significance levels obtained from this test. TABLE 9 Means, Standard Deviations, F-Ratio for Treabnent from Two-Factor ANOVAS, and Significance of Tests for Homogeneity of Variance for Each Dependent Variable from the CTBS Science and Social Studies Sections and the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery Dependent Variable Xc F SDe SOc P* CTBS Science Section 53.27 51.49 1.24 7.02 6.79 .651 CTBS Social Studies Section 55.23 54.44 .80 8.92 8.50 .500 Assessment of Cognitive Ski 11 s Battery 89.31 89.44 .01 17.34 14.78 .032 *From Bartlett-Box Test for Homogeneity of Variance Attitude Component An attitude component was added to this study although it was not a part of the formal research investigation. The results of the attitude survey, which was administered to both experimental and control subjects, are presented in a section of this chapter because of the researcher 1 s recognition that students 1 perceptions of the school environment and what goes on there reflects the nature of the learning experiences presented and the value given to certain areas of learning. Resnick & Klopfer (1989) report that, ..... The school setting 1 ets students know that elements of critical thought are

PAGE 97

87 socially valued . and that basic skill and subject matter should be taught as occasions for thought, elaboration, and interpretation throughout the school11 ( p.9). The importance and useful ness of and interest in science and social studies were the areas addressed through the survey. Questions were developed and employed to check the effects of socially desirable responses. Six of the 21 questions that comprised the survey constituted the Response Integrity Seal e. A frequency of responses was tabula ted and then means were calculated for the experimental and control groups on the total survey, on the Response Integrity Scale (6 questions) and on each of the attitude scales of the survey. The five scales, and the number of questions on the survey that reflected each were: Importance of Science and Social Studies (2 questions); Usefulness of Science and Social Studies (2 questions); Interesting to Study (8 questions); Relationship of Science and Social Studies (1 question); and Self-Rate in Science and Social Studies (2 questions). Analysis of Pretreatment Data As indicated in Chapter 4, the pretreatment variables of student performance on the grade three science and social studies sections of the CTBS and performance on the Test of Cognitive Skills were utilized to establish that the experimental and control populations were simi 1 ar and represented the general population of the school district. In addition, the performances of subjects on these instruments provided baseline data which allowed for comparisons to be made about growth in the areas of science and social studies skills and content and in cognitive skills as assessed by the administration of the grade four science and social studies sections of the CTBS and

PAGE 98

88 the grade four science and social studies sections of the and the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery. T-tests were performed on each of the pretreatment variable assessments for the experimental and control groups. These data are reported in Table 10. T -tests were also performed on each of the assessments of the dependent vari ables. All differences were tested for significance at the p = .05 level. These data are report in Table 11. Mean score gains for the experimental and control groups in science and social studies achievement and in cognitive ski 11 s achievement are also shown in Table 11. In Table 10 for each of the t-tests performed on the pretreatment variables, the critical values for t were: 1.65. (The same value was obtained for each assessment). In each case, the critical values of t were greater than the observed values, which are shown in Table 10, panels A, B, and C. Because there were no statistical differences between the groups, these tests indicated that the populations were simi 1 ar and that the mean scores represented scores from a common population. This strengthened the generalizability of the study. The post-treatment data are displayed on Table 11, panels A, B, and C. The t-tests performed on these data indicated that the null hypothesis of no difference between groups could not be rejected as the observed t values on the assessments of the dependent variables for the groups, E and C, were less than the critical values of t. Those critical values were 1.65 for each test. By referring to Tab 1 e 11, in which the data gathered on the groups on science achievement is displayed, one can note (panel D) that a mean loss was exhibited by the control group (pre-post) while

PAGE 99

89 the experimental group exhibited a mean gain. Although the experimental group obtained a higher mean score at grade four, the difference is not statistically si gni fi cant. The data related to social studies achievement (panel B, Table 10) revealed that on the pretreatment assessment the experimental group obtained a lower mean score and 1 ower standard deviation than the control group. On the grade four assessment, shown on Table 11, panel B, the experimental group exhibited a higher mean score and a greater standard deviation than the control group. The experimental group obtai ned a higher mean score gain than did the control group (panel E). But, as with science achievement, there was no statistical evidence that the difference can be attributed to the treatment. In the area of cognitive skills at grade four, the control group demonstrated a higher mean score than did the experimental group (Table 11, panel C). However, by reviewing the pretreatment data on the TCS in panel C of Table 10, it will be noted that the experimental group held a 1 ower mean score than did the control group. So while neither group displayed a net gain of mean score in this achievement area at the end of the study, the data revealed that the experimental group entered the study with a 1 ower cognitive skills mean score and did not demonstrate as great a mean score loss as did the control group. The differences in the area of skills were not statistically significant. Analysis of Dependent Variables Wildt and Ahtol a (1978) suggested that 110ne of the principal uses of analysis of covariance is to reprove bias which may result when test units cannot be assigned at random to experimental conditions

PAGE 100

TABLE 10 T-tests on Pretreatment Assessments for Experimental and Control Groups Assessment N Mean/Sd Grade Three (Pretreatment) A. Exper imenta 1 Science Section, CTBS 144 52.60 15.80 Control Group Science Section, CTBS 134 53.52 17.89 B. Experimental Group Social Studies Section, CTBS 149 53.25 16.09 Control Group Social Studies Section, CTBS 130 54.17 17.99 c. Experimental Group Test of Cognitive Skills 147 108.49 69.44 Control Group Test of Cognitive Skills 129 110.09 52.67 90 t-value p -.45 .327 -.45 .327 -.22 .412

PAGE 101

91 TABLE 11 T-tests on Posttreatment Assessments of the Dependent Variables for Experimental and Control Groups Assessment N Mean/Sd t-value p Grade Four Posttreatment A. Experimental Group Science Section, CTBS 149 53.27 7.02 1.11 .133* Control Group Science Section, CTBS 134 51.49 6.79 B. Experimental Group Social Studies Section, CTBS 149 55.23 8.92 -.89 .186* Contro 1 Group Social Studies Section, CTBS 130 54.44 8.50 c. Experimental Group Assess. of Cog. Skills Battery 147 89.31 17.34 -.08 .468* Control Group Assess. of Cog. Skills Battery 126 89.44 14.78 Differences: Means Sds Mean Gain Grade Four Posttreatment Pre to Post D. Science 1.78 .23 Experimental .67 (E>C) (E>C) Control 2.03 E. Social Studies 79 .42 Experimental 1.98 (E>C) (E>C) Control .27 F. Cognitive Skills .13 2.56 Experimental -19.18 (EC) Control -20.65 *One-tailed test of significance

PAGE 102

92 (p.13). This was the situation in this study. In this case, the posttest scores on the science and social studies sections of the CTBS and scores on the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery were the dependent vari ab 1 es. Type of curri cul urn was the independent variable of primary concern, and the three control variables (scores on the grade 3 science and social studies sections of the CTBS and scores on the TCS) were employed as covari ates to remove bias by adjusting for any preexisting differences among the groups. The precision of the experiment was increased by reducing the error of variance. Results of the analyses of covariance are displayed in Table 12. For each measure of achievement of science, social studies, and cognitive skills an analysis of covariance was performed using the grade three means scores as the covariates. In each analysis F-rations were tested for significance at p. = .05. Adjusted mean scores for the experimental and control groups on the dependent measures are identified in the table. Measure of Knowledge of Science Skills and Content In panel A of Table 12 the affects of the covariate students scores on the Grade Three Science Section of the CTBS, on the dependent variable (science achievement) are identified. Although the experimental group obtained a higher adjusted mean score on science achievement, this difference was not statistically s i gni fi cant. The obtained F-value of 1.318 was below the critical F-value, .95F1,299 = 2.72, p>.OS. Consequently, the null hypothesis that there was no difference between the two subject groups on science achievement cannot be rejected.

PAGE 103

93 Measure of Knowledge of Social Studies Skills and Knowledge The mean scores for the experimental and control groups, adjusted for the affects of the covariate students scores on the Srade Three Social Studies Section of the CTBS, appear in panel B of Table 12. As was the case in science achievement, the experimental group subjects achieved slightly higher adjusted mean scores than did the control group subjects. The critical F-value of this test was .95F1,296 = 2.72, p>.05 and the obtained F-value of .675 was 1 ower. Therefore, the two subject groups displayed no statistical difference and the null hypothesis was tenable. The data related to social studies and science achievement, indicated the treatment had an effect. This appeared to be so. especially in 1 i ght of the 1 ower mean scores of the experimental subjects on the grade three assessment of social studies and science achievement. Measure of the Knowledge of Cognitive Skills In the case of knowledge of cognitive skills, the control groups adjusted mean score was very slightly greater than that of the exper imental groups mean score. The critical F-value, .95F1,251 = 2.73, p>.05, indicated that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. If the data in Table 11, panel F, were reviewed, it would be noted that the experimental group made a greater mean score gain (and overcame lower grade three cognitive skills assessment mean scores) than did the control group. Analysis of Data Related to the Ancillary Variables The two ancillary variables of gender and teacher training were ex ami ned for the affects that each might have had on the dependent

PAGE 104

94 Table 12 Analysis of Covariance Grade 3 Covariates, CTBS Science and Social Studies, and the TCS, with Grade 4 Dependent Variables CTBS Science, CTBS Social Studies, Assessment of Cognitive Skills A. CTBS Science Test Source of Variation (N) = 270 Method Residual ( Wi thin) B. CTBS Social Studies Test Source of Variation Method Residual (Within) (N) = 279 C. Assessment of Cognitive Skills Source of Variation Method Residual ( Within) ( N) = 250 df 1 267 MS 42.464 30.874 F 1.318 (XE= 51.56, Xc= 50.76) 1 276 32.093 47.523 .675 (XE= 54.37, Xc= 53.71) 1 247 .335 229.695 .001 (XE= 89.62, Xc= 89.69) p .252 .412 .970

PAGE 105

95 variables. As described previously in this chapter, the variable of socio-economic status was not tested due to the i nabi 1 i ty of the researcher to gather data at the classroom level. The Interaction of Treatment and Gender Analysis of variance was performed in order to determine the interaction of treatment and gender of the subjects of the study. In Tables 13, 14 and 15 means scores of males and females on the measures of the pretreat variables and on measures of the dependent variables are reported. TABLE 13 Means Scores for Females and Males on Pretreabnent Variable and Dependent Vari able of Science Achievement Experimental (Ii_=144) Control (J!=134) Science, CTBS Grade Three 52.99 52.21 (N=65) (Ii_=79) 53.86 53.18 (Ii_=56) (N=78) Female Male Experimental (Ii_=149) Control (Ii_=134) Science, CTBS Grade Four 53.97 52.57 (N= 67) (N= 82) 51.67 51.31 (N= 56) (N= 78) Female Male Mean Difference (Pre-Post) Experimental Male = .36 Experimental Female = .98 Control Male = -1.87 Control Female = -2.19 On Table 13 the subjects CTBS science assessment mean scores are presented by gender. It was apparent that in science achievement at grade four, females in the experimental group scored higher than did males in that group, and higher than did males and females in the control group. In terms of pre-post comparison, the experimental group exhibited higher mean scores, both females and males, pre to post, and the control group exhibited lower mean scores, female and male, pre to post.

PAGE 106

TABLE 14 Means Scores for Females and Males on Pretreatment Variable and Dependent Variable of Social Studies Achievement 96 Social Studies, Grade Three Social Studies, CTBS Grade Four Mean Difference (Pre-Post) Experimental (_!!=149) Control (_!!=130) 54.01 52.49 (_!!=67) (N=82) 55.07 53.27 (N=54) N=76) Female Male Experimental (N=l49) Control (N=130) 54.90 (N= 67} 53.73 (_!!=54) Female 55.56 (_!!= 82) 55.15 ( N= 76) e Experimental Male = 3.07 Experimental Female = .89 Control Male = 1.88 Control Female = -1.34 The data for social studies achievement is shown in Table 14. In social studies at grade four, males in both the experimental and control groups scored higher than did females. The pre to post examination reveals males in both the experimental and control groups gained, but females in the control group did not exhibit mean scores as high in grade four as they had demonstrated in grade three. The females in the experimental group demonstrated a mean score gain of .89. Experi menta 1 (_!!=147) Control (,!!=126) TABLE 15 Means Scores for Females and Males on Pretreatment Variable and Dependent Variable of Cognitive Skills Achievement TCS Grade Three 113.28 103.70 (,!! =68) (_!!= 79) 111.07 109.11 (N=59) N=7U) Female Male Cognitive Skills Battery Grade Four Mean Difference (Pre-Post) Experimental (,!!=147) Control (N=l84) 91.87 (,!!= 68) 92.08 (N=56) Female 86.75 (,!!= 79) 86.80 (_!!=70) Male Experimental Male = -16.95 Experimental Female = -21.41 Control Male = -22.31 Control Female = -18.99

PAGE 107

97 Data on male and female achievement in cognitive skills are shown in Table 15. Females in the control group scored highest on the assessment of cognitive ski 11 s at grade four, while females in the experimental group had the highest mean scores on the grade three TCS. The greatest mean loss was demonstrated by males in the control group, while males in the experimental group demonstrated the smallest mean loss. Significance of the Treatment and Gender Interaction In Table 16 is displayed analyses of variance which provided F-ratios to test the statistical significance of the treannent-gender interaction. There was no significance in the interactions of gender and science achievement and gender and social studies achievement prior to, nor following, the treatment. Significance was demonstrated in the cognitive skills and gender interaction at the .05 level. That is, an interaction existed related to gender and achievement in cognitive skills, but the interaction was not significant in this study, as the gender-by-method interaction was not statistically significant. Figure 10 illustrates the gender-cognitive skills pretreatment interaction and the absence of interaction following the treatment. Glass & Hopkins.(1984) stated: If an interaction is not significant, one can generalize with greater confidence to various types of subjects than would otherwise be possible (p.406). Thus, in this study generalizability is increased because the treatment did not favor males or females.

PAGE 108

TABLE 16 Analysis of Variance Interaction of Treatnent and Gender SCIENCE, GRADE 4 df MS Source of Variation Gender 1 10.485 Gender-by-Method 1 .451 Within 284 48.254 N = 287 SOCIAL STUDIES, GRADE 4 df MS Source of Variation Gender 1 274.640 Gender-by-Method 1 4.334 Within 277 75.755 N = 280 COGNITIVE SKILLS, GRADE 4 Source of Variation Gender Gender-by-Method Within N = 258 *.95F 1 ,257= 3.89, p<.05 df 1 1 255 MS 1389.432 57.488 F .217 .009 F 3.625 .057 F 5.375 .222 p .641 .923 p .058 .811 p .021* .638 98

PAGE 109

99 115 64 Mean Scores -110 ---.,on Grade 3-TCS 105 ____________ ._ ____ __ 100 Mean Scores 95 on Grade 4 90 Assessment of Cognitive Skills Males Females ---Experimental -----Control Males Females FIGURE 10 -Grade 3 (Pretreatment) Mean scores on the TCS and gender. and Grade 4 (Posttreatment) Mean scores on the Assessment of Cognitive Skills and gender.

PAGE 110

100 Interaction of Teacher Training and Outcomes In order to test the affect of the amount of training the teacher had received in the curriculum on the student achievement in science, social studies and cognitive skills, an analysis of variance was performed for each dependent variable with teacher training. Cell means for each of the teacher training values are shown in Table 17. The values represent the number of days of training in the Explore Curri cul urn which a teacher in the experimental group had received prior to the beginning of the study. No teachers, who were a part of the control group, had any training in the Explore Curriculum and therefore, the data displayed pertained to only experimental class rooms. From these data, it was evident that the greatest number of students ( 36%) were being taught by teachers who had one day of training in the curriculum. The next largest number of students (29%) were in classrooms with teachers who had four days of training. The remaining 35% of the students were in classrooms with teachers who had six days of training in the Explore Curriculum. That 35% of the students were divided fairly equally (10%-14%) in class rooms with teachers who had two, three, or six days of training in the implementation of the curriculum. Highest mean scores in grade four science and social studies were exhibited by students with a teacher who had received one day of training. (This was followed closely by students in class rooms with teachers who had three days of training.) When the cell means on the Cognitive Skills Battery were examined it was revealed that the highest T-scores were exhibited in the classroom where the teacher had six days of training.

PAGE 111

101 TABLE 17 Cell Means for Teacher Training and Dependent Variables Science CTBS Teacher Training (Days} 1 2 3 4 6 Cell Means 52.56 54.54 55.01 51.74 54.80 Number of Students (68} ( 24} ( 23} (47} (23} Total N = 185 Social Studies CTBS Teacher Training (Days} 1 2 3 4 6 Ce 11 Means 55.18 53.39 56.44 53.71 55.19 Number of Students (64} (23} (25} (48} ( 18} Total N = 178 Cognitive Ski 11 s Battery Teacher Training (Days} 1 2 3 4 6 T-Scores 43.11 45.54 35.37 45.50 49.35 Number of Students (57} (20} (22} (45} ( 19} Total N = 163 The teachers in the experimental group represented experience in teaching from one to five years and from six years or more. SiX teachers were in the six or more years of teaching category and two were in the five or fewer years of teaching category. The teachers in class room numbers nine and ten each had fewer than five years experience in the classroom (See Table 18}. In the control group teachers with experience of one to five years and six or more years were represented in the same ratio. The gains displayed by students in the experimental group provided a more exact accounting of the affect of teacher training. These gains are shown in Table 18. The Test of Cognitive Skills ( CSI, Cognitive Ski 11 s Index} was sealed with a mean of 100 and a

PAGE 112

102 standard deviation of 16 and the scores on the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery were converted to standard scores from percent; 1 es. A mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16 were used in the conversion. Scores on both have been converted to T-scores for more meaningful comparisons. Both the grade three and grade four CTBS scores are reflected in the NCT (normal curve equivalent) scale. The differences in T-scores on the Test of Cognitive Skills and on the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery paralleled the comparative data shown on Table 10 and Table 11. A loss in T-score occurred for all classes in the experiment group. The class-by-class examination revealed that the lowest T-score loss was demonstrated by students in a classroom with a teacher who had received the most training in the curriculum. In stience the experimental group, as described previously, demonstrated a gain, pre to post. In Table 18 the greatest mean score gain in science, 8.87 and 6.77, occurred in two classrooms in which the two teachers had received six days and one day respectively, in preparation to implement the curriculum. It can be seen from the data in Table 18 that students in rooms numbered three and four exhibited 1 osses in mean scores in science and the students in class room three exhibited a 1 oss in social studies as well. Both teachers of these subjects had received the minimum amount of training in the curriculum. Gains in social studies occurred in classrooms #8 and #9, the same classrooms in which students exhibited the strongest gains in science. It can be noted that the teachers of these subjects had the

PAGE 113

Classroom Training in TABLE 18 Pre and Post Ca.parisons on the Dependent Variables with the Effects of Teacher Training Cognitive Skills Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 3 Grade 4 t::xperience Curriculum CSI* Battery CTBS Science CTBS Science CTBS Soc.Studies CTBS Soc.Studies (Years) Classroom (Days) N T-Score N T-Score Difference N Mean Score N Mean Score Difference N Mean Score N Mean Score Difference 6+ 11 4 22 51.96 23 45.96 -6.00 22 48.23 23 50.64 2.41 23 50.96 23 52.86 1.90 ti+ 12 4 20 48.06 22 45.03 -3.03 20 49.55 24 54.83 5.28 20 48.95 25 54.56 6.61 ti+ 13 1 14 56.76 18 45.03 -11.73 15 51.53 23 48.44 -3.09 15 58.80 20 47.75 -10.05 6+ 14 1 22 50.17 21 46.96 -3.21 22 50.77 24 52.71 -1.94 23 50.96 23 54.48 3.52 b+ 17 3 21 51.99 22 35.37 -16.62 2D 54.35 23 55.01 .66 21 58.10 25 56.44 -1.66 ti+ 18 6 15 51.08 19 49.35 -1.73 14 45.93 23 54.80 8.87 15 47.73 18 55.19 7.46 1 to 5 I'J 1 16 53.01 18 37.33 -15.68 16 49.75 21 56.52 6.77 16 54.13 21 63.32 9.19 1 to 5 110 2 15 50.13 20 45.54 -4.59 15 53.80 24 54.54 .74 16 48.56 23 53.39 4.83 *Test of Cognitive Skills Index: CSI NOTI::: Classrooms 15, lb, Ill, 112, 113, 114, 117, 118 were control classes 1-' c w

PAGE 114

CTBS SCIENCE SECTION 65 Mean 60 Scores 55 Experimental 50 Group 45 40 CTBS SOCIAL STUDIES SECTION 65 Mean 60 Scores 55 Experimental 50 Group 45 40 COGNITIVE SKILLS BATTERY 60 55 Grade 4 Grade 3 2 3 4 5 6 Teacher Training (Days) -\ ___ .. Grade 4 ..... -...... -2 3 4 5 6 Teacher Training (Days) T-Scores 50 ., __,__ ..........._ ____ ""'.,.........._ - Grade 3 Grade 4 Experimental 45 Group -----... ---------_ .... ...... 40 35 2 3 5 6 Teacher Training (Days) 104 FIGURE 11 Interaction of Teacher Training and Student Achievement on Measures of the Dependent Variables Compared With Student Achievement on the Pretreatment Variables

PAGE 115

105 most and the 1 east amount of preparation in the curri cul urn and in classroom experience, respectively. The data did not reveal a clear pattern of the affect of teacher training on student achievement. Figure 11 presents the graphic representation of the relationship between teacher training and student achievement. Analysis of Correlation Results Correlation coefficients were calculated using the SPSSx Pearson carrel ati on program. The pretreatment variables and the anci 11 ary variables were correlated with each dependent variable. One tailed tests were applied to the resulting coefficients to determine their significance. The correlations are displayed in Table 19. The pretreatment variables of science and social studies were strongly correlated (.722) as were the grade four science and social studies variables ( .719). The grade three and the grade four science and social studies correlated negatively in all interactions. The grade three Test of Cognitive Skills and the grade four Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery were moderately correlated (.472). There were more negative than positive carrel ati ons. Eighty percent of the positive correlations were at .30 or below. The one carrel ati on which was statistically si gni fi cant was the carrel ati on of grade three science and the grade three Test of Cognitive Skills. Since the correlations, except those between grade three science and social studies and grade four science and social studies, were low, their value for prediction was low. Interesting findings included the negative correlations between grade three and grade four social

PAGE 116

TABLE 19 Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficients: Covariates, Ancillary Variables and Dependent Variables Grade Four Grade Three Grade Four Assessment of Grade Three Soc.Studi es Grade Three Grade Four Soc.Studies Cognitive Science CTBS CTBS TCS Science CTBS CTBS Ski 11 s Pretreatment Grade Three Science CTBS Grade Three Social Studies CTBS 722 Grade Three, TCS .164* -.005 Posttreatment Grade Four Science CTBS -.489 -.479 .030 Grade Four Social Studies CTBS -.486 -.558 -.028 .719 Assessment of Cognitive Ski 11 s .312 .001 .472 -.276 -.320 Gender -.007 -.021 -.010 .024 -.018 .049 Teacher Training .041 .012 -.018 NOTE: TCS = Test of Cognitive Skills -0 p< .05 0'\

PAGE 117

107 studies (-.558) and between grade three science and grade four science (-.489). These data raised questions for the researcher about the predi tabi 1 i ty of the grade three CTBS science and social studies sections for performance on the grade four science and social studies tests. Discussion of Data Gathered Through an Attitude Survey Hopkins (1986) advised researchers involved in studies with human subjects that, 11 Important consequences of an education a 1 intervention are ignored if only cognitive outcomes are assessed. .If a new 1oethod is no more effective than the conventional method, it still may be the better method because it has affective benefits. (p.43}. II An attitude survey was administered to the experimental and control subjects at the time when the science, social studies and cognitive ski 11 s assessments were administered to the fourth grade experimental and control students. Validity of affective measures depends upon the content validity of the questions in the instrument and whether the examinees are likely to respond truthfully to the questions. The attitude survey used by this researcher was administered at the time of the assessment of the dependent variables, to increase the likelihood that subjects would consider the survey an important part of the evaluation procedure. As in achievement and subjectrelated testing, the test-taking atmosphere can affect the perform ance of the subjects. The directions for the subjects included the purpose for the survey and requested the subjects honest, careful

PAGE 118

108 responses. The survey can be found in Appendix D. These conditions alone wi 11 not guarantee truthful ness from respondents. Hopkins ( 1986) suggested that the addition of i terns intended to monitor answers which respondents believe are socially desirable can be utilized to detect great distortions in the response integrity of the subjects ( p.45). A response integrity seale was embedded in the survey admi nistered to the students who were involved in this study. Kenneth Hopkins, University of Colorado, Boulder, and Walter Parker, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, reviewed the survey and provided recommendations regarding content validity and the appropriateness of the response integrity items. Twenty-four percent of the. survey questions constituted the RI scale. No reliability or validity data were included in this dissertation. Hence, this is information for the reader, but no statistically validated claims are made. The data displayed in Table 20 demonstrated that the degree of response integrity was similar in both groups (E,C). Therefore, it was unlikely that the experimental and control differences on the attitude survey were affected by different experimental versus control response integrity. The mean scores of the experimental and control groups on the response integrity seale are shown in Table 20. Also displayed in Table 20 are the mean scores of each group on the total survey, and their mean scores on each of the attitude scales which comprized 76% of the survey. Hopkins (1986) stated: 11The desired result for purposes of internal validity is that there would be no difference in means among

PAGE 119

109 the comparison groups and the RI scale" (p.47). That requirement was met in the admi ni strati on of an attitude survey with a response integrity scale. In all comparisons the experimental subjects exhibited higher mean scores. No statistical significance was implied and no test was used. TABLE 20 Comparison of Mean Scores of Experimental and Control Groups on the Total Attitude Survey, the Response Integrity Scale and on the Scales of the Attitude Survey Mean Scores Mean Scores Experimental Control Number Group Group of (N = 200) (N = 206) Questions Total Attitude Survey 23.29 19.60 21 Integrity Response Scale 10.93 10.47 6 Seales of the Attitude Survey Importance of Science, 8. 73 8.53 1 Social Studies 16.22 8.05 1 Usefulness of Science, 16.45 8.28 1 Social Studies 8.47 8.25 1 Interest in Science, 10.96 8.25 4 Social Studies 11.41 8. 78 4 Relationship of Science and Social Studies 14.00 7.92 1 Self-Rating in Science, 15.90 12.03 1 Social Studies 17.05 11.82 1

PAGE 120

110 Discussion and Summary of Findings This study was designed to determine the effects of an integrated curriculum of thinking skills, science and social studies, which was developed to be used with fourth grade students. A summary of the findings related to each component of the study is listed below: 1. Assessments were conducted on three dependent variables which were: Knowledge of science content No statistically significant differences were found between the experimental and control groups. -Knowledge of social studies content No statistically significant differences were found between experimental and control goups. -Knowledge of cognitive skills No statistically significant differences were found between experimental and control groups. 2. Statistical tests were performed to determine the affect of two ancillary variables on the treatment. variables were: -Interaction of gender and treatment The anci 11 ary No statistically significant interaction was found. Affect of teacher training on student achievement No statistically significant interaction was found. Specifically, a review of the data gathered with respect to the hypotheses of the study indicated that experimental subjects did perform better than the control subjects on the assessments of achievement in science and in social studies. Prior to adjustment of

PAGE 121

111 the affects of the covariates, the experimental group's mean score in science was 53.27 and the control group's mean score was 51.49. Following the adjustment for the effects of the covariate, the mean scores were E = 51.56 and C = 50.76. In social studies the mean scores prior to the ANCOVA test were 55.23 for the experimental group and 54.44 for the contro 1 group. Adjusted mean scores in social studies were, E = 54.37 and C = 53.71. This indicated students who had received the treatment, did score higher on the CTBS science and social studies tests, although the results were not statistically significant. The control subjects performed better on the fourth grade assessment of the ability to apply cognitive skills. Neither group, E nor C, demonstrated improvement over grade three performance in this area. The experimental subjects exhibited a lower mean loss, but no differences were statistically significant. In addition to the two hypotheses investigated in the study, three research questions were examined: 1) Would students in grade four in the experimental and control group perform differently on the assessments used in the study with respect to gender? 2) Would the students in the experimental group perform differently on the assessments with respect to the extent of training the teacher received in the Explore Curriculum? 3) Would the students in the experimental and control groups perform differently on the assessments with respect to their socio-economic status? Research Question One The data revealed differences in performance by males and females on each of the treatment assessments in the areas of science, social

PAGE 122

112 studies, and cognitive skills. The analysis of variance indicated that the treatment did not account for those differences. However, there was a statistically significant difference between males and females in the area of cognitive skills achievement. This indicated that whi 1 e statistical differences of gender existed, related to cognitive skills, a curriculum that focused on the teaching of cognitive skills did not explain that difference. Research Question Two No carrel ati on was demonstrated between the amount of training the teacher received and the performance of students on any of the assessments of the dependent variables. The Pearson carrel ati on coefficients were low and not statistically significant. In fact, a negative correlation was shown between teacher training and student performance on the grade four assessment of cognitive skills. This could indicate that teachers were struggling as they worked to gain understanding of the thinking skills and were uncomfortable in teaching those skills. No consistent pattern was demonstrated with regard to teacher training and student performance. The subjects who demonstrated the least mean score loss on cognitive skills assessments were taught by a teacher who had received the greatest amount of training in the curriculum. In the areas of science and social studies, the greatest mean scores gains were achieved by students in class rooms with teachers who had the most and the least amount of teaching experience and training with the curriculum.

PAGE 123

113 Research Question Three No data were avai 1 able to the researcher on a class room or student level on socio-economic status. Therefore, the question was not researched. It is anticipated this will be investigated in an additional study.

PAGE 124

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The first two sections of this chapter present a review of the purpose of the study and of the rnethodol ogy employed. These two sections provide a reference for the third section, which is a brief review of the findings and 1 imitations. The fourth section offers conclusions drawn from the study. The chapter concludes with a presentation of recommendations for further study, in the areas of the teaching of thinking and in curriculum integration, and a discussion of the educational implications of this study. Purpose of the Study This study focused upon the effect of a specific curriculum which emphasized the teaching of thinking with the teaching of science and social studies contents. Specifically, these hypotheses were tested: 1) The students who received direct instruction of thinking skills in conjunction with the subject area study in social studies and science will demonstrate a higher 1 evel of performance on an assessment of congnitive skills application than will students who did not receive direct instruction of thinking skills infused with subject area study. 2) The students who received direct instruction of thinking skills in conjunction with subject area study in science and social studies will demonstrate a higher level of performance on an assessment of social studies and science knowledge and skills than will students who did not receive direct instruction of thinking ski 11 s infused with subject area study. Three sub-questions were also presented for investigation. Did students in grade four, in the experimental and control groups, perform differently on thinking

PAGE 125

115 ski 11 s tasks and on subject area assessments with respect to the variables of: 1) socio-economic status; .. with respect to gender; . .and, with respect to the extent of training which the teacher received in the Explore Curriculum (the treatment)? This study was conducted to compare the effects, at grade four, of a pilot curriculum designed to integrate the concepts and skills of science, social studies and thinking skills instruction with the effects of a traditional, textbook-oriented approach to those subject areas. Methodology of the Study In order to determine the effects of the treatment, the Explore Curriculum, a quasi-experimental study was conducted. The researcher was unable to select subjects on a totally random basis. The subjects selected from the avai 1 able populations, experimenta 1 and non-experimental, were compared on the socio-economic makeup of the schools, on their performances on the CTBS science and social studies sections, and on the TCS, which they had completed as third-graders. As a result of these comparisons, eight classes of experimental and eight classes of control subjects were identified for the study. At the beginning of the study there were 200 experimental subjects and 206 control subjects. At the conclusion of the study, there were 149 experimental subjects and 134 control subjects. Because of the unequal number of subjects in the two groups, E and C, a test for homogeneity of variance was performed. The homogeneity for all dependent variable was found to be tenable, as indicated by the significance levels. Teachers in the experimental and control classrooms held tenure

PAGE 126

116 and non-tenure status in equal proportions. No control teacher had previous experience with the Explore Curriculum. Teachers in the experimental classrooms implemented the curriculum during the 19871988 school year. Control teachers applied the objectives-based, textbook-oriented, curri cul urn that had been in place in the school district for several years. Instructional time suggested for the Explore Curriculum was based upon the typical amount of instructional time that had historically been allocated for the teaching of science and social studies at grade four. Instrumentation The evaluative instruments included in this study were: 1) the CTBS Form U, Level F Science Section; 2) the CTBS Form U, Level F Social Studies Section; and 3) The Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery, comprised of i terns drawn from the Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes and the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. The researcher relied on the construct validity reported by the developers of the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests and of the Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes. The instrument constructed in this study for the assessment of cognitive skills was utili zed because of the content correlation between the two tests cited above and the Explore Curriculum and because of the efforts of the developers of the Ross Test and the kit of factor-referenced items to establish the theoretical relationship between the thinking skills and processes, and between the skills and the measurement of the skills. An attitude survey was administered as a parallel assessment to this study. This survey provided information on students attitudes toward the importance of science and social

PAGE 127

117 studies, the usefulness of such study, and their interest in these two areas. T-tests were performed to compare the means of experimental and control groups on the dependent variables and on pretreatment varia b 1 es. The TCS scores and the scores on the Assessment of Cognitive Skills Battery were transformed into T-scores in order to better understand the differences in mean scores, as the lengths of the two tests were dissimilar. Analysis of variances was performed to determine if the differences on the groups means were larger than would be expected from sampling error. In addition, in this study an attempt was made to determine if there were any interactions between the treatment effect and gender, and between the treatment effect and the amount of training the teacher had received in the use of the experimenta 1 curri cul urn. The two-factor AN OVA design was applied because it encompassed the two notions of main effects and interaction. If interaction was found to be present, the generalization from the study would have to be qualified. The evaluation instruments were administered in a two-week block of time during April, 1988. The researcher and three certified teachers, who were trained in the administrative strategies, conducted the assessments. Both class rooms of students at a school were administered the tests at the same time. Scoring of the assessments was completed by the researcher and the certified teachers who were involved with the assessment process. Summary of Findings No statistically significant differences were found on any of the assessments of the dependent variables. The groups did not differ

PAGE 128

118 significantly on science and social studies achievement, nor on the application of thinking skills. No statistical significance was found to exist in the affect of teacher training on student achievement. No significant interaction existed between gender and the treatment. Experimental subjects did a chi eve higher mean scores on the assessments in the areas of science and social studies. These students also exhibited a lower mean score loss (from pre to post) in the area of cognitive skills than did the subjects in the control group. The only statistically significant interaction was associated with gender and cognitive skills, but no statistically significant interaction was found to exist between the treatment and gender, as previously stated. So, although performance on cognitive skills appeared to be affected by gender, the treatment did not create nor contribute to that difference. The Pearson correlation coefficients which were calculated on the pretreatment, treatment, and ancillary variables, were too low to be of value for prediction purposes. Limitations Certain limitations related to the study were described in Chapter 1: 1) The study involved only one school district; 2) The study was not a true randomized experiment; and 3) The teachers involved in the pilot of the experimental curriculum were volunteers. Additional limitations entered into the study. Although the study was conducted as carefully as possible, these conditions existed: 1) It was assumed that teachers taught the experimental curriculum in the experimental classrooms; 2) As this was a pilot

PAGE 129

119 study, the evaluation instruments might not have been as congruent with the curriculum as desirable; 3) The entire K-6 curriculum is not developed, therefore, the students had not had the spiral development in cognition and content. Conclusions This study addressed the effects of a curri cul urn designed to integrate the teaching of thinking skills and strategies with content skills and knowledge in the areas of life, earth/environmental, and physical science and social studies skills and knowledge. The primary concern of the study was the instruction of thinking skills and that impact upon science and social studies achievement and upon achievement in the application of thinking skills. Student attitudes toward the content areas of science and social studies was also important, and provided a parallel assessment of the study. Based upon findings reported in this study, the following conclusions were reached: 1. An overall conclusion was drawn that the Explore Curriculum is an important experimental curriculum effort in the area of the teach ing of thinking and in the areas of the impact of the teaching of thinking on science and social studies achievement and students attitudes toward those areas. This was demonstrated in growth by students. The development of the curri cul urn should continue with stronger support from building and district administration and faculty. 2. Based on the results gathered from an instrument used in the affective area, it is concluded that the experimental curriculum

PAGE 130

120 encouraged the development of positive attitudes toward the study of science and social studies. 3. The relationship identified in content areas and in thinking skills and content were appropriate, based on student outcomes. 4. Even though there were differences in performance between males and females, both sexes showed gains. 5. .The rel ati onshi p between teacher preparation and student outcomes was not conclusive. Recommendations and Implications Based upon the results of this study and the results of previous, similar research findings, the following recommendations for curriculum development and implementation related to the teaching of think ing and an integrated curriculum approach were presented: 1. A comparison of the effects of this approach, the infusion or integrated approach, to the teaching of thinking with the effects of a stand-alone method of instruction in thinking ski 11 s waul d be an important contribution to the area of thinking skills instruction and would be valuable comparative data for this researcher. 2. Greater support for the classroom teacher in terms of preparation for instruction of an integrated curriculum and greater assistance during the period of instruction may result in increased teacher competence and confidence with the curriculum. Such on-going assistance could also reveal if teachers are teaching the curriculum. 3. The method of assessing thinking skills applciation in this study required the use of a paper-penci 1 instrument. The method of asses srnent may i nhi bit the actual demonstration of the thinking ski 11

PAGE 131

121 or process. It is recommended that alternative methods for evaluat ing the application of thinking ski 11 s be developed and tested for validity. 4. A longitudinal study of the students involved with the Explore Curriculum over a period of years (given continued development of the curriculum) would more accurately reflect the growth in the acquisition and application of thinking skills and strategies as well as content skills and knowledge development. Such a study is recommended. In addition, a longitudinal comparison of the students growth (involved with the curriculum) with that of students not involved with the curriculum would provide additional value to the study, especially for those interested in similar approaches to curriculum and instruction. 5. Recommendations for future research include: a. Incorporation of multiple measures to assess the appl i cation of thinking skills and content skills and knowledge. This would include interview of students, utilization of survey instruments, and observations of students completing criterion tasks. b. Expansion of the research to consider the affect of teacher attitude toward the integration of curriculum and the teaching of thinking, and the previous experience of the teacher in these areas and with the teaching of science and social studies. c. Development of studies to determine the attitudes and/or behaviors of teachers that support or detract from intellectual growth of students

PAGE 132

122 d. Identification of the particular aspects of the experiment al curriculum that were more or less successfully (in terms of student gains) implemented. This could include an examination of the concepts under investigation, the amount of time spent on that study, the type of materials used, and if cooperative learning groups were utilized. e. Identification and concentration on variables not addressed in this study that could impact the outcomes. For example, the support that teachers receive in the implementation of experimental curriculum; the importance placed on the content areas of science and social studies at the school and levels; and the value given at the school and district levels for the teaching of thinking and learning processes. f. Examine the effect of the experimental curriculum for students of varying abilities. g. Determine if students demonstrated greater achievement in classrooms where teachers reported they did follow the curri cul urn. Implications and Discussion Although the experimental curriculum was only in the pilot phase, the findings of this study suggest that this approach to the teaching of content areas that capitalized upon the similarities of the content fields, particularly the processes employed in the study of the content, was successful, in terms of student gains. The implication exists that other similar efforts would be successful. While the findings were less definitive concerning the teaching of thinking

PAGE 133

123 skills, the study has provided the opportunity to examine that area and to test the impact of a curriculum structured on the infusion or pervasive approach to the teaching of thinking. The literature, as reviewed in this study, championed such efforts, and the responsibility of educators was stated to be to determine what methodology and what content best promotes the intellectual development of students. This curriculum and the study of its effects represent such effort and are that others should undertake similar studies. Taba (1966) and Parker (1987) advised of the centrality of the role of the teacher in the development of cognitive skills by students. This study did not conclusively determine that the particular training in the experimental curri cul urn which was offered to teachers was effective. The implications are that understandings about the teaching of thinking are not quickly acquired, nor are those skills easily taught. Perhaps this was especially so in this situation when the teaching of thinking was incorporated (infused) with an integrated approach to the teaching of science and social studies. Implications from this study can be drawn related to the type of teacher preparation, the quality of assistance offered to teachers during the implementation of curriculum, and the value the teacher placed on such instruction, i.e., the teaching of thinking. An implication derived from the attitude survey that was administered in conjunction with this study is that a curriculum like that of the experimental curriculum, adds important and necessary dimensions to student learning, namely: cooperative and individual endeavors that require being involved in a variety of roles and ways

PAGE 134

124 of learning; self-directed learning opportunities; and, investigation of real problems in the physical and social environments. Finally, as Ehrenberg (1982), Nickerson (1981) and Whimbey (1985) suggest, the assessment of the application of thinking skills, much 1 ike the methods of assessing process application in subject area study, may not be adequately or validly assessed by methods commonly used in evaluation, i.e., paper and pencil instruments. An implication of this study, and of the research of others, is that the use of only paper and pencil instruments for the assessment of thinking skills and processes, may provide less than adequate, and perhaps faulty evidence of the application of the skills and processes. Perspective The value of any research investigation lies in the usefulness of the findings to the researcher involved and to an audience involved in similar endeavors. The notion of the teaching of thinking is not a new one. Dewey ( 1933) described the importance of thinking in 1 earning many years ago. Only in recent years has a nati anal interest in the prospect of teaching for better thinking been observed. While the efforts of educators and other professionals to pursue this notion may seem to move slowly, studies, like this one, add to the field of knowledge and offer individual school districts the opportunity to improve upon the efforts of their teachers, administrators, and public to provide a more intellectually stimulating, and personally valuable, 1 earning environment for students. This study has provided data essential to the improvement of curriculum and instruction in the areas of the teaching of thinking and in integrated curriculum development.

PAGE 135

125 References Addelman, S. (1970). Variability of treatment and experiment units in the design and analysis of experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Society, 65, 1095-1108. Barhydt, F. (1983). Sweet reason. Science and Children, 17-19 Bartlett, F. C. (1958). Thinking: An Experimental and Social Study. London: Allen and Unwin. Bereiter, C. (1984). How to keep thinking skills from going the way of all frills. Educational Leadership, 42, 75-77. Beyer, B. (1984a). Improving thinking skills--defining the problem. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 487. Beyer, B. (1984b). Improving thinking skills--practical approaches. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 559. Beyer, B. (1987). Practical Strategies for the Teaching of Thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay. Bondy, E. (1984, March/April). Thinking about thinking. Childhood Education, p. 234. Brandt, R. (1984). Teaching of thinking, for thinking, about thinking. Educational Leadership, 42, 3. Brandt, R. (1986). Teaching thinking: A new priority for American education. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Update, 28, 6. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

PAGE 136

Carmines, Edward G., & Zeller, Richard A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences, No.17. 126 Carroll, J. C. (1974). Psychometric Tests as Cognitive Tasks: A New 11Structure of the Intell ect11 (Research Bulletin No. 74-16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Chall, J. S. & Wittrock, M. C. (1981). Educational implications of recent brain research. Educational 13-14. Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills. (1984). Monterey, CA: CTB/ McGraw-Hill. Cook, C. J. & Dossey, John A. (1982). Basic fact thinking strategies for multiplication--revisited. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 163-171. Cornbleth, C. (1985). Critical thinking and cognitive process. In W. B. Stanley (Ed.), Review of Research in Social Studies Education 1976-1983 (p.17). Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. Costa, A. L. (1981). Teaching for intelligent behavior. Educational Leadership, 39, 29-31. Costa, A. L.(Ed.). (1985). Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curri cul urn Devel optnent. Cronback, L. J. (1951). The Alpha Model [Computer Program Manual], Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. (SPSS User's Guide, 2nd ed.). DeBono, E. (1984). Critical thinking is not enough. Educational Leadership, 5.

PAGE 137

127 DeBono, E. (1984). Critical Thinking is Not Enough. Educational Leadership, 42, 5. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Edgington, E.S. (1980). Randomized Tests. New York: Marcel Dekker. Education Commission of the States. (1982). The Basics of Tomorrow. Denver, CO: Author. Ehrenberg, S. (1982). Educational Strategies. In Lydelle D. Ehrenberg and Lyle M. Ehrenberg, BASICS: Building and Applying Strategies for Intellectual Competencies in Students (p.1). Coshocton, OH: Institute for Curriculum and Instruction. Ekstrom, R., French, J., & Harman, H. with Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests 1976. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Feuerstein, R. & Jensen, M.R. (1985) ... Instrumental Enrichment: Theoretical Basis, Goals, and The Education Forum (p. 401-423) Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. FitzGerald, C. J. (1972). A Study of Fourth-Grade Productive Thinking Instruction in Two Content Areas: Language Arts and Geography. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 6849-A. (University Microfilms 72-17, 211) Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving. In Lauren B. Resnick (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (p. 232). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

PAGE 138

127 Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Edgington, E.S. (1980). Randomized Tests. New York: Marcel Dekker. Education Commission of the States. (1982). The Basics of Tomorrow. Denver, CO: Author. Ehrenberg, S. (1982). Educational Strategies. In Lydelle D. Ehrenberg and Lyle M. Ehrenberg, BASICS: Building and Applying Strategies for Intellectual Competencies in Students (p.1). Coshocton, OH: Institute for Curriculum and Instruction. Ekstrom, R., French, J., & Harman, H. with D. (1976). Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests 1976. Princeton, NJ: Testing Service. Feuerstein, R. & Jensen, M.R. (1985). 11Instrumental enrichment: Theoretical basis, goals, and instruments.11 The Education Forum ( p. 401-423) Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, 14., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. FitzGerald, C. J. (1972). A study of fourth-grade productive thinking instruction in two content areas: Language arts and geography. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 6849-A. (University Microfilms 72-17, 211) Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In Lauren B. Resnick (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (p. 232). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Glass, Gene V. & Hopkins, K.D. (1984). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

PAGE 139

128 Glatthorn, A. A., & Baron, J. (1985). The good thinker. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking (pp. 49-53). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Goldstein, I., Papert, S. (1977). Artificial intelligence, language, and the study of knowledge. In Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E.E., The Teaching of Thinking (p. 49). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A Place Called School Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw-Hill. Greeno, J. G. (1980). Trends in the theory of knowledge for problem solving. In D. T. Tuma & F. Reif (Eds.), Problem Solving and Education: Issues in Teaching and Research (pp. 9-23). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Guilford, J.P. (1967). The Nature of Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hanson, R., Silver, H. F., & Strong, R. W. (1985) Summing up. In A. L. Costa (ed.), Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking (p. 181). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hart, L. (1975). Human Brain and Human Learning. New York: Longman. Hayes, J. H. (1981). The complete problem solver. In Nickerson, R.S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E., The Teaching of Thinking (pp. 302-306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hopkins, K. D. (1982). The unit of analysis: Group means versus individual observations. American Educational Research Journal. 5-18.

PAGE 140

129 Hopkins, K. D. (1986). Affective dependent measures: The use of a response integrity scale to enhance the validity of experimental and quasi-experimental research. The Journal of Special Education. 20, 43-47. Isaac, Stephen, & Michael, (1984). Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San Diego: Ed ITS Publishers. Jackson, R. M. (1986). Thumbs up for direct teaching of thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43, 36. Joyce, B. (1985). Models for teaching thinking. Educational Leader ship. 42, 7. Joyce, w. W., & Ryan, F. L. (Eds.). (1977). Social Studies and the Elementary Teacher: Promises and Practices. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. Kelley, T. D. (1985, April). A Teacher Looks at Distancing. Paper presented at the meeting of_the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Kendall, J. K., & Mason, J. M. (1982). Metacognition from the historical context of teaching reading. Topics in Learning and Learning 82-89. Klausmeier, H. J. (1985). Levels of concept formation. In Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S.C., & Suhor, C. Dimensions of Thinking: A Framework for Curriculum and Instruction (36-37). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

PAGE 141

130 Limpan, M. (1985). Philosophy for children. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds: A Resource Hook Teaching Thinking (pp. 212-214). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J. (1986). Learning to learn skills. In Marzano, R. J., & Arredondo, D. E. Tactics (pp. 9-12). Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Regional Laboratory. Marzano, R. J., & Arredondo, D. E. (1986). Restructuring schools through the continued teaching of thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43, 21. Marzano, R. J., & Arredondo, D. E. (1986). Tactics for Thinking. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory. Marzano, R.J., Brandt, R.S., Hughes, C.S., Jones, B.F., Presseisen, B.Z., Rankin, S.C. and Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions of Thinking: A Framework for Curricul urn and Instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McCombs, B. (1984). Process and skills underlying continuing intrinsic motivation to learn: Toward a definition of motivational skill training interventions. Educational 199-218. McPeck, J. E., (1981). Critical Thinking and Education. New York: St. Martins Press. Meeker, M. N. (1985). SO I. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking (pp. 187-192). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Naisbitt, J. (1982). New York: Warner Books.

PAGE 142

131 National Assessment of Education Progress. (1983). Reading, Thinking, and Writing (The 1979-1980 National Assessment of Reading and Literature). Denver, CO: Author. National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation At l
PAGE 143

132 Presseisen, B. Z. (1985). Thinking skills: Meanings and models. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds: A Resource Book for the Teaching Thinking (pp. 43-48). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Presseisen, B. Z. (1987). Thinking Skills Throughout the Curriculum. Bloomington, IN: Pi Lambda Theta, Inc. Resnick, L.B., & Klopfer, L.E. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: An overview. In Resnick, L.B. and Klopfer, L.E. (Eds.), Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research (p.9). Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel OJlllent. Ross, J. D., & Ross, C. M. (1976). Manual for Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications. Royce, J. R. (1973). The conceptual framework for a multi-factor theory of individuality. In R. Ekstrom, J French, H. Hannan, with D. Dermen, Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests 1976 (1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Sieger-Ehrenberg, S. (1985) BASICS. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds: A Resource Book for the Teaching of Thinking (pp.241-243). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum DeveloJlllent. Simon, H. A. (1980). Knowledge and methods for operating on knowledge essential to successful problem solving. In R. S. Nickerson, Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E., The Teaching of Thinking (pp. 48-49). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher. Solomon, W. (1987). Improving students thinking skills through elementary social studies instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 87, 559-569.

PAGE 144

133 SPSS* Users Guide [Computer Program Manual]. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. Sternberg, R. J. (1984). How can we teach intelligence? Educational Leadership, 42, 38-48. Sternberg, R. J. (1981). Intelligence as thinking and learning skills. Educational Leadership, 39, 18-20. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Choosing the right program. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking (pp. 128-129). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Swartz, R. (1984). Introduction of critical thinking into existing curriculum. In A. Benderson, Critical Thinking (p. 21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Taba, H. (1966). Cognitive Functioning in Elementary School Children (Cooperative Research Project No. 2404). San Francisco State College. Taba, H., Levine, S., & Elzey, F. (1964). Thinking in Elementary School Children (Cooperative Research Project No. 1574). San Francisco State College. Test of Cognitive Skills (1984). Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw Hill. Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books. Whimbey, A. (1985). Test results from teaching thinking. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching (pp. 269-271). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum White, s. c., & Alexander, P. A. Teaching analogical reasoning processes. Reading World, 24, 38-42.

PAGE 145

134 Wildt, A. R., & Ahtola, 0. T. (1978). Analysis of Covariance. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences, No.12 Wollaston, G. F. (1980). A study of concept formation changes using a non-majors college chemistry course. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 621A-622A. (University Microfilm No.8018333) Worsham, A.M., & Stockton, A. J. (1986). A Model for Teaching Thinking Skills: The Inclusion Process. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

PAGE 146

APPENDIX A Example of a needs assessment instrument utili zed to gather data from classroom teachers about the teaching of social studies in School District No. Twelve, Adams County, Colorado. An instrument almost identical to this was used to gather information about the teaching of science. These data were instrumental in the development of the experimental curriculum that was the focus of this study.

PAGE 147

136 APPENDIX Needs Assessment Analysis A questionnaire is frequently used to assess opinions or attitudes of participants in a program and/or those who are associated with a program. This form was designed to gather the perceptions of teachers regarding the "what is" and the "should be" of the elementary social studies educational program and to ascertain their views regarding delivery of instruction and perceived limitations of program and/or delivery. There are a number of basic considerations in the selection (or development) of a questionnaire that the program evaluator must take into account: 1. Are the questions asking only for important information? There is a tendency among some persons who develop questionnaires to include non-essential items just because 11they are interesting" or because he/she "always wondered about that." 2. Are the words simple, direct, and familiar to all respondents? 3. Are the questions clear and specific? 4. Are any items "double-barreled?" Each question should con-tain just one topic. 5. Are the questions loaded or leading? 6. Do the questions apply to all respondents? 7. Will the respondents' answers be influenced by response styles? A response style is a tendency to choose a certain response category regardless of item content. Examples of response styles are: acquiescence; social desirability; ordinal or position bias. In addition to an awareness of the above, the program evaluator l!llst know about various item types and their advantages and disadvantages. Questionnaires and interview instruments usually are structured to include a combination of two types of items: the open-ended question and

PAGE 148

137 the objective question. The open-ended question offers the respondent an opportunity to write his/her own answer. The objective item forces the respondent to make a choice between two or more alternatives. The Social Studies Program Needs Assessment is a questionnaire utilizing the open-ended (modified) and objective-type items. A copy of the assessment instrument and a correlation sheet are attached. The correlation sheet specifies the relationship of questions with major program objectives. The method of administration, interpretation, and reporting results of this assessment data, is outlined below: Administration The administration time is about 30 minutes. One appropriate time to administer is in a faculty meeting which allows the evaluator to give brief verbal instructions. This instrument is designed to identify how you feel about the social studies program that exists in your building today and your role in the delivery of that program. There are about 20 parallel statements for you to respond to. These statements are designed to identify traits of an exemplary social studies program. You are to decide if you think they are desirable and if they exist in your building program. Answer each question from your point of view and level of awareness. I will be glad to answer any questions you have. You may provide comments in Part II, and explain that the results will be reported back to the faculty as soon as possible. Interpretation Tally the responses. Calculate the percentages for each of the 3 possible responses in the "NOW" category and the 2 possible responses in the .. SHOULD" category for each of the 20 questions. Calculate the total percentages of possible responses for the YES DON1T KNOW -NO columns.

PAGE 149

138 At this point I make one assumption that could be challenged. I assume that if those individuals who responded with DON'T KNOW were to examine the current program in the building, they would change their response to YES in the same proportions as those who responded YES initially. Therefore, calculate those percentages for each question and add them to the initial YES amounts. Other assumptions could be made and other evaluators may wish to make them. Record all the written comments from Part II on one form and relate to the questions where possible. Reporting The most effective method of reporting these results is to present the information graphically. This takes from 1530 minutes with questions when shared with the participants. Generally, 8 transparencies are needed for the complete report: Transparency #1 should be a bar graph showing the number of respondents of the Y-axis and the questions 1-20 on the X-axis. This represents your concept of the traits of a total exemplary program. Transparency #2 should show the YES responses by number of statements and total percentage of YES. This identifies existing program perceptions. Transparency #3 should show the number of DON'T KNOH responses by statement and the total percentage of DON'T KNOW responses. This I identify as lack of awareness, which could indicate specific inservice needs related-to program and/or delivery. Transparency #4 is the final expression of need showing the existing program, the increment from the DON'T KNOW category, and the NO's from the SHOULD column. The area above the line is identified as desired but not existing. (At this point you have probably conveyed the major part of your message to the faculty.)

PAGE 150

139 Transparency #5 and #6 should be a verbal summary of the previous 4 graphs and some additional analysis of the information. I chose 3 categories -AREAS OF GREATEST SUCCESS, AREAS OF GREATEST LACK OF AWARENESS, and AREAS OF GREATEST NEED. These can be read on the overhead and percentages of responses in each category can be given. Transparency #7 and #8 are the teacher comments from the instrument. They can be explained according to categories and as expressions of need or support. These results can provide the basis for some real interaction with faculty, administration, parents and students, regarding the status of the social studies program and what is indicated at the areas requiring attention and focus. A sample of the Part I and Part II combined data summary is included.

PAGE 151

140 SOCIAL STUDIES PROGRAM NEEDS ASSESSMENT Part I Instructions: Please circle the response of your choice. The statements in the first column relate to the program in SCHOOL. The statements in the second column relate to the program that SHOULD EXIST. Additional comments can be written in the space following the sets of statements. Column I 1. The social studies program draws upon content from several of the social sciences economics, geo graphy, sociology, anthropology, political science -and the history of the United States. YES NO DON'T KNOW 2. The social studies program shows evidence of providing for sequence in its attention to cognitive, affective, and skills de velopment. YES NO DON'T KNOri 3. The social studies program includes skills of analysis and opportunities to formulate potential resolutions to prob-1 ems. YES NO DON'T KNOW Column II 1. Tile social stur1ies program SHOULD draw upon content from several of the social sciences -economics, geography, sociology, anthropol ogy, political science -and the history of the United States. YES NO 2. The social studies program SHOULD provide for sequence in its attention to cognitive, affective, and skills development. YES NO 3. The social .studies program SHOULD include skills of analysis and opportunities to formulate potential resolutions to problems. YES NO

PAGE 152

Column I 4. The social studies program provides 4. students the opportunity to develop thinking and behavior skills that progress from concrete to abstract, simple to complex. YES NO DON'T KNOW 5. The social studies program provides 5. materials to accomodate a wide range of reading abilities and interests, learning activities, and sources. YES NO DON'T KNOW 6. The social studies program provides 6. for instructional and learning acti vities that are sufficiently varied and flexible. YES NO DON'T KNOW 141 Column II The social studies program SHOULD provide students the opportunity to develop thinking and behavior skills that progress from concrete to abstract, simple to complex. YES NO The social studies program SHOULD provide materials to accomodate a wide range of reading abilities and interests, learning activities, and sources. YES NO The social studies program SHOULD provide instructional and learning activities that are sufficiently varied and flexible. YES NO 7. The social studies program is one that teachers understand and are able to implement and support. 7. The social studies program SHOULD be one that teachers will under stand and be able to implement and support. YES NO DON'T 8. The social studies program is one that enables students to relate their experience in social studies to other areas of experience. YES NO DON'T KNOW YES NO 8. The social studies program SHOULD enable students to relate their experience in social studies to other areas of experience. YES NO

PAGE 153

Column I 9. The social studies program provides for classroom instruction and materials based upon clearly stated objectives. YES DON'T KNOW lO.The social studies program allows for activities to be carried on in a climate which supports students' self respect and opens opportunities to all. YES NO DmJ 'T KNOW ll.The social studies program focuses upon the social world as it actually is. YES NO DON'T KNOw 12.The social studies program develops proficiency in methods of inquiry in the social sciences and in techniques for processing social data. YES NO DON'T KNOW 13.The social studies program provides a variety of appropriate instructional resources. YES NO DON'T KNOW 142 Co 1 umn I I 9. The social studies program SHOULD provide for classroom instruction and materials based upon clearly stated objectives. YES NO lO.The social studies program SHOULD encourage activities to be carried on in a climate which supports students' self respect and opens opportunities to all. YES NO ll.The social studies program SHOULD focus upon the social world as it actually is. YES NO 12.The social studies program SHOULD develop proficiency methods of inquiry in the social sciences and in techniques for processing social data. YES NO 13.The social studies program SHOULD provide a variety of appropriate instructional resources. YES NO

PAGE 154

Column I 14.The social studies program provides the opportunity for original think; ng on the part of students. YES NO DON'T KNOW lS.The social studies program provides opportunities for the development of career awareness. YES NO DOIJ 'T KNOW 16.The social studies program provides students the opportunity to develop and pursue special interests in the social studies. YES NO DON'T KNOW 17.The social studies program provides intensive and recurrent study of cultural, racial, religious, and ethnic groups. YES NO DON'T KNOH 18.The social studies program considers participation both in school and out a part of the program. YES NO IT KNOW 143 Column II 14.The social studies program SHOULD provide the opportunity for original thinking on the part of students. YES NO 15.The social studies program SHOULD provide opportunities for the development of career awareness. YES NO 16.The social studies program SHOULD provide students the opportunity to develop and pursue special interests in the social studies. YES NO 17.The social studies program SHOULD provide intensive and recurrent study of cultural, racial, religious, and ethnic groups. YES NO 18.The social studies program SHOULD consider both participation i school and out a part of the program. YES NO

PAGE 155

Column I 19.The social studies program provides students the opportunity to identify their own value assumptions along with those of others, to project, and evaluate consequences of one value stance to another. YES NO DON'T KNOW 2D.The social studies program provides for assessment that includes pro gress in knowledge, abilities, valuing, and participation. YES NO DON'T KNOw Part II Comments: 144 Column I I 19.The social studies program SHOULD provide students the opportunity to identify their own value assumptions along with those of others, to project, and evaluate consequences of one value stance to another. YES NO 20.The social studies program SHOULD provide for assessment includes progress in knowledge, abilities, valueing, and participation. YES You may provide any information you wish to amplify the questions asked and/or to clarify your view of the social studies program, instruction (including preparation to teach), limitations and needs, as well as successes in the elementary social studies program. The correlation of Social Studies Program Needs Assessment questions with major program characteristics under consideration is as follows: Question number one on assessment form is designed to evaluate SCOPE of program. Question number two is designed to assess SEQUENCE and CONTINUITY. Question number three is designed to assess PROBLEM SOLVING skills.

PAGE 156

145 Question number four is designed to assess the programs relation to DEVELOPMENTAL LEVELS OF STUDENTS. (Developmental learning processes) Question number five is designed to assess the inclusion of INDIVIDUALIZATION. Question number six is designed to assess variety of TEACHING/LEARNING STRATEGIES. Question number seven is designed to assess MANAGEABILITY of program. Question number eight is designed to assess INTERDISCIPLINARY ASPECT of the program. Question number nine is designed to assess the inclusion of INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES. Question number ten is designed to assess opportunities for building SELF RESPECT and RESPECT FOR OTHERS. Question number eleven is designed to assess focus upon the REAL WORLD content of the program. Question number twelve is designed to assess INTELLECTUAL SKILLS DEVELOPfv1ENT. Question number thirteen is designed to assess the use of RESOURCES. Question number fourteen is designed to assess opportunity for DIVERGENT THINKING (original thinking). Question number fifteen is designed to assess CAREER AWARENESS opportunities in program. Question number sixteen is designed to assess SPECIAL INTEREST development (opportunity). Question number seventeen is designed to assess SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS (study of). Question number eighteen is designed to assess SOCIAL PARTICIPATION "action" learning. Question number nineteen is designed to assess VALUING EXPERIENCES. Question number twenty is designed to assess EVALUATION (student).

PAGE 157

Example of one faculty's responses SOCIAL STUDIES NEEDS ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS ----ELEMENTARY Twenty-four faculty members responded to the Needs Assessment conducted. Ninety-eight percent of the respondents indicated the need for incorporating into a building program, the twenty aspects of a social studies program identified in the assessment. Two percent of the respondents indicated some aspects of the exemplary program were not desirable. 146 Thirteen percent of the respondents indicated some characteristics of the program are in operation at the present. Forty-seven percent of the respondents indicated a lack of awareness regarding aspects of the existing program. Forty percent of the respondents indicated they did not believe the aspects of an exemplary program are in operation at the present. Statistical inference indicates a probable overall assessment as fallows: 17% confidence in existing program expression of need. The areas most frequently indicated as successful in the existing program are: Providing opportunities for students to develop self respect and respect for others. 42% Providing a focus in the social studies upon the real world-life as it actually is lived. 25% Providing students the opportunity to assess relationship within the society. 25%

PAGE 158

The areas in which respondents indictted the greatest lack of awareness are: Utilizing the interdisciplinary nature of the social studies. Utilizing a program drawn upon several of the social sciences. Providing students the opportunities to develop sequentially in cognitive, affective and skill 58% 50% areas. 50% Providing students opportunities to develop problem-solving skills 50% Providing a variety of teaching/learning strategies. 50% Utilizing a program that is manageable by the staff. 50% Providing opportunities for students in inquiry and information processing 50% Providing a variety of instructional materials 50% Providing students the opportunity to investi-gate careers related to the social studies. 50% Providing students the opportunities to identify their value systems and those of others. 50% Areas of greatest need for a social studies program are: Provide materials to accommodate a wide range of abilities, interests. activities, and sources. 58% Provide for classroom instruction and materials based upon clearly stated objectives. 54% 147

PAGE 159

Provide for opportunity to develop analytical skills and problem-solving techniques. Utilize a program all teachers understand and can implement. Provide opportunities for students to pursue special interests in the social studies. Provide the opportunities for experience in values examination. Provide for evaluation of students' progress. 148 46% 46% 46% 46% 46%

PAGE 160

APPENDIX B An Evaluation of Explore: An Integrated Curriculum with Thinking at the Core Final Report July 1, 1987 Prepared by Walter C. Parker, Ph.D. College of Education University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 for Pat Willsey Adams County Schools, District 12 Northglenn, Colorado 80233

PAGE 161

150 An Evaluation of Exolore: An Integrated Curriculum with Thinking at the Core Final Report This report evaluates the Explore curriculum. It is an interdisciplinary learning program designed for elementary grade students in School District No. 12, Adams County, Colorado. This report is focused on grade four of the curriculum, with some references to grades three. The report begins with a summary of the curriculum, then strengths and areas needing additional attention are identified and recommendations are given. The summary begins with a-broad stroke across the K-6 program and narrows to the fourth grade. SUMMARY Explore is a K-6 program of study that has three distinguishing characteristics: 1. Science and Social Studies are integrated systematically. In particular, the study of the natural world (including living and nonliving things) is integrated with the study of human experience (including communities, states, and regions). 2. Sequences of lower to higher order thinking pervade the entire curriculum. The emphasis of these sequences is on the learning of ideas (concepts) rather than on the learning of unrelated and quickly-forgotten information. Hence, Explore can be characterized truly as a conceotual curriculum. 3. Both thinking and subject matter are carefully articulated from grade to grade and within grades. Explore's overall goal is ambitious: As a result of using thinking strategies and other relevant skills, K-6 students will develop an understanding of the orderliness, diversity, relationships, and changes in the natural world and in human experience. Further, they will learn to make intelligent, responsible decisions, choices, judgments, and plans in light of each understanding. As the goal statement makes clear, the in.tegrating concepts in Explore are orderliness, diversity, relationships, and changes. One grade is devoted to each of these: third grade to orderliness, fourth to diversity, fifth to relationships, and sixth to changes. The subject matter (content) to which these concepts are applied, and through which they are developed, are the natural world ("science") and human experience ("social studies").

PAGE 162

151 The curriculum is not only integrated, though this alone would be newsworthy. It is also designed in such a way that thinking skills are developed right along with the integrated knowledge of science and social studies. It is thus an integrated curriculum with thinking at the core. The thinking skills needed for concept formation are developed in the third and fourth grades and those needed for constructing cause-effect generaliza-tions are developed in the fifth and sixth grades. The curricula for K/1 and second grade are devoted to developing the enabling thinking skills for these higher order skills. The grade-by-grade goals follow. Grades K-1: (a) Become proficient in the use of thinking strategies for gathering information, i.e., for observing, retrieving, and questioning. (b) Apply them to a variety of objects, events, places, etc. in nature and one's own experience. Grade 2: (a) Become proficient in the use of thinking strategies for organizing information, i.e., for comparing, contrasting, grouping, and classifying. (b) Apply them to a variety of objects, events, etc. in nature and one's own experience. Grade (a) Become proficient in the use of thinking strategies for developing concepts. In particular, develop understanding of the orderliness (consistency, pattern) that exists or is created in living things, in the natural environment, and in communities of people and other living things. (b) Learn to make reasoned decisions, choices, judgments, and plans in the light of each understanding. (c) Develop awareness of occupations and avocations in which people develop and/or use understanding of living things, the natural environment, and communities. Grade (a) Again, become proficient in the use of thinking strategies for developing concepts. In this grade, however, the particular, broad concept at issue is the diversity (variety, uniqueness) that exists or is created in living things, in the natural environment, and in communities of people and other living things. Items (b) and (c) from the third grade goal statement also apply here. Grade (a) Become proficient in the use of thinking strategies for developing cause-effect generalizations. In particular, develop understanding of the relationships (interactions, connections) that exist or are created in living things, in the natural environment, and in communities of people and other living things. Items (b) and (c) from the third and fourth grades also apply here. Grade (a) Again, become proficient in the use of thinking strategies for developing cause-effect generalizations. In this grade, however, the partiular, broad concept at issue is changes (development, growth) that exist or are created in living things, in the natural environment, and in communities of people

PAGE 163

and other living things. Items (b) and (c) from the third, fourth, and fifth grades also apply here. Third and Fourth Grades 152 The curriculum for the third and fourth grades has been developed to date. Each has three units, one concerning living things, one the natural environment, and one human communities. The third grade lessons aim to develop student understanding of orderliness in these three domains, and the fourth grade lessons hope to develop student understanding of diversity in the same three domains. At the heart of the third and fourth grade curriculum is a sequence of guiding questions, called Focus Questions. When those of the third and fourth grades are placed together, a bird's eye view of both is afforded, along with the articulation between them. Fourth Grade The fourth grade curriculum has three units, each with four or five Focus Questions to guide learning. An outline of this grade follows. UNIT ONE: DIVERSITY IN LIVING THINGS a. What are ways families of plants and animals differ from one another? b. What is different about individual plants or animals within a family? c. What is different about each of the races of human beings? (not completed) d. What is different about each person within each race? (not completed) e. What is different among careers and hobbies having to do with living things? UNIT TWO: DIVERSITY IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT a. What is different about each of the planets in our solar system? b. What are the different forces that act on the physical features in the natural environments on the Earth? c. What is different about each kind of natyural environment on Earth? d. What are special careers and hobbies having to do with the natural environment? UNIT THREE: DIVERSITY IN COMMUNITIES OF PEOPLE a. What are the factors that create differences in communities of people? b. What is different about the Rocky Mountain region as compared to another region in the U.S.? c. What is a state?

PAGE 164

d. What is different about careers and hobbies having to do with states? STRENGTHS OF 'I'BE PROGRAM 153 1. Integration. It is difficult to avoid exhortations to integrate curricula. They come from all sides--from professors of education and psychology, from parents who envy their private school counterparts whose children enjoy interdisciplinary curricula in Montessori and Waldorf schools, from professional associations, like the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, and from teachers and administrators who seem to know intuitively that the separate disciplines approach to learning is an unfortunate tradition from which relief is desirable. Explore succeeds in providing this relief. However, its approach is not, in the judgment of this reviewer, so extreme or odd as to frustrate students or prove impractical to teachers or administrators. 2. Articulation. This program features a careful and coherent sequence of interdisciplinary learnings from grade to grade. This articulation is readily evident in the summary of the third and fourth grade programs given above, and it can be seen in the general overview of all the grades (K-6) given by the program authors. The articulation is particularly strong because it occurs not only in the program's subject matter sequence but in its thinking sequence as well. This combined articulation of content and thinking, while called for by educators of many stripes, is not to be found in any other curriculum that this reviewer knows of in the United States. In the Explore curriculum, this dual articulation is not just a matter of rhetoric in the goal statement; rather, it is a central, systematically developed feature of the teaching/learning program. For example, Grade 3 develops the concept orderliness in two subject matter domains: the natural world and human communities. Grade 4 continues in the same two domains, but extends student understanding by shifting the focus to diversity within the natural and human worlds. Hand in hand with this shift in subject matter is a shift in student thinking. While the cognitive emphasis in the third grade was noting similarities (comparing), the emphasis in the fourth is noting differences (contrasting) Both are central cognitive operations in concept formation. And, noting similarities logically precedes noting differences because it is in the similarities among concept examples that the concept actually resides. 3. Aoproach. While the first strength emphasized the coherence between grades, the second concerns the way subject matter and thinking are fused within grades. In previous writing, this reviewer has called the deliberate fusion of subject matter instruction and thinking instruction the pervasive approach. The Explore curriculum is an example of this

PAGE 165

154 approach. Evidence for this claim is everywhere in Explore, but perhaps nowhere more aptly put than in the sentence that precedes the list of Focus Questions for each grade: "In order to achieve the intended learning outcome, students will gather and process information to arrive at their own answers to the following questions." One arrives at one's own answers to these questions by thinking. Briefly, the pervasive approach recognizes that thln'king is the most powerful learning tool. It follows that teachers and administrators need to create classroom and school environments that clearly guide student thinking about the subject matter they want them to learn. While this point risks belaboring the obvious, it nevertheless deserves our attention, particularly when one considers how much curriculum planning and teaching tries to sidestep student thinking. Because the pervasive approach recognizes the role of thinking in learning, it argues against treating thinking skills as an add-on or enrichment supplement to the existing curriculum. Instead it emphasizes that thinking should pervade the curriculum as the means Qy which subject matter is learned. In this view thinking is the root of learning, and it follows that the chief challenge facing curriculum planners and teachers is to engage students in the necessary thinking, as well as reflection on that thinking, so that deep learning might occur. Conceived of in this way, thinking is the most basic of all basics. The Explore curriculum, judging from the third and fourth grade programs reviewed, is an example of the pervasive approach. This is statement is true because Explore has all the attributes just described. In Explore, particular thinking skills are the means by which the concepts orderliness and diversity in the natural and human worlds are learned. These thinking skills are noting similarities, noting differences, grouping, classifying, concept formation, concept differentiation, and hypothesis testing. This thinking is not separated out as a Friday afternoon break from subject matter learning; rather, it is carefully infused into subject matter learning in such a way that both thinking and subject matter are learned simultaneously. This is the pervasive approach. As with the dual articulation of thinking and subject matter across grades, as outlined above, this systematic interlocking of subject matter and thinking within each lesson is also rare, although just about everybody is calling for it. The particular goal of most of the thinking students do in Explore is directed at the development of concepts. Concepts are a unique form of knowledge. The term concept is synonymous with catecrorv or idea. An idea-based curriculum is.better than a fact-based curriculum for several reasons, two of which are these: First, an idea-based curriculum stands a better chance of meeting broad curriculum goals, which are typically stated as ideas rather than isolated bits of information. For example, the broad goal of Explore (see page 1 of this report) is stated in terms of ideas--orderliness, diversity, relationships, changes,

PAGE 166

155 natural world, and human experience. Second, an idea-based curriculum invites thinking, which a fact-based curriculum does not. This is because ideas, unlike facts, cannot be remembered; rather, they must be developed. This development is an active, constructive activity that must be undertaken by the learners themselves. A teacher or text cannot do it for them, though either can certainly help by guiding students through the necessary kinds of thinking that in the development of an idea. Consequently, an idea-based curriculum is an excellent candidate for the pervasive approach outlined above. And that is precisely what Explore has accomplished, at least on paper. Which thinking skills does Explore. teach students? This question will be taken up now. 4. Lower and Higher Order Thinkina. Another closely related strength concerns the level of thinking at which student_ s are engaged in the Explore program. It would be one thing to use the pervasive approach to engage students in lower order thinking like data gathering and remembering. It would be another thing to use it to engage students in higher order thinking. It would be still another to do both. Explore aims at the latter: doing both. This is impressive, for it displays a rare understanding of cogntion--an understanding that recognizes the importance of seauence in learning and thinking. Because one cannot think about nothing, one cannot engage in higer order thinking without having done lower order thinking. This is so because it is lower order thinking (e.g., data gathering) that produces the material that is thought about in higher order thinking (e.g, noting similarities and differences; concept For example, consider the first lesson in Grade 4, Unit 1. The intended learning in this lesson involves noting differences: Students will learn some of the differences in characteristics of groups of plants. The first step in the learning sequence has students review (i.e., recall, which is a lower order, but crucial thinking skill) the similarities and differences among all plants and all animals. In other words, students are reviewing the concepts plant and animal and the differences between them. The second step in the sequence has students gather data about plants from different groups. This step gives students the information (data) they will think about in a higher way at the next step. At that third step, students will note differences among groups of plants. In these three steps of the learning sequence for this lesson, one can see that both lower and higher order thinking are planned and that, appropriately, the former precedes the latter. At the fourth step, student thinking is lifted still higher. At the third step students generated a list of differences between flowering plants, evergreens, mosses, algae, ferns, and fungi; at

PAGE 167

156 the fourth they treat the list as a hypothesis, and seek to verify and clarify it. This can be described as concept formation and differentiation in a hypothesis-testing mode. Yes, it is higher order thinking, but Explore is planned so that the higher order thinking is preceded by the necessary lower order thinking so that student success is fostered. Another example, this time drawn from the first lesson of Grade 4, Unit 3, displays not only the same care in sequencing student thinking but also the careful integration of and social studies. Here the intended learning outcome concerns the differences in characteristics of human communities rather than plants. The first step in this lesson's learning sequence is again a review, only this time a review of what students have learned about the concept. human community. Step 2 is a review lesson, if the teacher deems one is necessary based on his or her diagnosis of student understanding at the first step. These first two steps produce the data about which students will think in more complex ways in the next two steps. At the third step, students focus on the data retrieved in the first two steps, now noting similarities and differences. As a consequence; they group that data into the conventional categories within which communities differ: size, location, cultural groups comprising the community, types of goods and services available, and the ways rules and laws are made. At the fourth step, students' thinking is again lifted beyond comparing, contrasting, and grouping to hypothesis testing. The groups generated in Step 3 are now treated as educated guesses that students test as they investigate other communities. These two examples are not rare in Explore. They are typical of the careful sequencing of thought from lower to higher levels. This makes for a sound pervasive curriculum--one in which lots of data processing tasks are present, but built on a foundation of data gathering. 5. Texts as Resources. It is nearly a truism to state that textbooks should be servants of instruction, not its masters. Yet, studies of classroom learning in science and social studies have found both to be excessively and studies of those texts have found them to be sorely lacking in terms of motivation and intellectual stimulation. Attempts to draw teachers away from an over reliance on texts usually have been unsuccessful. This is not difficult to understand, for texts provide both structure and direction to instruction. The Explore curriculum puts texts in their proper place: They are incorporated into the curriculum as invaluable resources, but they do not dictate instruction. The Explore manual references texts throughout, not as add-ens but integral components of lesson design. But structure and direction are provided by the curriculum, not the text. 6. Eaual Access tQ Knowledge. Explore presents to all students opportunities that might otherwise have been reserved only for the gifted. Sophisticated programs in intellectual development, while not common anywhere, are nevertheless more

PAGE 168

often found in operation with gifted children than with their counterparts in conventional classrooms. Explore provides all children with a program that should stretch their cognitive abilities while developing their knowledge of key ideas in science and social studies. 157 7. Building Autonomy Another strength is the admirable balance of curriculum coordination and teacher autonomy achieved in Explore. On the one hand, the represents-extensive centralized planning by experts on.the pervasive approach; on the other, considerable decision making is left to teachers and buildings, not the least of which are the crucial decisions regarding content selection. So, the parameters of each grade, including guiding questions, lesson plans, and resources, along with careful articulation between grades, are all carefully laid out in the manual. Without such planning from the central office, teachers would be put in the impossible situation of having to design a sophisticated pervasive/interdisciplinary curriclum themselves. Since they already have full-time employment as teachers, this would be an unreasonable demand. AREAS NEEDING ATTENTION The comments in this section are directed at aspects of Explore that need further attention by its developers. They should be considered as cautions rather than weaknesses because they are not structural deficiences in the program; consequently, they are not necessarily problematic. However, these areas become problematic if not considered carefully. 1. Ambitiousness Qf While the program is not, in this reviewer's judgment, too difficult for students, it does run a risk of being too difficult for teachers. The program asks much of teachers, not the least of which is a rather thorough understanding of the subject matter covered in the fourth grade curriculum: diversity in the natural and human worlds, including the many related concepts (e.g., plant, animal, solar system, planet, community, region, state). Additionally, because the program uses the pervasive approach, teachers must be aware of and at least somewhat familiar with the many kinds of thinking in which students are to be engaged as they go about learning this subject matter. This puts unusual knowledge and metacognitive demands on teachers, many of whom may be unwilling or unable to respond. While the knowledge and metacognitive load imposed on teachers in this curriculum is a heavy one, it could be worse. The knowledge demands could be unrelated to the typical demands of fourth grade science and social studies program, and the metacognitive demands could vary significantly from grade to grade and unit to unit. In Explore, neither is the case. First, the ideas plant. animal. planet. solar system. region. community. and state are commonly taught (thought not necessarily learned)

PAGE 169

158 in the fourth grade; consequently, Explore teachers will have some prior knowledge on these concepts. Second, the kinds of thinking with which Explore teachers must be familiar are limited in number and, once learned, are used again and again in the program. Briefly, these kinds of thinking are those operations that are integral to concept formation, concept differentiation, and hypothesis testing. These are thinking sequences, not individual skills; however, they are comprised of individual skillS:' data gathering, remembering, noting differences, noting similarities, summarizing (as when students summarize the similarities between all the examples of communities studies, thus forming the concept community), labeling (as when they decide what to call that concept), and classifying (as when students test their hypotheses and decide whether new phenomena are or are not communities) These are the cognitive operations that are at the heart of the entire K-6 Explore curriculum. As students and their teachers learn and use them repeatedly, the awkwardness of the load should diminish and their use should .become routine (and that is the experience of this reviewer). 2. The Imoortance of Data. It should be clear from the discussion of the third strength above that Explore properly sequences thinking in a lower-to-higher mode. Nevertheless, Explore's developers and users need to be careful not emphasize higher order thinking at the expense of lower order thinking. Doing so would undermine the pervasive approach and produce little learning, since with out the lower order data gathering and retrieval, there is literally nothing to think about. This would create a problem of lots of thinking but no content, thus begging the question, Where's the beef? This danger can be seen at a number of points in the program. Consider, for example, the first lesson in Unit Three, Grade Four. The Focus Question is, What are the differences in characteristics of human communities? The first step in this lesson has students list what they recall about communities, and then give some examples of communities. At the second step, pairs or teams of students investigate one of the examples suggested by students in the step. At the third, students generalize the ways in which communities can differ (e.g., size and location), and at the fourth they test their generalizations by applying them to new examples. Now it is only at this fourth step that substantive content enters the lesson. Granted, the communities suggested by students at the first step may be important examples (i.e., content worth learning), but then again they may not. It is not until the fourth step-of the lesson that the teacher gains control over the content and, thus, can introduce important communities for study. This idea of more and less important content, or data, is closely related to the idea that one must have gathered and be able to recall data before one can think in higher ways about it. The idea of important content brings to mind not only the point that one must have the facts before one can think about them, but

PAGE 170

. 159 that some facts are more important than others. In the study of communities, for example, the goal is not only to learn the critical attributes of all communities, but to learn about particular communities that are in some way exemplary. The study of Northglenn/Thornton, Denver, St. Louis or Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, New York, Rome, and Nairobi is better than the study of, say, Northglenn/Thornton, Casper, Kansas City, Dallas, San Diego, and Newark. Why? Because the concept one forms as a result of studying the first set of examples is broader and internatioDal, and because it includes examples that are themsevles rich in historical, geographic, and cultural significance. The pervasive approach, then, places unique demands on developers and users to select content carefully so that not only are the basic ideas formed and differentiated, but so that those ideas rest on a rich and significant factual foundation. This point becomes all the more important as interest groups of various stripes scrutinize the curriculum for specific content inclusions and exclusions. Their concerns are rarely for thinking, but for content, and developers and users alike need to be able to provide reasoned rationales for their content decisions. 3. The Imoortance Qf Exolicit Freauent Evaluation Coheres 1Q Curriculum at Hand. Explore is an idea-based curriculum and requires and idea-based system of evaluating student learning. Such a system is not apparent in the curriculum plan. This system would include formative and summative checks on student understanding of the very ideas they are supposed to be developing. Moreover, it would match the sorts of thinking that Explore teaches students to use to develop an idea. RECOMMENDATIONS This final section of the report will provide suggestions for addressing the three areas needing attention. 1. Staff Develooment. The first area needing attention concerned the ambitiousness of Explore. In particular, it concerned the rather heavy knowledge and metacognitive load placed on teachers. An effective, proactive strategy would be to design a staff development program that matches well characteristics Qf Explore Curriculum. This program could most likely be adapted well to the existing five-module staff development course already developed for Explore. What sort of staff development program would match well the characteristics of Explore? A suggested plan follows. Like Explore, the staff development program would have "focus questions." Which focus questions? These need to be few in number but precise and, like Explore's, central. Because Explore is an idea-based curriculum that utilizes the pervasive approach, the following three questions seem central to this reviewer:

PAGE 171

160 1. What is a concept? 2. What kinds of thinking help students develop concepts? 3. How can concept learning be evaluated? These three should be the core of the staff Others, of course, can be added if there is How can students be taught to work together these are of central importance to teaching Explore curriculum. development program. time for them (e.g., cooperatively?), but successfully the ' Among the several sessions in this program, one session would need to provide three demonstrations of concept-formation lessons, with each demonstration focusing on a different concept drawn from Explore. After the demonstrations, participants should be guided through a concept-formation lesson on these three examples of concept formation. (In this way, the instructional method used in the staff development program would match the method that Explore wants teachers to use.) So, after the three demonstrations, teachers would be asked: 1. (Data gathering/retrieval) What did you notice about each demonstration? What else did you notice? etc. 2. (Noting differences) What was different about the three demonstrations? What else? etc. 3. (Noting similarities) What was alike about the three demonstrations? What else? etc. 4. (Summarizing) Now take a minute to summarize with a these similarities, and in a few minutes I'll ask you to share your summaries with the group. 5. (Labeling) And what would you call a teaching method like this? 6. (Classifying) Your homework for the next session is to produce a rough draft of a concept-formation lesson like these, written for a concept you chose from your regular curriculum, and be ready to share it, for feedback and correction, with others. Notice how this session uses the same sequence of thinking that participants are being shown in the three demonstrations. At the next session, teachers would share their rough drafts with one another and discuss the first two focus questions. Then, they should see the method in action with students, so videos might be shown of actual classroom use. Better yet, a group of students would be present and the trainer would teach them a concept using the concept-formation lesson. Homework for the third session would be to pollish the rough drafts for presentation to a different group of classmates. At the third session, the Explore curriculum would be examined. Given the background teachers developed at sessions one and two on the first two focus questions, they should be able to see for themselves that Explore is a concept-based curriculum and that the teaching strategies suggested are for the most part variations on concept formation. Cooperative learning might be

PAGE 172

used at this third session as a method for helping teachers examine Explore while learning-by-doing about cooperative learning. 161 A fourth and fifth session would address the concern of the third focus question: evaluation strategies for an idea-based curriculum. These strategies are given in the third recommendation below. 2. Importance Qf Because some data are more. important than other data, Explore should help teachers decide which data students should study. In an idea-based curriculum like Explore, this task is one of selecting examples for students to study. For example, to learn the concept community, which communities should students study? Or, to learn the concept animal, which animals should students study? At least three of each should be suggested, since-at least three examples are needed in order to form a concept. If well chosen, three are all that are needed to form an initial concept of something. Perhaps this content decision making should be left to the individual schools, not only for the sake of autonomy, but also because teachers tend to know best what resources are in their own buildings. But this reviewer would supplement that buildingbased decision making with help from the curriculum developers and resource teachers. A combination of the two approaches seems ideal, and perhaps a module could be added to the staff development program on a fourth focus question, How can content examples be best selected? That is, what are the criteria for selecting a few, powerful examples? 3. Evaluation. When students have mastered a concept, which is to say when they have formed an idea, they can do certain things that they otherwise cannot. a. They can tell you whether a given item is or is not an example of that concept, and they can support their decision. b. They can create or find an example of the concept and verify that is, indeed, an example. They do this by showing that it contains the concept's critical characteristics. c. They can correct non-examples, and sdpport the changes they have made by explaining how those changes result in an example of the concept. d. They use the concept's label, its name, appropriately; that is, they use the label only for examples of the concept, not for non-examples. Moreover, when questioned about their use of a particular label, they can provide a support in which knowledge of the critical characteristics is brought to bear. These four behaviors are each a classifying task. Classifying is yet another kind of thinking, and it is the kind that best fits an idea-based curriculum. The staff development program designed for Explore needs to teach participants these four types of classifying, since they are also four ways to evaluate concept learning. Each type can

PAGE 173

be used formatively and summatively. A formative check for understanding, using the first type on the concept community, might look like this: Teacher: Now that you've formed a basic idea of what a community is, let's practice. I will tell you about a group of people, and you decide whether or not it is an example of a community. Be ready to support your decision. Of course, this is very much like a confirmation-of-learnipg task already in the Explore manual, but here it is being brought into the heart of the lesson as a formative check for understanding and practice activity. The same type can be used summatively (as in the confirmation tasks) as well as diagnotically. Before beginning instruction on, say, communities, the teacher might diagnose the class's present understanding of that concept by telling them about a group of people, asking them to decide whether or not it is an example of community, and asking them to support their decision. In summary, classifying tasks are ideal for diagnosing and evaluating students' concept learning. Where such tasks are presently in Explore, they should be brought explicitly to the surface. Where they are missing, they should be added. CLOSING Explore may well be the finest thinking skills/interdisciplinary curriculum in the United States today. The seven strengths described above, expecially the second, are the reason. With some careful attention to the three areas needing further attention, Explore should have a palpable impact on student learning. Moreover, it should become the sort of locally designed curriculum in which other school districts around the country will have tremendous interest and which they will want to implement themselves. 162

PAGE 174

APPENDIX C GRADE FOUR Assessment of Cognitive Skills Manual School District No. 12 Adams County 11285 Highline Drive Northglenn, CO 80233 163

PAGE 175

164 FOREWORD ASSESSMENT OF COGNITIVE SKILLS The questions and exercises that appear in this booklet were designed to allow the student to demonstrate his/her ability to apply certain cognitive skills and processes. These are skills which are called for in the study of many subjects in the school curriculum and are often referred to as thinking skills. By identifying how students (as a group) are progressing in their abilities to apply these skills and processes, teachers and administrators can determine possible areas of need for learners, and areas of strength, thereby providing some direction for the types of learning experiences which could be of benefit to learners, i.e., meet areas of demonstrated need. Questions and exercises have been drawn primarily from two sources, with permission granted from the publishers of these instruments for District 12 to use the materials. Sources used to design this assessment device were: KIT OF FACTOR-REFERENCED COGNITIVE TESTS, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey ROSS TEST OF HIGHER COGNITIVE PROCESSES, Academic Therapy Publications, Navato, California Pat Willsey Social Studies Education Specialist

PAGE 176

165 INTRODUCTION The Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes is comprised of 105 items designed to assess higher level thinking skills of students in grades four through six. It was developed following a review by the authors of existing instruments which revealed no comprehensive instruments for assessing higher level thinking of students in the intermediate grades were available. One of the purposes for which the authors declare the Ross Test to be appropriate is assessing the effectiveness of a special program or curriculum. They suggest that the Ross Test may be utilized in the assessment of curriculum emphasizing critical thinking, inquiry methods, problem solving and logical thinking, or the development of more complex thinking skills. Exercises have been selected for use at grade four in Adams County School District No. 12 which focus upon skills that are a part of curriculum in this district, in -particular: The ability to study data and determine a scheme for organizing them to form a conceptual structure; Examination of data to identify a term (thing, idea) and selecting questions that provide the best data for identifying the pre-selected term; and, Analysis of figures to determine critical attributes and hypothesize the set for W'lich the attributes determine membership and, determine set members from another group of figures.l The Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests contains 72 cognitive tests that are designed to serve as markers for the 23 aptitude factors to which they are referenced. That is, the assessment exercises have been developed to "mark" or identify certain cognitive abilities or factors, and to ascertain if individuals in various groupings can perform cognitive tasks --reflect the cognitive abilities. The factors drawn from this collection of cognitive tests to be assessed in this experience for grade four students include: Induction which includes a two-step process requiring both concept formation and hypothesis testing. Tests for this factor have been limited to those which do not have semantic content; Logical reasoning, defined as the ability to evaluate the correctness of answers presented; and Flexibility of use which is the mental set necessary to think of different uses for objects.2 lRoss, John D. and Catherine M. Ross, ROSS TEST OF HIGHER COGNITIVE PROCESSES, Novato, California: Academic Therapy Publications, 1976. 2Elestrom, Ruth B. et al., MANUAL FOR KIT OF FACTOR-REFERENCED COGNITIVE TESTS, Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1987. 1

PAGE 177

166 ADHHtiSTRATION GENERAL PROCEDURES In preparing to administer the test, the teacher should become familiar with the directions for each section, the sample items and rationale for the answers to these, and the time limits allowed for each section. The teacher should read the directions with the class and have the students work the sample items at the begining of each section. It is essential that the students be given an opportunity to solve the sample items without assistance from the teacher or interference from other students in order for them to gain an understanding of the processes involved. If the students have any questions regarding the directions or the sample items, these should be discussed before work is begun on the section. Be sure the students under stand that no questions may be asked once the working time has begun. In no instance should the teacher attempt to interpret, amplify, or otherwise respond to a content question during the taking of the test. Timing for each section should not begin until all directions have been given, all sample items have been worked, and all students questions have been answered. It is suggested that the teacher write on the chalkboard the number of minutes allowed for completion of each section as it is begun and to update this number at five-minute intervals to show the amount of working time remaining. SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS Be sure that each student has a penci 1 and an eraser. Responses may be made directly in the test booklet. However, for repeated use of the test booklets, responses can be marked on the answer sheets. Instruct the students to fill in the identifying data on the cover of the test booklet or answer sheet. The directions were designed with the intent of discouraging blatant guessing. When students possess some information about a test item, it is appropriate for them to apply this information and select W'lat appears to be the best answers. Say: You will be marking your answers on the test booklet (or answer sheet). If you make a mistake, erase carefully and mark your new answer plainly. If a particular item is giving you difficulty, skip it and return to it later if you have time left on that section. You may not go ahead to new sections or go back to previous sections. You will always be kept informed as to how much time remains to finish each section. It is not advisable to guess at answers; but, if you feel you know something about the question or problem, mark W.at you believe is the best ansewr, even if you are not caopletely sure. Remember, I cannot answer any questions once the working time begins. 2

PAGE 178

167 SECTION I ABSTRACT RELATIONS TIME LIMIT: 15 MINUTES Read the four words given. Then select a word from Word Pool I which goes with all four words in some way. Example: WORD POOL I A. pin G. 1 i ne 8 shoe H. cross c. green I. sign clothes up straight drive D. red J. true E. cut K. market F. saw L. horse The word which with these four words is "line" (clothes-line, line-up, straight line, a line drive). Its letter in the word pool is (G). Put a "G" on the blank like this: clothes up straight drive G YOU WILL NOT USE ANY WORD IN THE POOL MORE THAN ONCE. YOU WILL NOT USE ALL THE WORDS IN THE POOL. USE WORD POOL I FOR QUESTIONS 1 THROUGH 7. USE WORD POOL II FOR QUESTIONS 8 THROUGH 14. PUT THE LETTER BY THE WORD YOU SELECT FROM THE WORD POOL ON THE BLANK AFTER THE QUESTION NUMBER. WHEN YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO, TURN THE PAGE, AND BEGIN WORKING. 3

PAGE 179

168 WORD POOL I 1. stock super place meat A. pin G. 1 i ne 2. hair class short throat B. shoe H. cross 3. walk reference red word c. green I. sign 4. onion winter golf thumb D. red J. true 5. work race radish power E. cut K. market 6. stop name neon 1 ang uage F. saw L. horse 7. horse 1 ace horn tennis Remember, you will not use any word in the pool more than once. You will not use all the words in the pool. Use Word Pool II for questions 8 through 14. Put the letter on the blank after the question number. WORD POOL II 8. saddle stroke track show A. hot G. house 9. bell bunny scotch car B. cold H. blue 10. house street moon switch c. cat I. letter 11. pepper dog red rod D. school J. side 12. keeper warming guest out E. hop K. di amend 13. head ice shoulder catch F. fire L. light 14. high board book grade (This is the end of Section 1.) STOP! Please close your test booklet. Do not open it again until your teacher tells you to do so. 4

PAGE 180

SECTION II INDUCTION FIGURE CLASSIFICATION This is a test of your ability to discover rules that explain things. In each exercise there are either two or three groups, each group having three figures. You are to LOOK FOR SOMETHING THAT IS THE SAME ABOUT THE THREE FIGURES IN ANY ONE GROUP and to LOOK FOR THINGS THAT MAKE THE GROUPS DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER. Now, look at the problems below. In the first line, the figures are divided into Group 1 and Group 2. The squares in Group 1 are shaded and the squares in Group 2 are not shaded. In the second line a 1 has been written under each figure that has a shaded square as in Group 1. A 2 has been written under each figure with an unshaded square as in Group 2. D 0 0 D .b I I -G.-I ,z. I Now try this more difficult example, which has three groups. The figures in Group 1 consist of both straight and curved lines. The figures in Group 2 consist of curved lines only. The figures in Group 3 consist of straight lines only. As you can see, there are other details that have nothing to do with the rule. What numbers should you place on the lines below the figures? L' .,. --oJ "169 r v /fv I .::::I l() x-...( ,---') 5

PAGE 181

170 Your score on this section will be the number of figures identified correctly minus a fraction of the number marked incorrectly. it will not be to your advantage to guess unless you have some idea of the group to wnfch the figure belongs. You will have 15 minutes for this section. (The answers to the example are: l, l, 3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2) DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO. 6 170

PAGE 182

171 Part II (15 Minutes) Group 1 "' I I "' I ..... / I ... "' I I I / 1--------1 \ 1-1 \ I --I Group 1 Group 2 0 ... : 0 . I .... r.. 0 0 I '-/ ........ / ... 0 .. --., I (); ... l ...... I I \ 0. ,. I \., i \../ i / ... \ \ ........ :' )) ... --.......... ...... ..... Group 1 Group 2 I'( I I:L.I !/' I ,;, I I I ' i "1 f.\ \\. \ y _, : I -, ;--; ... .. -'\ GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 7

PAGE 183

172 Part II (Continued) Group 2 7 4 \I ' I 4 .. ,1/ >{ c:: XI y -7 .. ....... --I .. Group 1 Group 2 ' '-\..., 0' "' y-, ) ,, \1: . I j r ... <9-(;; ,--, . I I I .... ..._.. )' . --I .. ., _, Group 1 Group 2 '>IL /11 k 15 II\ lcJ 11-I GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 8

PAGE 184

173 Part II (Continued) Group 1 Group 2 --., 0. ... ,, ? ...... -, \ I I I I _.__ L ,. I ,, v ,, I 't ( \ I I I '-,....., ... rl ,........ v ,, .... "' .__... 1/ ,, -' I' I ;... --... ,' --;r I '-' I , \. --t\o ,. \ /; ; \0 /e Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 ( ) I 0 0 [] I I ,I 6.1. x \,/ I I 0 ./ ., t A I I A [J j. A o\ [J 0 I A \ GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 9

PAGE 185

174 Part II (Continued) ffiJ!@I I !0 I/ II l) 'x ,. I / -\--! \ .. ,' GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 10

PAGE 186

. 175 Part II (Continued) I '4 I I II r I 21 .-II 0 .I i 31 1 I 141. 'I xi F I zt 0 I Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 IL llolo00l 101 DO NOT GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO. STOP 11

PAGE 187

176 SECTION III FLEXIBILITY Of USE/MAKING GROUPS In this section you will be asked to make groups of things which are alike in some way and to explain the reason for each group, why/how the items are alike. Each part of the section will have a list of seven things. You should try to think of ways in which these things are alike. Use the letters beside the names of the things to identify groups which are alike in some way. Then write what it is about the things that makes them alike. Look at this example: GROUP (LETTERS) REASON a. trout a_ 1 ib. robin c. frog k)i)r d. car a..-,C!.-,:.r ; e. boat f. bat g. airplane You might have written down different groups or different reasons from those given in the sample. Try to think of as many different ways as possible to make groups. Each group must have at least three things in it. The same group cannot be used with different reasons. The groups should be based on _such characteristics as size, color, shape or use and not on how the words are spelled or their sounds. Try to think of as many different groups as possible (up to 10) for each item. However, if you have trouble in thinking of enough groups for one item, 1 eave it and go on to the next item. Your score on this test will be the number of correct groups that you make. Remember that a group must have both the letters of the objects and the reason for grouping them in order to be correct. You will have 10 minutes for this part of the test. When you have finished, STOP. Please do not go on until you are asked to do so. DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO 12

PAGE 188

177 Part III (10 Minutes) GROUP (LETTERS) 1. a. tomato b. tangerine c. orange d. onion e. carrot f. beet g. apple 2. a. b a 11 et b. concert c. movie d. radio e. telephone f. television g. theater DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO 13

PAGE 189

178 SECTION IV -DIAGRAMMING RELATIONSHIPS Sometimes the relationships among groups of things are best explained by diagrams that consist of overlapping circles. For example, if certain specific things, let's say lions, all belong to one larger class of things, let's say animals, you could diagram the situation as follows: In these diagrams we do not care about the relative sizes of any of the circles. That is, we are not suggesting here that a relatively large proportion of animals are lions, but we are indicating that all lions are animals. That is Why the circle representing lions is drawn ent1rely within the circle that represents animals. Now take the relationship among three groups of different things: Birds, pets, and trees. These should be diagrammed as follows: bird--W G-trees pets--t::J This diagram shows that no trees are either pets or birds, birds are pets and some pets are birds. Each item in this test names three groups of things. You are to choose from the lettered diagrams at the top of the test pages the one diagram that shows the correct relationships among the three groups of things in each item. Mark the letter of the diagram that you select. Now try these sample items @) 8 0 A B c 0 E 1. Animals cats dogs: A B c 0 E 2. Desks, furniture, pencils: A B c 0 E You should have marked A for 1. and E for 2. Your score on this test will be the number of correct choices minus a fraction of the number of incorrect choices. Therefore, it wi11 not be to your advantage to guess, unless you have a least some idea that w11T help you make a correct choice. You will have 5 minutes to complete this part. When you have finished, STOP. Please do not go on until asked to do so. DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO 14

PAGE 190

179 Mark the letter of the diagram that represents the relationships among the three groups in each item: 0 0 8 G 0 A 8 c D E 1. Dogs, mice, animals A B c D E 2. Trees, beets, root vegetables A B c D E 3. Musnrooms, berries, foods A B c D E 4. Buildings, cottages, white residences A B c D E 5. Sharp objects, eating utensils, rubber balls A B c D E 6. Partly yellow things, houses, pictures A B c 0 E 7. Chains, jewelry, beds A B c 0 E 8. Cars, Ford sedans, Chevrolet sedans A B c 0 E 9. Chickens, mackeral, fish A B c D E 10. Oaks, trees, maples A B c D E 11. Things that fly, insects, mice A B c D E 12. Doctors, golf players, people A B c D E 13. Red cards, Chryslers, motor vehicles A B C D E 14. Chairs, furniture, windows A B c 0 E 15. Things that fly, animals, vehicles for transportation A B C D E DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO 15 STOP

PAGE 191

SECTION V QUESTIONING STRATEGIES TIME LIMIT: 18 MINUTES Here are five items: a safety pin a pencil a key a clothespin 11 doorknob 180 One of these items is 11IT.11 You can learn v.tlich one is 111T" by reading the following groups of questions and the answers given for each question. Question Group I 1. Does it have a sharp point? 2. Is it made of metal? 3 Does it open things? Question Group II 1. Is it made of wood? 2. Is it made of metal? 3. Does it hold things together? Question Group I II 1. Is it made of wood? 2. Does it open things? 3. Does it fit into a lock? Which item is 111T"? A. the doorknob B. the safety pin c. the key. D. the pencil E. the clothespi_ry no yes yes no yes no no yes yes (A) D (B) D (D) 0 (E) 0 The correct answer to the question, "Which item is 1111,11 is (C), the key. The information which you learned from the questions and answers tells you that only 11the key11 is the correct item. Which group of questions is the best group for leading you to the answer? Select one group which, by itself, would give you the necessary information to know \lwtlich item is 111T.11 A. Group I . . (A) D B. Group II . . (B) 0 c. Group I I I. . . (C) t8J 16

PAGE 192

181 The group of questions that is the best for leading you to the answer is Question Group III. Group III, by itself, asks questions which lead you directly to the answer, so (C), Group III, is the correct answer. Question Group I, by itself, will not lead you directly to the answer. Question Group II, by itself, will not lead you directly to the answer. Only the questions in Group III give you the necessary information to know which item is "IT." On the following pages, you will be given sets of five items and three question groups. When you are told to do so, turn the page, find the items which is "IT," and also choose which question group was best for leading you to the correct item DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO. 17

PAGE 193

182 Here are five items: salt granulated sugar powdered sugar flour cocoa One of these items is "IT." You can learn \'klich one is "IT" by reading the following groups of questions and the answers given for each question: Question Group I 1. Is it white? 2. Is it grainy? 3. Is it sweet in flavor? Questi on Group II 1. Is it often used with pepper? 2. Is it a powder? 3. Is it bitter in flavor? Question Group Ill 1. Is it salty in flavor? 2. Is it used in cooking? 3 Is it brown? yes no yes no yes no no yes no Which item is "IT"? A. salt B. granulated sugar c. powdered sugar D. flour. E. cocoa. Which questioning strategy is best in leading you to the answer? group which, by itself, would give you the necessary information which itan is "IT." A. Group I B. Group II. c. Group Ill . . (A) 0 (B) 0 (C) D (D) 0 (E) 0 Select one to know .(A) 0 .(B) 0 .(C) 0 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 18

PAGE 194

183 Here are five items: < "'' glow) shoe scarf belt One of these items is 111T.11 You can learn \'tlich one is 111T11 by reading the following groups of questions and the answers given for each question: Question Group I 1. Is it worn outdoors? 2 Is it worn to keep warmer? 3 Is i t worn around the waist ? Question Group II yes yes no 1. Is it always worn on your hand? no 2 Is it often worn around your neck? no 3. Can it be worn inside a shoe ? no Question Group Ill 1. Can you turn it inside out? 2. Is it often made out of leather? 3. Is it always worn on your foot? no yes yes Which item is 11lT11? A. shoe B. sock C. belt D. glove. E. scarf. Which questioning strategy is best in leading you to the answer? group which, by itself, would give you the necessary information which item is 111T.11 A. Group I B. Group II. . c. Group III . . . (A) D (B) D (C) 0 (D) D (E) D Select one to know .(A) D .(B) D . .(C) 0 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 19

PAGE 195

184 Here are five items: violin harp guitar piano ukulele One of these items is "IT." You can learn v.hich one is "IT" by reading the following groups of questions and the answers given for each question: Question Group I 1. Does i t have strings? yes 2. Is it played with the hands? yes 3. Could one person eas ily carry it around? no Question Group II 1. Does it have exactly four strings? no 2 Does it have more than 15 strings? yes 3. Does it have a keyboard? no Question Group Ill 1 Is it played with a bow? no 2. Is it often played with Hawaiian music? no 3. Could you take it with you in a phone booth? no Which item is "IT"? A. violin B. harp c. guitar D. pi ana. E. ukulele. (A) D (B) D (C) D (D) D (E) D Which questioning strategy is best in leading you to the answer? Select one group which, by itself, would give you the necessary information to know which iten is "IT." A. Group 1 B. Group I I. C. Group II I 00 NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO. 20 (A) D .(B) D .(C) D STOP

PAGE 196

SECTION VI -ANALYSIS OF ATTRIBUTES TIME LIMIT: 15 MINUTES These are Fergs. Look at them carefully. These are not Fergs. Decide how they are different from the Fergs. D Are any of these Fergs? A. Is a Ferg . B. Is not a Ferg A Is a Ferg .. B. Is not a Ferg <) A. Is a Ferg_ . B. Is not a Ferg (A) D (B) D (A) 0 (B) D (A) 0 (B) 0 185 If you chose the middle figure as a Ferg you are correct. The first and last figures are not Fergs. A Ferg has four sides and one dot inside. When you are told to do so, study both sets of figures on the next page carefully and decide \ttl at features are needed to produce a Fl i g. Then study the figures following the models and decide \lttlether each is or is not a Fl i g. If it is a Flig, mark answer (A). If it is not a Flig, mark answer (B). In this test section, you will also be asked to identify Frims. Follow the same procedure for these figures. DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL ASKED TO DO SO. 21

PAGE 197

186 These are Fl i gs: A cJf These are not Fl i g s: Are any of these Fligs? If it is a Flig, mark answer (A). If it is not a Flig, mark answer (B). A. Is a Flig (A) 0 B. Is not a Flig (B) D w A. Is a Fl i g (A) 0 B. Is not a Flig . (B) 0 R A. Is a Fl i g . (A) 0 B. Is not a Flig (B) 0 cfr A. Is a Flig .. (A) 0 B. Is not a Flig . (B) D A. Is a Flig (A) D B. Is not a Fl i g (B} 0 GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 22

PAGE 198

These are Frims: These are not Frims: Are any of these Frims? If it is a Frim, mark answer (A). If it is not a Frim, mark answer (B). A. Is a Frim . B. Is not a Frim . A. Is a Frim . B. Is not a Frim A. Is a Frim . B. Is not a Frim A. Is a Frim . B. Is not a Frim A. Is a Frim B. Is not a Frim 23 . . (A)0 (B) D (A) 0 (B)0 (A)0 (B)Q (A)Q {B)0 (A)0 187 (B)0 STOP

PAGE 199

188 APPENDIX D THE STUDY OF SCIENCE AND SOCIAL STUDIES The questions that are presented in this section have no right or wrong answers. These are questions which are asked in order to f1nd out what you th1nk about some things that have to do with science and social studies. Please answer each question honestly, and carefully, and remember, your answers will not be shared with any other students or teachers. Your answers are important. They w1ll help people who prepare materials for you to use in science and social studies to do a better job. 1. Direction: Check the answer that is best for you. I think that you learn important things when you study science. Yes Uncertain No 2. Social studies is the most important subject I study at school. Yes Uncertain No 3 I am able to learn interesting things when 1 study science at school. Yes Uncertain No 4. I am able to use the things that I learn about in social studies. Yes Uncertain No 5. The study of science does not have anything to do with the study of social studies. True Uncertain No 6. My teacher is very interested in social studies. Yes -Uncertain No 7. In order to be a good citizen it helps to study social studies. Yes Uncertain No 8. The study of science is boring. Yes Uncertain No 9. My teacher is very interested in science. ... Yes Uncertain No 10. The things I learn about in social studies are interesting. Yes Uncertain No

PAGE 200

189 11. I can make use of the things I learn about in science. Yes Uncertain No 12. The things I learn about in social studies are important. Yes Uncertain No 13. I do very well when I study social studies in school. Yes No 14. When I study science, I usually do work that I'm proud of. Yes No 15. The study of science is the subject like to spend the most time on in school. Yes Uncertain No 16. Direction: Check the answer that is,! answers that are, true for you. When I study science at school, I do these things: Read from the science book. --Work with a partner or in a group. --Talk about things with the whole class. ====:=Do investigations or experiments. 17. Direction: Check the answer that is, or the answers that are, true for you. When I study social studies at school I read from many books. --read from only the social studies book. -ll>rk with a partner or in groups. ====:=take part in class discussions. 18. When I read for fun I prefer to read a book about science. Yes No 19. Social studies is so interesting that I never have any trouble. doing my assigned reading in social studies. Yes No 20. I like learning about science almost as much as I like recess. Yes No

PAGE 201

190 21. All social studies books are fun to read. Yes No 22. I went to school in this school district last year. Yes No 23. I was in grade 3 at school 1 ast year. ---------------------------