"an evaluation of a classroom program to teach students to be better thinkers"

Abstract:

This paper deals with teaching school students to be better thinkers

and learners. The learning principles presented are generic. They apply

to all individuals and their learning organisations. The session will

report results about PhD research conducted in upper primary classes in

Sydney schools during 1996. A teaching/ learning model MinDQuestionS

was developed and implemented by the presenter /researcher. The model

emphasises Metacognition, Disposition, Questioning and Skills. Mixed

research methodologies were used. A Quasi-Experimental design was used

with pre-tests and post-tests on treatment and control groups.

Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered from teachers and

students in three treatment and three control group classes.

Preliminary analysis at the time of writing this abstract suggests the

research model was effective. Detailed results will be reported.

The MinDQuestionS research model provides a rationale and practical

strategies: to encourage students to be Metacognitive about their

thinking and learning; to promote a positive Disposition to thinking

and learning in the classroom; to develop a questioning mode to

learning and thinking through the use and understanding of good

Questioning both for teachers and students; and, to use some form of

thinking Skills program to teach cognitive skills and to develop a

language for discussing thinking across all classroom work.

Professional development implications for teachers and practical

classroom strategies will be mentioned.

About the author:

Chris McGrath MACE, Dip Ed, BA(Macquarie), Grad Dip Music(NSW

Conservatorium), Grad Cert Gifted Education (UNSW), M Ed(Gifted

Education,UNSW), Doctoral Research Award(Uni Sth Aust)

He is completing doctoral studies with the University of South

Australia. He has been a regular class and special education teacher,

consultant for students with special needs and senior adviser for the

education of gifted and talented students in NSW Government schools. He

currently teaches part-time at a primary school, lectures at university

on a part time basis, provides professional development in schools and

is Vice President of the Australian Association for the Education of

the Gifted and Talented.

Introduction

Australian school education assumes students learn to be effective

thinkers as they experience the school curriculum. Many educators

challenge this assumption. Edwards (1994) presents an overview of the

strong body of research since the 1980s claiming school education

produces "skilled regurgitators of knowledge". He cites Perkins

(1994:11) :"The bottom line is that we are not getting the retention,

understanding and active use of knowledge we want". Norris (1985)

believes poor thinking extends beyond school. He says test results show

first year university students and workplace adults are poor on

critical thinking tests. Langrehr (1995) in Become a Better Thinker

identifies inadequacies related to teaching students to think within

the current curriculum. He suggests a thinking curriculum and provides

a range of methods to teach core thinking skills, not only for school

students but the whole community. Resnick(1987) agrees school systems

are at fault and presents an interesting equity perspective. Until the

relatively recent advent of mass, compulsory education, the "good

education" previously provided to the ruling classes was focussed more

directly on teaching students to think. Resnick says the current system

has not accommodated the demands of "education for all" and as a

consequence provides a fairly superficial core curriculum which tries

to serve too many purposes. She suggests the teaching of thinking is a

challenge facing contemporary educators:

"Although it is not new to include thinking, problem solving and

reasoning in someone's school curriculum, it is new to include it in

everyone's curriculum.

...It is a new challenge to develop educational programs that assume

that all individuals, not just the elite, can become competent

thinkers"(1987:7)

In Australia, growth in the use of thinking skills programs has been

largely allied to the implementation of states and territories policies

for gifted and talented students. Since a 1989 world gifted education

conference in Sydney and the release of a NSW Government gifted

education policy in 1991, programs and resources related to teaching

thinking have proliferated in that state. Teachers are responding to

the needs of intellectually gifted students by supplementing the

regular curriculum with materials and programs focussed on teaching

thinking and providing increased intellectual challenge. Leading

Australian publishers (Longman, Hawker/Brownlow, McGraw-Hill) and

educational supplier (Dominie, Sydney) report resources for teaching

thinking are one of their major growth areas. They concur that 1989 and

1991 were significant years in their sales, however, they report a

steady and continuous growth in demand for these materials and

programs. One publisher recently told me her analysis of sales trends

indicated teachers of regular classes are her main purchasers of these

materials in 1995. This is important to note. Regular class teachers

are interested in using these resources because all their students may

benefit and individual differences are catered for by the nature of the

strategies used.

There is an expensive array of programs and resources from which

teachers can choose, however, some programs and techniques are being

used with greater frequency by Australian teachers. They include:

CoRT thinking de Bono

Philosophy for Children Lipman

Tournament of Minds(TOM) various authors

A brief summary of each explains how they supplement students' regular

curriculum experiences.

CoRT Thinking (de Bono, 1976) is based on the belief that school

thinking is basically a conservative process and that cultures

generally perpetuate limiting, conventional thought. CoRT is designed

to break the intellectual patterns generated by conformity. De Bono

defines thinking as, "the operating skill with which intelligence acts

upon experience" (1990:161). The de Bono programs are commercially

prepared materials designed to teach students through practice, how to

use and apply specific intellectual, "operating" skills. Students are

taught to use "perceptual frameworks" with which to engage in

teaching/learning tasks and associated problems in a more thorough

manner. The skills are taught through direct instruction, in lessons

clearly specified for teachers. The skills and techniques are taught

using generic examples. They are taught initially in isolation from

curriculum disciplines.

Philosophy for Children (Lipman, 1985) is a scheme designed to help

students acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to be

members of a community of inquiry, based on Socratic dialogue. Students

learn thinking skills by working through, as members of a community of

inquiry, specially written texts. The stories are used as stimulus

material to introduce children to effective thinking skills. Lipman

(1985:87-96) cites 30 skills students acquire through the program. He

believes that through the program students develop dispositions towards

a "... readiness to employ such skills - and to employ them in a

coordinated and cumulatively reinforcing fashion" (1985:97).

Tournament of Minds (TOM) is an Australian version of the US based,

Odyssey of the Mind program. It is a group based problem solving

competition. Students are provided with externally written problems in

three broad curriculum areas: English, Maths/Science and Humanities.

Practice examples and specific instruction in problem solving

techniques are given to students either in class or as an

extra-curricular activity. Teachers and TOM organisers believe that

students learn problem solving skills that generalise across the

curriculum. The Victorian Association for Gifted and Talented Children

(VAGTC) coordinate the program nationally and develop TOM problems and

support materials.

These programs are not inexpensive and take up curriculum time,

however, teachers and schools consider they are important. One quarter

(750) of NSW schools enter students in Tournament of Minds. Philosophy

for Children is taught in 10% of Australian schools according to a

recent tabloid report (8% of NSW schools are on the Philosophy for

Children mailing list). The CoRT thinking newsletter is sent to 10% of

NSW schools. A significant number of schools and teachers are

demonstrating they believe the financial and time commitment involved

in using these programs is justified.

The three programs described above are attractive to teachers. They are

packaged with lessons formatted, they demand little preparation time

and require minimal modification by teachers. They are "added on" to

the curriculum and are not necessarily applied across disciplines.

Teachers are generally untrained in the area of teaching thinking and

they assume students will benefit from the programs. Teachers assume

students will apply the thinking skills they learn across the

curriculum. Teachers need to challenge this assumption and consider how

to ensure students are becoming better thinkers in all their school

work.

This research project intends to help teachers validate the assumptions

they make about their attempts to improve students' thinking. It

intends to demonstrate to teachers that the use of thinking skills

programs is important but, it is a beginning step. For maximum benefit

to be gained from thinking skills programs, teachers have to address

the whole classroom curriculum. There are strategies teachers can adopt

to develop thinking classrooms.

Mind Questions

In 1995, a review of research literature and direct experience with the

three major programs currently used in NSW schools suggested to this

researcher there were four major essential components to be considered

in a thinking curriculum. The four features: metacognition,

disposition, questioning and skills should be considered as essential

components of programs to teach students to be better thinkers.

A teaching model based on these essential features was developed by the

researcher. The research used case study and field study techniques to

analyse classroom change combined with quantitative techniques to

measure the effect of a teaching intervention using the model. Teachers

were provided a professional development program about how to apply the

model in the regular classroom. The model is termed MinDQuestionS, to

emphasise the M, D, Q, & S of Metacognition, Disposition, Questioning

and Skills. Metacognition, disposition, questioning and skills are

briefly discussed below.

Metacognition

Metacognition, defined as knowledge about and control over one's

thinking processes ( in Wittrock, 1986), emerges as an important

aspect of all programs to teach students to think. Programs based on

discussing thinking, group process, teachers modelling thinking, all

support this idea of thinking and discussing thinking (Evans, 1991;

Resnick, 1987, 1989; Langrehr, 1995; Baron & Sternberg, 1987; Edwards,

1994). In a major research meta-analysis, Wang, Haertel and Walberg

(1993) reviewed fifty years of research into major influences on

students' learning. Metacognitive processes were the major

instructional variable for improved student learning. Metacognitive

aids include, for example, mind mapping, journal keeping, self

questioning techniques, perceptual frameworks(CoRT thinking strategies)

and self regulatory strategies. CoRT thinking, Philosophy for Children

and Tournament of Minds all involve students gaining control over and

knowledge about their thinking, that is, becoming metacognitive.

Disposition

A positive disposition towards thinking emerges as a critical factor in

the success of teaching thinking. Because students are taught skills is

no guarantee they will use them. Students need to choose to apply an

intellectual process for it to become a part of their thinking

repertoire. Tishman (1994) believes teachers have to work on the "gap"

between what students are able to do and what they are disposed to do.

Tournament of Minds, Philosophy for Children, CoRT are all group based,

with strong modelling from the teacher and peer acceptance. These

ingredients promote a positive disposition through an accepting

classroom culture and a shared value in using strategies (Resnick,

1987, 1989; Lipman, 1985). Philosophy for Children is based on students

adopting a Socratic approach to discourseÉÉ the disposition to adopt

this approach is essential as it is for any group process to be fully

effective. Resnick (1987) suggests teachers and researchers should

consider how the disposition to think is a socialised behaviour,

developed similarly to other accepted behaviours through modelling,

notions of shared usefulness and practice. Teachers need to actively

address the development of dispositions in students. Teachers can not

assume it will occur.

In his recent best seller, "Emotional Intelligence", Goleman (1995)

makes a very persuasive case for acknowledging and teaching for what he

terms emotional intelligence(EI). I believe emotional intelligence

equates significantly with disposition. Disposition is the "feeling"

component of the MDQS model. Goleman's EI describes and accounts for

the "feeling" aspect of intelligence and cognitive functioning. The

MDQS model attempts to account for the EI of students through the

disposition component.

Questioning

Questioning, both self questioning and interpersonal questioning,

underlies all successful intellectual skills programs. Tournament of

Minds, for example, is based on questions and questioning. Students are

provided with a scenario. They have to generate questions and respond

to posed questions.

Langrehr (1995) believes that questioning, both self questioning and

the questions teachers pose, are integral to the development of

intellectual skills.

"Once people who are poor at thinking in different ways are given some

better questionsÉ they show significant improvement in these ways of

thinking. " (1995:v)

"The more questions we ask ourselves the more connections we form; the

greater the variety of questions, the greater the variety of

connections formed" (1995:39)

Questioning is at the base of de Bono's techniques. Questions about

issues and scenarios are the stimuli to which students are required to

respond. What happens ifÉÉ? How does thisÉÉ? Why do you think sheÉÉ?

and so on. Questions asked by the facilitator of the students, the

students to each other or to themselves are the intellectual triggers

for students to adopt the "perceptual frameworks" provided by the CoRT

materials.

Lipman (1985) says questioning is the basis for engaging in the

community of inquiry the Philosophy for Children program aims to

promote. Why do you think thatÉ? How can you justify that statement?

What do you think? In what way doesÉ? etc are the links forged between

the participants in a community of inquiry. Splitter (1995) believes

philosophic inquiry generates, "an appreciation that these questions

are prompts for reasons, predictions and viewpoints which can, in turn,

be evaluated as good or bad, better or worse, reasonable or

unreasonable" (1995:17).

Sullivan & Clarke (1991) believe that the type and quality of questions

used are directly related to the type and quality of learning that

takes place. Questions that require students to think "more deeply"

produce better outcomes than questions concerned solely with recall of

facts and routines. They identify three factors for "good questions":

1. They require more than recall of a fact or reproduction of a skill.

2. Pupils can learn by doing the task, and the teacher learns about the

pupil from the attempt.

3. There may be several acceptable answers.

Collins (1985) suggests one of the thinking skills teachers should

model for students is the systematic use of questioning to promote

relevant thinking. Questioning can be viewed as a part of a cycle in

the teaching of intellectual skills: teach the skills-question to

elicit use of the skills. Questioning is an essential aspect of

practising intellectual skills and of perceiving the relevance of the skills.

Skills

Numerous sources provide evidence about a range of intellectual skills

being learnt through instructional interventions [ de Bono, 1976,

1985(in Chipman Segal and Glaser); Edwards, 1994, 1995; Lipman, 1985;

Splitter, 1995; Casinader, 1995]. Evidence is abundant about the

success of direct teaching and learning of intellectual skills.

Comparing, contrasting, checking opinions, assessing underlying

assumptions are strategies that can be taught. Ennis (1985) terms

these, critical thinking skills and suggests they fall into three broad

subgroups; skills for defining and clarifying, skills for judging

information and skills for solving problems. All programs designed to

teach students to be better thinkers identify specific intellectual

skills that can be taught.

Infused or add-on?

An important question emerges about how to connect the teaching of

thinking skills to the basic curriculum. Should they be "add-on"

programs or should they be infused into subjects and Key Learning

Areas. Polson and Jeffries (1985) describe two broad alternative

approaches to teaching thinking: information processing and divergent

production. Simplified, this dichotomy asks the question: when teaching

intellectual skills, is it best to use an approach "added on"

(additional) to the regular curriculum or, "infused" into the regular

curriculum. Two basic reasons are provided to explain why intellectual

skills programs should be infused into the school curriculum. The first

is related to the link between thinking skills and content knowledge

and the second is the practical school concern, curriculum time ( and

to a lesser extent resource costs). First, numerous sources suggest

that the most effective use of intellectual skills is linked

substantially with a strong content knowledge base. Armbruster, Echols

and Brown (in Wittrock, 1986) say that the development of learning

strategies and metacognitive processes tends to follow the learner's

development of relevant knowledge. Nitko (1993) says a good content

specific, information base is the strongest position from which to best

use intellectual skills. Resnick (1987) advocates infusing the teaching

of thinking into the regular curriculum:

1. it provides natural knowledge base and environment in which to

practise and develop intellectual skills

2. it provides criteria for what constitutes good thinking and

reasoning within the disciplinary tradition

3. it will ensure that something worthwhile will have been learned even

if wide transfer proves unattainable (1987:36)

These reasons raise serious questions about the long term efficacy of

programs like Tournament of Minds, CoRT thinking and Philosophy for

Children if they are used as "add on" programs. It may be most

practical to consider using these programs as initiatives to get

students and staff motivated subsequent to infusing teaching

intellectual skills in the regular curriculum.

The second basic reason for infusing intellectual skills instruction

into regular curriculum is practical. Issues underlying the use of any

technique for improving intellectual skills are, time and cost

(Resnick, 1989). School curriculum time is precious and defended by

teachers. Programs like CoRT, TOM, Philosophy for Children all demand

time from someone's curriculum. Resnick(1987) suggests the more

instructional techniques are detached from the regular curriculum the

less likely they are to be maintained.

"Based on present evidence, general course effectiveness seems to

depend on the extent to which it is accompanied by parallel efforts

across the curriculum.

Prudent educational practice should seek to embed efforts to teach

cognitive skills into one or another preferably all of the

traditional school disciplines, and it should do this regardless of

what is done in the way of special courses in thinking and learning

skills" (1987:35)

Discussion

My review of the literature suggests intellectual skills instruction is

effective but, metacognition, disposition, questioning should be

emphasised as essential features of curriculum to make students better

thinkers.

Ample evidence suggests thinking skills can be taught. Using the

thinking skills help students, for example, define and clarify

information, make judgements about its reliability and apply relevant

information to problem solving. To gain maximum benefit from

intellectual skills learned, however, more is needed in the classroom,

from the students and from the teacher.

Teaching and learning these skills are facilitated by questioning; both

student and teacher intrapersonal questioning and interpersonal

questioning. The use of strategies to encourage metacognition is

essential in promoting the use, relevance and understanding of the

skills taught. The disposition to use the skills taught can not be

assumed and must be an integral aspect of the overall instructional

environment. And the final aspect of an effective intellectual skills

program is infusing the teaching in the context of regular curriculum.

This ensures continuity of instruction, maximum relevance to the

learner, a strong knowledge base within which to apply skills and, it

addresses the practicalities of time and cost.

Research Methodology

This research was aimed at helping teachers incorporate MDQS strategies

into their daily teaching. Classrooms are learning communities. The

essential features: metacognition, disposition, questioning and

intellectual skills instruction were intended to effect thinking across

all classroom activities. This research is concerned with promoting,

observing and measuring change in classrooms where these essential

features permeate all regular curriculum experiences.

This research project included

¥ developing a teacher training and classroom instructional model

Mind Questions based on the four essential features: metacognition,

disposition, questioning and skills

¥ providing a 5 week, 10 hour training program for teachers to use the

model

¥ providing follow up support in classrooms & observing teaching

sessions in the classroom as the treatment model was implemented

¥ measuring the effect of the treatment model on treatment class

teachers and subjects

¥ analysing differences between treatment and control group classes

The training program was provided in March/April 1996. The

implementation period and data gathering occurred from May-November

1996.

MinDQuestionS -Teacher Instruction program

During the 10 hour MinDQuestionS instruction program teachers were

provided with twelve theoretical and practical readings about

metacognition, disposition, questioning and skills. Specific

teaching/learning strategies were demonstrated for them. They were

asked to specifically use some thinking strategies during the research

period and make personal choices about whether they use others, for

example, teachers are requested to keep learning logs (reflective

journals) both themselves and for students. However, although brief

practice and discussion about the following programs was provided,

teachers were urged to consider which of the range best suited their

needs and teaching styles and, their students' needs and prior

experiences: CoRT & Six Thinking Hats (de Bono), the Australian

materials developed for the Philosophy for Children program (Phil Cam,

1994), John Langrehr's Better Questions Better Thinking .

Teachers were instructed in how to develop students' metacognition

using, for example, mind mapping, keeping reflective journals and

discussing thinking processes and strategies in all key learning areas.

The main strategies for promoting a positive disposition towards

thinking were teacher and peer modelling. Teachers are asked to model

and articulate their own thinking strategies. Through group process and

metacognitive activities, the language of thinking and a disposition to

use thinking strategies is believed to be engendered in classrooms.

Teachers practised developing examples of "good questions" in the MDQS

training program. Teachers were asked to explain to their students the

difference between questions that make them think and articulate their

understanding, and questions that rely primarily on memory and process

imitation. Effective self-questioning was discussed with students.

Langrehr's text, Better Questions Better Thinking was used as an

exemplar of units of work designed using "good" questions.

To develop cognitive skills and facilitate a "language of thinking"

(Tishman, Perkins & Jay, 1995) in their classrooms, teachers are asked

to consider, which, if any, of the major thinking skills programs they

would use with their classes. I was able to provide them with copies of

materials on loan for the research period and demonstrate or team teach

their application.

I provided on-going support and training for the treatment group

teachers as I visited their classes on a weekly basis for the research

period. I team taught and demonstrated teaching in each of the classes,

as well as making observational notes and providing feedback to the

teachers as they tried MDQS strategies.

Research design

This research was an interpretative evaluation of an approach to

teaching thinking and as such used mixed methodologies. Qualitative and

quantitative were gathered. As Patton suggests about research, "design

is necessarily an interplay of resources, possibilities, creativity,

and personal judgements" (1990:13). No single methodology provided an

adequate framework to complete this evaluation of MinDQuestionS.

Data collection - Quantitative data

Quantitative data were gathered and a Quasi-Experimental Design was

used with pretest and posttest on experimental and control groups,

similar to Parke's research (1983), cited in Buchanan & Feldhusen

(1991:60). The research intended to evaluate the effect of the

intervention on the treatment groups. Olszewski & Subotik (in Feldhusen

and Buchanan, 1991:61) suggest this type of quasi-experimental designs

may be more ecologically valid and therefore yield more generalisable

results than experimental design research. Ecological validity implied

the classes were regular classes, containing a normal range of

students, were naturally formed through school enrolment procedures and

were subject to variables associated with normal school life.

Three formal tests were administered to the treatment and control class

subjects:

The Self Concept as a Thinker (SCAT) test to provide data about self

concept as thinkers.

The Langrehr Test of Core Thinking Processes to provide data about

their ability to use specific cognitive processes.

The ACER Non-verbal Reasoning test to provide data about general

reasoning skills.

Data collection - Qualitative data

Qualitative data were gathered through interviews, teacher and students

learning journals, teacher lesson preparation notes, written

evaluations by students and teachers, and, classroom observational

notes and field notes by the researcher. Interpretative methods

described in Erickson (1986) to compile field data and observational

techniques similar to Evertson and Green (1986) were used . Case study

analyses in Hammersley (1990) provided useful models to inform the

qualitative data collection and analysis.

Subjects

Six classes of Years 5 & 6 students from Government and catholic

schools comprise the treatment and control groups (3 classes in

treatment, approximately n=74; three classes in control groups, n=60).

Results

(initial note - the results and subsequent discussion of both

quantitative and qualitative data are draft only and incomplete at the

time of writing this paper)

Quantitative data

ANOVA analyses were applied to differences between students' pre and

post test scores on the three tests administered. None of the analyses

were significant at the 5% level.

Qualitative data

Classroom observations - application of MDQS in classrooms

Data for this section came from thirty classroom observations in

treatment classes gathered over three school terms. Each observation

session was 40-50 minutes. The results are presented with reference to

the four components of the MDQS model.

Metacognition

Student metacognition was initiated by questioning and evidenced in

written form in learning logs, journals, self evaluations, self

reports, task reports and task evaluations. Reflection/metacognition

occurred during initial stages of learning tasks, in planning work, in

monitoring work, and in reporting and evaluating completed tasks.

Metacognition was frequently evidenced orally, both between students

and between students and teachers. Relaxation and quiet meditative

activities were used. Specific taught skills such as mind mapping and

Six Thinking Hats were used by students. Teachers modelled the

metacognitive process.

Disposition

Teachers modelled enthusiasm for learning and thinking. Group and pairs

work with clearly defined roles, behavioural expectations and

procedures were used consistently. Thinking learning tasks were clearly

related to ongoing class work. The balance between level of task

difficulty and student competence was continually evident. Components

of choice were present in all tasks. Ongoing summative sharing was a

constant feature of classrooms. High levels of commitment, enjoyment

and challenge were continually evident. Teachers planning indicated

they had anticipated many potential student concerns.

Questioning

Good teacher questioning incorporating, openendedness, wait time, pre

planning and use of a variety of settings was consistently evident.

Teachers asked questions in whole class settings but also in pairs, and

small and large groups. Students responded to questions

contemplatively, orally and in writing. Students were encouraged to

design questions as initial, investigative prompts, for ongoing

monitoring and as a summative procedure related to class work.

Questioning prompt charts, for example, Q-matrix, and Six Thinking Hats

questions were used.

Skills

Teachers used a number of commercial thinking skills programs. These

included: Six Thinking Hats, CoRT, Philosophy for Children, Better

Questions Better Thinking. There were classroom lists of problem

solving prompts and wall charts containing items like: fact/opinion,

guess/check, trial/error, predict, estimate and other examples of the

language of thinking. Teachers applied Bloom's Taxonomy to assignment

design and questioning.

Other comments

Application of the MDQS principles became more evident after about 4-5

classroom observations, that is, about 4 months after the initial

training, and after a review discussion meeting. Teachers then started

to use MDQS in new and different Key Learning Areas, like visual arts,

poetry and technology/design. The MDQS lesson planning proforma was

developed in response to teacher request and used by all the teachers

towards the end of the observation period. Despite constant requests

from the researcher teachers were reluctant to keep reflective

journals.

Students' written evaluations

Treatment and control class students were asked three questions: what

they had learnt about their own thinking, other students' thinking and

thinking in general. Treatment group students provided significantly

more detailed responses, using 30-40% more words in their responses.

Examples from the treatment group are provided below:

1. What have you learnt about your thinking this year?

¥ not to judge things without thinking about them. If you think about

problems the answers come easier

¥ I've learnt that if I think of thinking, I think of new ways to solve

problems and suggest better ways to do things

¥ Its hard to get out of your comfort zone but when you do and you

think about it, it's great

¥ I've learnt that if I expand the answer I got I will get a better

result

¥ I've started to wake up and actually listen to my thinking. I've

learnt that I think in different ways. I've learnt that when I think

I'm being negative then.... telling myself off. I've been learning to think about thinking.

¥ This year I have learnt about thinking. I learnt to think things

through before I do anything. I learned not to stop thinking about an

answer because eventually you'll get it.

¥ I've learnt that I should always think before I do a question, and

that I can solve things better (than before)

¥ I have learnt how to make thinking fun

2. What have you learnt about other students' thinking this year?

¥ everyone has their own way of organising their thoughts

¥ even though some people might need help in eg reading, or maths; when

they try to be creative in thinking you learn that they still have good

ideas. Even if they might not be great in one particular subject.

¥ I've learnt that most clever people in the class can think more

creatively than anyone else and everyone can think differently and that

it can sometimes confuse me

¥ I have learnt that my thinking and another person's can help each

other

¥ I've learnt that there is more than one right answer, that people

that say something silly may be right

¥ other people's thinking has good ideas because the more people you

have to think the more answers you will get, because everyone thinks

differently

¥ Everybody has a totally different thought about something, and you

have to respect that.

¥ This year I learnt that other people in my class also have good ideas

and I learned to listen to everyone not just my own friends.

¥ I have learnt that it is good working in groups

3. What have you learnt about thinking in general?

¥ before this I never knew about the hats or mind maps...now that I

know I use them for stories, projects, even coloured hats are useful

for writing in my diary

¥ there are lots of things to think and everyone thinks differently,

but there is one thing that all thinkers have and its imagination

¥ that thinking can get you out of a hard and defeating situation, I've

learnt about the different hats and how they work

¥ Thinking is very complicated. I used to think "oh yeah, we just

think" but its much more complicated than that, there is whether you

use the right side of your brain or the left more, I use the right...

¥ I've learnt the language of thinking ie all the thinking words

¥ thinking will bring you out of your comfort zone and you will improve

¥ when I'm thinking about the same question as others I take the

question in a completely different way than my neighbour

¥ that everyone should have more thinking skills

figure 1. student responses

Teachers' written evaluations

Treatment class teachers were asked to complete a written evaluation.

Examples of their responses are provided below:

Part 1. About yourself

How has involvement in the process changed your teaching?

¥ I am more aware of presenting my class with a challenging lesson at

least daily.

¥ I can see the importance of giving the children time to think and

reflect - we tend to rush children along to try to fit in the day's

activities. I think next year I will try to build in a reflection

component to my lessons.

¥ more aware of Metacognition in planning lessons

¥ I have consciously tried to provide classroom "props" to support

students' thinking eg. charts, learning log, reflection time at the end

of lessons

¥ I have become very aware of the kinds of questions I'm asking.

¥ made me more aware of the real importance of disposition as a factor

in children's learning

¥ I was aware of "wait time" in questioning before MDQS but now I use

it more than ever.

¥ We cannot assume that slow learners/workers are nor good/deep /active

thinkers and there fore my teaching needs to stimulate everyone in the

class, gave the children a wide variety of ways to respond to what is

taught/demonstrate what they have learnt. One method is a reflective

journal of some kind

What have been the main advantages for you?

¥ I have learnt more about the cognitive skills I am trying to present

to my class.

¥ it has given me greater insight into the minds of some of the kids I

have worked with this year.

¥ MDQS has provided a framework I can use to prepare lessons/units of

work

¥ my own professional development. I knew about metacognition, but

hadn't incorporated any acknowledgment of it in my teaching.

Part 2. About your students

What have you learnt about your students' thinking ( and learning) as

your class has experienced the MDQS process? Please comment in general

and specifically.

¥ it has been easier to pinpoint children who think laterally and enjoy

a challenge.

¥ it has highlighted those who find it difficult to make decisions or

think critically

¥ some of my students are much deeper thinkers than I have given them

credit for and they deserve more of an interesting challenge

academically

What changes have you perceived in students' thinking during the MDQS

process?

¥ more persistence in difficult tasks

¥ understanding the nature of questioning themselves ie. higher order

questions

What have been the main advantages for students?

¥ having the opportunity to listen to their peers' ideas/methods

¥ reflecting upon their own learning or work.

¥ realising that people think and learn differently

¥ gaining the skills to approach a problem from a different angle

¥ provided some strategies they can apply to solve problems.

¥ focussed particularly of "how" rather than "what" they were

learning: a useful strategy to use in later schooling

Part 3. General comments

How has the MDQS professional development process accounted for

teachers' experience and learning styles?

¥ It starts on familiar ground in some instances eg. we all know

something about questioning

¥ the tasks were open ended and therefore allowed for individual

responses that could build on prior experience

¥ classroom implementation tasks were negotiable

Having been involved in the process for a year..... how would you

improve it.... change emphasis... to make it more effective as a

professional development process for teachers in the future ?

¥ the "ELIC" model of input/discussion/classroom based action research/

review and feedback - is a powerful one for engendering change. I

wouldn't change that either. I wonder if it would have optimum

effectiveness as a teacher development process if it were implemented

on a whole school basis?

Apart from time constraints and pressures associated with personal

change what disadvantages do you perceive in the MDQS process.

¥ it also needs to run from K-6 ... the kids need to feel that it is an

integral part of learning not just something that one teacher they have

does in the classroom.

¥ the rationale for reflection and metacognition needs to be explained

clearly to the children

figure 2. teacher responses

Discussion

Quantitative data

The results of the ANOVA analyses of quantitative data are not

surprising. None of the pre test - post test variances were

significant. The treatment intervention period - the time between the

pre and post tests was brief. A longer period may yield significant

variances. The tests used, a Non verbal reasoning test, a self concept

as a thinker scale and a test of cognitive processes, may not yield any

variations in student performance as a consequence of interventions

such as MinDQuestionS. The gains students make from the treatment

variable may not be readily measured by such instruments.

Further analyses to be completed will hold reasoning ability as a

constant. Students scoring above average on the Non verbal reasoning

scale will be compared with students scoring below average. It is

possible that the below average students may make significant gains in

self concept and cognitive processes as their whole class experiences

the enrichment opportunities provided by an intervention like

MinDQuestionS. Usually these students are not provided such enrichment

opportunities.

Qualitative data

Three types of data are reported and have been subjected to preliminary

analyses. The results suggest that teachers and students have responded

favourably to the MinDQuestionS teaching model. Teachers have

understood the intentions of the model and have implemented MDQS

strategies. Researcher observations, combined with students' and

teachers' evaluations support this assertion.

Classroom observations

The classroom observations demonstrated a rich variety of

teaching/learning experiences incorporating features of the MDQS model.

Teachers gained in MDQS planning expertise and utilised opportunities

for incidental MDQS implementation with growing frequency during the

implementation period. Teacher use of good questioning practices was

evident in every classroom session. Teachers who chose to use thinking

skills programs, used them adequately. Teachers demonstrated a clear

understanding of the need to consider and develop learners'

dispositions. Teachers demonstrated a growing awareness of how to

ensure opportunities for metacognition were created and used

effectively.

Student evaluations

Students demonstrated high degrees of metacognitive development during

the intervention process. Their thoughts about their own thinking, that

of other students and about thinking in general were detailed and

perceptive. The differences between treatment and control groups were

noteworthy in the sophistication of language used and the volume of

words used. Treatment group students appeared to be more metacognitive

as a consequence of the MDQS intervention.

Teacher evaluations

Teacher comments about the training program indicated that they

supported the MDQS training model. Teachers reported that they knew

more about their own thinking, their teaching of thinking and students'

thinking as a consequence of the MDQS intervention. The teachers were

reluctant to keep reflective journals despite frequent requests from

the researcher. Teachers requested the development of a MDQS lesson

planning proforma.

Conclusions

Further implementation of the MDQS model should endeavour to

¥ promote whole school involvement in MinDQuestionS implementation

¥ ensure teachers and students use reflective journals (learning logs)

as a matter of course

Metacognition is clearly evidenced in the treatment classes. A positive

disposition for thinking and learning is clearly evidenced in the

treatment classes. Questioning was exemplary in the treatment classes.

Skills programs were effective if they were used by the class teachers

in their classrooms.

Class teachers provided increased opportunities for students

metacognition, they actively promoted a positive disposition for

learning and thinking, they demonstrated good questioning technique and

they integrated thinking skills programs into the regular curriculum.

Preliminary analyses of the research data suggest implementation of the

MinDQuestionS model achieved its intentions.

References

Baron JB and Sternberg RJ(eds)(1987)Teaching thinking Skills: theory

and practice. New York :Freeman

Buchanan, NK & Feldhusen, JF (1991) Conducting Research and Evaluation

in Gifted Education, New York Teachers College Press Columbia

University

Cam, P (ed) (1994) Thinking Stories 1 & 2 and Teachers Resource

Activity Books Sydney: Hale and Ironmonger.

Canfield J & Hansen MV (1993) Chicken Soup for the soul. Florida:

Health Communications Inc

Casinader N (1995) "Challenging the thinking process: the Future

Problem Solving Program" in Unicorn Vol 21,No1. march 1995 pp56-66

Chipman SF, Segal JW & Glaser R (1985) Thinking and Learning Skills.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Arlbaum

Collins A (1985) "teaching reasoning skills" in JW Segal, SF Chipman &

R Glasser [eds] Thinking and Learning Skills,Vol 1, Relating

Instruction to Research. Hillside, NJ: Arlbaum

de Bono E (1990) I am right you are wrong. NY: Penguin

de Bono E (1992) Serious Creativity. London: Fontana

de Bono E (1976) Teaching Thinking London: Penguin

Edwards J (1991) "The direct teaching of thinking skills" in G Evans

(ed)Learning and Teaching Cognitive Skills. Melbourne :ACER pp87-106

Edwards J (ed) (1994) Thinking: International Interdisciplinary

Perspectives. Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow

Edwards J (1995) "teaching thinking in schools: an overview" in Unicorn

Vol 21,No1. march 1995 pp 27-37

Ennis R (1985) "A logical base for measuring critical thinking skills"

Educational Leadership 43(2) 44-48

Ennis R (1987) " A Taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and

abilities", in Baron and Sternberg (eds) Teaching thinking Skills:

theory and practice. New York Freeman pp9-26.

Ennis R (1989) " Critical thinking and subject specific clarification,

and needed research", Educational Researcher, 18 pp4-10.

Erickson F (1986) "Qualitative methods in Research on Teaching" in MC

Wittrock (ed) Handbook of Research o n Teaching. NY: Macmillan pp

119-161

Evans G (ed) (1991) Learning and Teaching Cognitive Skills. Melbourne

:ACER

Evertson CM & Green JL (1986) "Observation as Inquiry and Method" in MC

Wittrock (ed) Handbook of Research on Teaching. NY: Macmillan pp

162-213

Feldhusen JF & Buchanan NK (1991) Conducting Research and Evaluation in

Gifted Education. NY: Teachers College Press

Goleman D (1995) Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing

Gronlund NE & Linn RL (1990) Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching.

NY: Collier Macmillan

Hammersley M (1990) Classroom Ethnography. Milton Keynes Philadelphia:

Open University Pres

Hannaford C (1995) Smart Moves. Virginia: Great Ocean Publishers

Langrehr J (1995) Becoming a better thinker. Victoria Aust: Wright

Books

Langrehr J (1994) Better Questions Better thinking Melbourne: Longman

Cheshire

Lazear D (1994) Seven Ways of Knowing. Vic. Aust.: Hawker Brownlow

Lazear D (1994) Seven Ways of Teaching Vic. Aust.: Hawker Brownlow

Lipman M (1985) "Thinking skills fostered by philosophy for children",

in JW Segal, SF Chipman & R Glasser [eds] Thinking and Learning

Skills,Vol 1, Relating Instruction to Research. Hillside, NJ: Arlbaum

Marzano et al (eds) (1988) Dimensions of Thinking. Virginia USA:ASCD

Nickerson RS, Perkins DN & Smith EE (1985) The Teaching of Thinking

Hillsdale NL: Lawrence Arlbaum

Nilko AJ (1993) "Designing tests that are integrated in instruction" in

RL Linn (ed) Educational Measurement Phoenix AZ: Oryx Press

Norris S & Ennis R (1989) Evaluating critical thinking. NY: Mid West

Publications

Norris S (1985) "Synthesis of research on critical thinking".

Educational Leadership pp40-45, May.

Patton M Q (1990)(2nd Ed)Qualitative evaluation and research methods.

Newbury Park, Cal :Sage Publications

Paul R (1993) Critical Thinking: What every person needs to survive in

a rapidly changing world Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow

Polson PG & Jeffries R (1985) "Instruction in general problem solving;

an analysis of four approaches" in JW Segal, SF Chipman & R Glasser

[eds] Thinking and Learning Skills,Vol 1, Relating Instruction to

Research. Hillside, NJ: Arlbaum

Perkins D & Swartz, R (1989) Teaching thinking: issues and approaches.

NY: Mid West Publications.

Resnick L (1987) Education and learning to think. Washington DC:

National Academic Press

Resnick L (1989) Towards a thinking curriculum: cognitive research,

Alexandria Virginia:ASCD.

Sousa DA (1995) How the brain learns. Reston Virginia: Nat Assoc Sec

School Principals

Splitter L (1995) "Teaching thinking through Philosophy for Children"

in Unicorn Vol 21,No1. march 1995

pp14-27

Sullivan P and Clarke D (1991) Communication in the classroom: the

importance of good questioning. Melbourne: Deakin University Press

Tishman S (1994) "What makes a good thinker". Education Harvard

Graduate School of Education Alumni Magazine Vol XXXIX No 1 December

Tishman S, Perkins DN & Jay E (1995) The Thinking Classroom. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Wang MC, Haertel GD & Walberg HJ (1993) "Toward a knowledge base for

school learning" Review of Educational Research Fall 1993. Vol 63, No

3, pp249-294

Weiderhold C (1991) The question matrix; resources for teachers.

California: San Juan Capistrano

Wittrock MC (ed) (1986) Handbook of Research on Teaching. 3rd Edition.

NY: Macmillan

evaluating a model for from

Analysesuggest the in promoting the features metacognition,

disposition, questioning and skills in teachers and students

RsThe researcher visitingHe"questions would use with their classes.

The researcher

Owas provided by The researcherstrategies an

measured by such instruments. Research questions

SimpleText_)%Trash%Trash_Ü_²_ˆ_^_4_

ඌb8

___Q_S_\_^°½_Ú_çCPŠ•_"_-_p_v_N_f_g_u_v_-

"

.

/

¹

'N']+@+M/A/L616<AA_D

D-P1P<PnPtP"PºQ9Q?R¨R®RÂRÍSDSQS«S¶UdUxZ Z6[Q[U]®]Î^_^

_^Ï^Ú`/`:aoa!aña÷dŽdžf;f_jÒjôlømmËmÒmÓmÔnsn†úôúîúííìììììîúæîìíîììììììììììììììììíìììíìììììàîæî

€_$$

____€_@

€_""

€_00

_""Xn†o6oGoHo‚pwp„rûs_uaulw˜wžyQy_{‘{¯|ý|þ‰=‰>‰Y‰z‰‰ñŠ_ŠAŽhŽ""3"Ñ’_’`’Ø"_"º•#–$

–ä˜

˜!™–™²™½™¾™¿™ž_ž_ž"¦¦_©¨©³©Øªª>ªtª¾ªÕªÙªú«6«O«Ñ«Ø¬

¬<¬µ¬ú";Zl!¡-û®"®S®‰®ç®î¯V¯l¯å°_°ŠúùùùùùùúóíúúóíçíçíçíçíçíçíçíçíáúóùúùúùóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛóÛó

@___

€_$$

@___

___

____€

€_""V°Š°¡±±#±R±x±à²_²>²t²£²¹²ö³"³H³]³!³"³£³°³ã´_´+´L´y´Ž´¼´Òµaµ¥µØµî¶-¶E¶º¶Ò·_·"

·=·>·|·"·º·ç¸¸l¹_¹`¹x¹y¹™¹Â¹ïº_ºIºzº§º»»7»>»�»Á¼_¼-¼T¼o¼•¼«½"½;½s½ž½Ø½ø¾_¾_¾0¾4

¾5¾<¾G¾}¾œ¾-¾°¾±¾²¾³¾Â¾Ê¾Ì¾Í¾Ö¿_¿_úôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôúôîí_€

€_""

___

@___^_____Q_R_S_T_^_Ö_æ_O_P_Q_R_S_T_U_g_h_-_

!

"

/_ù_ú_š_2_3_Y_Z_"_>_b_Ž_î_ï_w_x-#-$ Õ

Ö#_#"%Œ%#'M'N'](ô(õ+?+@+N/@ûûíçûççáÛÖÑÑÑÑÑÑÑûÌÑÆÀû»ÑÖÖѶѱÑÑÑÖѬѧѧѢѧÑ$—û’Ñ¢ÑÑ#_

%€

_%

€

_%€

____%€

__%€

__%€

_ %€

__%€

__%€

__%€

_%€___h_%€

__ _%€"__%€

_%€

_%€

_ %€

__%€__

%€_-@@ @!@8_è__%€_7/@/A/M04:60616=7g7h8_8¨8ª9N9O:ú:û=/=1>#>Ô?5?a?b@þAA_D

D D

DI J

JzJóJôLlLmNpNqO_P0P1P<Q_Q_R‹RŒUcUdUzWMWNWmX_XeXèY@Y…Z

Z Z6]ÑûûöñìûûçûâÝûâûöûØûçûâûÒÌÒûÇÒÒûÁââ»ÒÌÒµûâ¯ûÒÝûöûÇ©ÒµÒÒ£Ò»»ÒâûÒ$ %€

___%€

___%

€

__%€

___%€

__%€

___%€

___ %€

%€

___%€

____%€

__%€

_%€

__%€

__%€

_

%€

_%€

__%€

>]Ñ]Ò^¡^¢_þ__aÛaÜcQcRdŽd!dŸf;f<fqi[ij_j}jjÑjõl÷løm_mÊmËmÓntnun‡o6o

7oHoƒpwp…rûs_uaumw˜wŸyQy`{"{‘{¯|ý|þ}5úôúîúèúâúÝØØÓØØÎúúÈúúúèÁúôúº´®®È®®Ø©Ø¤Ø¤ØŸØšØ"ú®îŽƒ

_%€

-@@ @!@_%€

__%€

____%€

__%€

__%€

__%€

_%€___ _%€"____%€______%€

___%€

___

%€

_%€

__%€

__%€

%€

___%€

___%€

___%€

___%€

__3}5}$~_~t~À�¦€Z€Î€ø€ù%;%v‚J

‚óƒ>ƒ©„A„$…$…W…X…‹†/†¸‡4ˆ_ˆFˆ!‰

‰>‰Z‰\‰z‰‰ñŠ_ŠBŠ•‹x‹ªŒ@Œ%Œß#8ŽgŽhŽ"Žè!K!–"_"_"3

"Ò‘'‘�’_’_’a’‡’×’Ø" "J"x"¬"î"+" "¡"º•$•%•ñ–#õêõõêêêõõõõêêõõêõêõõõêêêêõõêßØÒÒÍÈßõõêõêõõõ½ßõõõõêõõêõõêõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ

_%€"-@@ @!@__%€

_%€

_%€_____%€

___

_%€

-@@ @!@

%€ -@@ @!@

_%€ -@@ @!@J–#–$–å˜

˜

˜"™7™–™²™³™¾™¿™Ñœ&ž_ž_ž"Ÿ¡Ÿ¢Ÿ¹¢`¢a¢u¤B¤C¤W¦¦_¦_¦P¦"¦ñ¦ò¨

¨!©.©/©¦©§©¨©³ªª««_«t«ù¬^_I~±®=õêßõêêÔÎÇÇÁ»µ¯»»©»»£»»¯»»©$$»»»»—»—»‘»Œ»‡‚‡‡‚‡‚‡‡‡‚_%

€

__%€

__%€

%€

___%€

___%€____%€

__%€

___%€

___%€

___%€

___%€

____%€_____%€

_

_%€

-@@ @!@

_%€ -@@ @!@

%€ -@@ @!@

_%€ -@@

@!@3®=®§¯_¯y°-°®±>±Š²"²’²Ù³4³"³Ñ´´i´¬´ïµ½¶¶e¶ë·>·¡¸

¸‰¹|¹Þº8º—ºî»W»`»ç¼p¼Æ½_

½À¾_¾_¾_¾_¾5¾®¾¯¾°¿_¿1¿2¿3¿eÖQ×Ë×Ì×Í×ÎØXØYØÖØ×ÙOÙPÙàÙáÚÈÚÉÛ Û%Û&Û'ÛºÛ»Ü#Ü$ÜoÜp

ÜÜÑ݆݇ûûûöööûööûûûûûûûûöûûöûûûöñûûûûûûööûöûûìììæáááìÚÚÚìÓÚìÎìÎìÎìÎìÎìÉìììììÎìÎìììÎìÉì__%

€

_%€

__%€

_____%€______%€_

%€

___%€

__%€

_%€

__%€

O

__________________________

___________________

óôöÞ¼˜@____ C_¼&n4¸A/OQ[¡i(u¢‡½˜P¥qµj¼˜____

__Ü________™____ü_________F___v___ u__

"___ _þ__

_.___

S__

^_‘ @ A B CO]T‚Wzbhlô¼˜

%€

_%€

_%€__%€__%€_@_%€__%€

_%€

%€

@_%€

_%€__n†°Š¾Ì`ab_/@]Ñ}5–#®=¾°cdefgh__

______¿_¿¿_¿#¿.¿0¿3¿R¿eÖÖÚ×D×Ê×Ë×Ì×Îçuçvêê*ì‰ìÊ'0JOy%„´Óêóôñ_ñHñIñbñc

ñmñnñŠñºñÀñßò_ò_ò òVòWòXòYò[òmònòyò}ò~òŽò®ò°ò±ò²ò»ò¼òÄòÅòÇòÈòÕòõó_óó#ó$ó<óUóW

óXóYó`óaócódó|óÆóÇóÈóÊóËóÕùøòùøòøøììììììøøøøøæììøøåååå_@

€_""

___

@___€

€_$$ZWhat evidence was there to suggest being trained in MDQS model

changed teachers?

What evidence was there to suggest the students in the trained

teachers' classes were affected by their teachers applying the MDQS

model?All class teachers were interviewed at the beginning and again at

the conmclusion of the research period. "Typical case sampling"

advocated by Patton (1990) was used for selecting students from the

thirty possible candidates in each class.

1. What evidence suggests students were metacognitive as a consequence

of their teachers' MDQS training and use of classroom strategies ?

¥ that I use the hats much more than I knew. Also how to put my ideas

on to paper which was quite hard for me before this.

¥ I've learnt that if I think of thinking, I think of new ways to solve

problems and suggest better ways to do things

¥ This year I have learn that I don't think much in situations and I

just do the first thing that comes into my head... and that is not

good.

¥ I've started to wake up and actually listen to my thinking. I've

learnt that I think in different ways. I've learnt that when I think

I'm being negative then.... telling myself off. I've been learning to

think about thinking.

¥ I've learnt the language of thinking ie all the thinking words

(Written eval)

2. What evidence suggests students had a positive disposition as a

consequence of their teachers' MDQS training and use of classroom

strategies ?

¥ I've learnt that thinking is very important in our lives and that

problems thinking counts the most

¥ I have learnt that my thinking and another person's can help each

other

¥ Its hard to get out of your comfort zone but when you do and you

think about it, it's great

¥ This year I have learnt about thinking. I learnt to think things

through before I do anything. I learned not to stop thinking about an

answer because eventually you'll get it.

¥ I have learnt how to make thinking fun

¥ This year I learnt that other people in my class also have good ideas

and I learned to listen to everyone not just my own friends.

¥ that they are good at discussing issues in a group

¥ I have learnt that it is good working in groups

¥ I have learnt that my thinking can be expanded to a wide variety of

answers and knowledge, and I could possibly have answered most

questions when I learn how to use my knowledge.

¥ that everybody has different thinking and can come up with some

pretty good ideas and some of them are good at it and some of them are

average

(written evals)

3. What evidence suggests students understood the significance of good

questioning (both general and self questioning) as a consequence of

their teachers' MDQS training and use of classroom strategies ?

¥ The things I have this year about my thinking are to say good

questions and answers and not silly ones.... to think about questions

¥ I've learnt that I should always think before I do a question, and

that I can solve things better ( than before)

¥ When a question is asked everyone interprets it differently

¥ that they've learnt more because they're saying challenging questions

(written evals)

4. What evidence suggests students used and understood the significance

of cognitive skills as a consequence of their teachers' MDQS training

and use of classroom strategies ?

¥ I have learnt that there are lots of different ways to think. I also

understand things better.

¥ there are 6 thinking hats. You can use thinking in many different

ways

¥ I've learned about hats which express the meaning of thinking

¥ About the thinking hats... more than one way to solve a problem....

about creating things... good things and bad things

¥ before this I never knew about the hats or mind maps...now that I

know I use them for stories, projects, even coloured hats are useful

for writing in my diary

¥ that thinking can get you out of a hard and defeating situation, I've

learnt about the different hats and how they work

¥ Thinking is very complicated. I used to think "oh yeah, we just

think" but its much more complicated than that, there is whether you

use the right side of your brain or the left more, I use the right...

then there is six hats for different types of thinking

¥ I've learnt that there are many different types of thinking that I

can use

¥ I have learnt that I think better than in year 5 and also how to use

my thinking skills

_U____

%²____

‚ò___

Ĉ____

…Z____

…ˆ___

†Ì____

‡

____

‡ˆ____

‡_ __

ˆ"_

__

‰`݇ݱݳÞ:Þ;ÞqÞrÞ¥Þ¦ß^ß_ßóà

à

àÛàÜádáeáÚáÛââ_âdâ~ã.ã/ã’ã"ãÝãÞä

ä!ä$äžåAåBå¾åÀæÈæÉç_ç_çtçuçvê+ê¯ëBë«ë¬ìˆì‰ìËìäíJíˆííîP

î³ï_ï_ï*ï~ïß'(‚…ñ'ñdñ»ò_ò_òWòXòÆòÇóaóbócûûöûûûûûñûöûûñûöûöûûûûûöûöûûûûûöûöûöûìûûûöûûûöööûñûûûöûööööûûûöæûàÛÕÕÕÕÕÕÕÏÏûûû_%

€____%€

___%€

%€

___%€

___%€

__%€

_%€

__%€

OResearch questions for teacher development

1. What evidence suggests teachers have personally acquired the MDQS

model, including the use of specific thinking skills programs?

2. What evidence suggests teachers have used critical and creative

processes associated with the MDQS model and specific thinking skills

programs?

3. What evidence suggests teachers have thoughtfully applied MDQS and

specific thinking skills programs?

Secondly, teachers' responses were analysed to determine their

impressions of the effectiveness of the MDQS training process. Focus

was provided by the same research questions used to analyse the

formative evaluations.

Research questions for summative evaluation of the MDQS training

Contents of MDQS model -

4. What evidence suggests teachers developed a rationale for teaching

students to be better thinkers?

5. What evidence suggests teachers understood the MDQS model?

6. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of

metacognition in the MDQS process?

7. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of

disposition in the MDQS process?

8. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of

questioning in the MDQS process?

9. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of

skills in the MDQS process?

MDQS training process -

10. What did teachers say about the efficacy of the training sessions

in hindsight?

11. How did they evaluate the significance of the readings in the

training process in hindsight?

What other aspects of the training sessions did teachers comment about?

Students (Fogarty & McTighe, 1993)data , including students, teachers

and parents

¥

Fogarty R & McTighe J (1993) Educating teachers for higher order

thinking: the three storey intellect. Theory into Practice

v32,n3,pp161-169We can promote MDQS.

Is this the best way to train? No, make these modifications.

More opportunities for teacher sharing - peer revue, peer support,

school developmnet

Steve: "this is the most exciting learning I have ever had with

children!"

Mark: " all teachers should do this .... it is a major innovation in

education"

- research questionsTeachers - rQ1-3, developed from peer support,

school development, (Assistant Principal)

of the model sition, Questioning and Skills. search methodologies were

used. Aust Post-Grad on a part time basis andother workplace

settings.In Summary

.es, interactive learningTwo basic questions provided focus for the

data collection and analysis.

following questions:11 a.

dscrib_!___ óÕóÞóßóåóæóèóéóêóëóìóòøø_ø_ø

ø-ø<ø>ø?øAøBøCøDøEøFøGøHøIøÚøÛøâøäøåø_ùù"ùPù]

ùsù’ùªù¾ùÃùÉùÌùàùåùêúLúMúWúXú`újúrúsúuú~úˆú‘ú›úœú$úžû

û û_û"ûnûŽû û¡û¬ûíûþû_ü

ü_ü.üMüNüOüSüUüVünüzü{ü…ü"ü˜ü$úôîúíççç

€_""_€

€_$$

@__

@_[ócóÆóÇóÉóæóêóëóìø=ø>ø?øCøDøEøFøGøHøIønø‡ø£øÂøáøâøãøäøåùÊùËùÌùëú_ú

ú?ú_ú`úœú$úžû"û_üÞüßüêüëüìüíüîüïý%ý&ý©ýª_._†_‡_______r__s__Û__Ü_È_É__c__d__+__,__-_ _

_L_e_f_Ë__;__l__¤ùùôïêïïããïêïïôÝïÝôôôôôôÝÝïôôôôôôôôôôï×ôïïïÒôôôôïÍôÈôÈôôÈôôôÈôÒôÈôÒôôÒôôôôôÈôÃ__%

€

_%€

__%€___%€

_%€

___%€_____%€_____ó___%€

__%€

___Mtwo boys and two girlsTwenty four students were

interviewed.

Unpaired t-test for Q2 %Input Column

Grouping Variable: group

Hypothesized Difference = 0

Mean Diff. DF t-Value P-Value

t1, c1 18.499 138 3.309 .0012

However another procedure wasdesigned by the researcher to evaluate

students use of good questions. It was termed Q-task. It was

administered at the beginning and conclusion of the research

period.Unpaired t-test for post Q-task

Unpaired t-test for post LTCTP

Grouping Variable: group

Hypothesized Difference = 0

Mean Diff. DF t-Value P-Value

t1, c1 2.137 140 4.178 <.0001

students' w studemts' students'

T-test compariosns on the treatment and control group means at the

post test showed signifiicant difference, P value = 0.001

Similarly a t-test comparison wa applied to the post test means of

treatment and control groups for the Langrehr Test of Core Thinking

Processes (LTCTP). There was a significant difference between the

groups, P value = <0.0001

Analyses of qualitative data are incomplete at the time of writing this

paper. Analysis of teacher interviews, formative and sumative

evaluations of the MDQS training program and classroom observation have

been commenced.

summative

Research questions matched with teacher response data

1.What evidence suggests teachers have personally acquired the MDQS

model, including the use of specific thinking skills programs?

¥ I am now much more conscious of different thinking skills I can

brwQwRwrw‹ü$üü®üÇüÜüÝüÞüßüàüéüëüîüïý$ý&ý(ý¨ýï____+_-_ƒ_…_†_‡_‰_______"__N__n__p__q__s__u__Û__Ü_"_<_~_!_"_ž_Å_Ç_É_____,

__`__b_______!__*__+_

_K_h_Ê__8__:__i__k__l__¡__£__¥__¦__§__©__ã__¸__º__»_ __ _

_ _

_ n_ q_ s_ Á_ Å_ Ó_ Õ_

"_

$_

(_

‡_

µ_

Ê_

Ì_

_

Ñùøøòøøøøøñøøøøøø_€

@___@

€_""_ing to problem solving situations. SE

¥ I have learnt more about the cognitive skills I am trying to present

to my class. SE

2. What evidence suggests teachers have used critical and creative

processes associated with the MDQS model and specific thinking skills

programs?

¥ I am more aware of presenting my class with a challenging lesson at

least daily SE

3.What evidence suggests teachers have thoughtfully applied MDQS and

specific thinking skills programs?

¥ I can see the importance of giving the children time to think and

reflect - we tend to rush children along to try to fit in the day's

activities. I think next year I will try to build in a reflection

component to my lessons. SE

¥ I have consciously tried to provide clasroom "props" to support

students' thinking eg. charts, learning log, reflection time at the end

of lessons SE

¥ I still haven't worked out how MDQS relates to other learning

theories, and to the outcomes based education movement. At the moment I

have too many paradigms running around in my head. SE

Secondly, teachers' responses were analysed to determine their

impressions of the effectiveness of the MDQS training process. Focus

was provided by the same research questions used to analyse the

formative evaluations.

Research questions for summative evaluation of the MDQS training

Contents of MDQS model -

4.What evidence suggests teachers developed a rationale for teaching

students to be better thinkers?

¥ It has given me greater insight into the minds of some of the kids I

have worked with this year. SE

¥ exposed me to a whole new subject area SE

¥ We cannot assume that slowlearners/workers are not good/deep /active

thinkers and therefore my teaching needs to stimulate everyone in the

class, and give the children a wide variety of ways to respond to what

is taught/demonstrate what they have learnt. One method is a reflective

journal of some kind SE

5.What evidence suggests teachers understood the MDQS model?

¥ some of my students are much deeper thinkers than I have given them

credit for and they deserve more of an interesting challenge

academically - the problem is I'm really sure I can satisfy that need

SE

¥ MDQS has provided a framework I can use to prepare lessons/units of

work SE

6.What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of

metacognition in the MDQS process?

¥ I knew about metacognition, but hadn't incorporated any

acknowledgement of it in my teaching. SE

¥ Six Thinking Hats gave the chn a comfortable framework for

metacognition SE

7.What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of

disposition in the MDQS process?

¥ having the opportunity to listen to their peers ideas/methods SE

¥ made me more aware of the real importance of disposition as a factor

in children's learning SE

¥ more persistence in difficult tasks SE

¥ realising that people think and learn differently SE

8.What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of

questioning in the MDQS process?

¥ I have become very aware of the kinds of questions I'm asking. SE

¥ I was aware of "wait time" in questioning before MDQS but now I use

it more than ever. SE

9.What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of skills

in the MDQS process?

¥ Six thinking hats gives the children a framework to work within and

was a comfortable start for me to teach thinking SE

¥ the concepts used in the Six Thinking Hats , the particular model I

chose to implement seemed to be within the grasp of all the students

many of them were content to work at a literal level unless pushed SE

¥ STH gave the chn a comfortable framework for metacognition SE

MDQS training process -

10.What did teachers say about the efficacy of the training sessions in

hindsight?

¥ contributed to my own professional development. I knew about

metacognition, but hadn't incorporated any acknowledgement of it in my

teaching. SE

¥ It starts on familiar ground in some instances eg. we all know

something about questioning SE

¥ classroom implementation tasks were negotiable SE

¥ the tasks were openended and therefore allowed for individual

repsonses that could build on prior experience SE

11.How did teachers evaluate the significance of the readings in the

training process in hindsight?

¥ there was substantial input through readings - I wouldn't change that

SE

12.What other aspects of the training sessions did teachers comment

about?

¥ needs perhaps to be more hands on for those of us who don't "get it"

straight away eg, videos, class room visits, real teachers explaining

how it worked for them

SE

¥ the "ELIC" model of input/discussion/classroom based action research/

review and feedback - is a powerful one for engendering change. I

wouldn't change that either. I wonder if it would have optimum

effectiveness as a teacher development process if it were implemented

on a whole school basis? SE

¥ I would like to see a broadening of the skills section to include

more ideas on MI

( ways to make chn explicitly aware that they learn in different ways

from each other) I think that what I'm after are more strategies for

teaching that make sure we "reach" all the chn in our classes and

stimulate them SE

¥ Main disadvantage is that teachers would not feel prepared or skilled

enough in the 4 components of MDQS to tackle it in the classroom. It is

not easy for the kids or the teacher. T1

¥it also needs to run from K-6 ... the kids need to feel that it is an

integral part of learning not just something that one teacher they have

does in the classroom. T1

¥ the rationale for reflection and metacognition needs to be explained

clearly to the children T3

ds or the teacher. SEey have does in the classroom. SESE

The coding applied to the below teacher quotes is:

SE = summative evaluation FI = final interview

my thinking has been very scattered ... I need I think to focus more on

one style in terms of hat thinki_

Ñ_ 4_ 6_ :_ ;_ b_ d_ œ_ ž_ ¢_

__

D_

F_

¬_

®_

²_

_

‹_

#_

Ž_

b_

d_

¤_

¦_

¨_

Ä_____¨__ª__«__¬______________L__N__O__P__À__È__É__Í__0__Y__x__z__{__|__�__È__|__~__�__€__-__¯__Ë__ê__ì____Ñ__ñ___________w__x__z__Â__Ã__Í__Î__ä_"_"&_"-_"2_"4_"5_"6_"7_"__"f_"h_"j_"³_"¿_"À_"_"__"__"_""_"I_"J_"c_"d_"oþþþþþþþþþþþø

@___@b__¤__¦__ä__å__»_

_ _ o_ p_ Ö_

&_

ˆ_

‰_

Í_ 7_ e_

Ÿ_ _

_

G_

¯_

°_

_

_

Ž_

e_

§_

¨_

À_

Á________«_____O__É__Ê__.__/__{__|__Ç__È__p__�__°__±_____í__î__¶__b____Ñ________I__x__y_"5_"6_"g_"h_"i_"__""_-__-_ __ __ __ €_ %_ ä_ å_# _#

_#

_#

_#

_#__#__#__#O_#P_$Ö_$×_'_ûûûöûûñûñññûûñûûûñûñûûûñöûûûûûûññûñûûûûûûûñûìûûöûìöñççûûçûñûûûûöûöûûûûñûñûâûûûûûûûûûÝûâ_%

€

__%€

___%€

_%€

__%€

__%€

Wng I can go from emotional reponse to information FI

it has made me a more reflective teacher FI

that I wasn't thinking enough about them ..... and now I do reflect

more on what I'm trying to teach the kids .... going through like the

skill that you've mentioned to me FI

I have appreciated the opportunity of how to think out and extend that

into other areas... and especially how you could relate it to text

types in the new English syllabus.... the argument texts, and the

exposition texts and those kinds of things FI

to start with the STHsand diverg from there, but as I say I didn't

stay there for that long, and although we had the deBono book 2, and I

could hav e used that I didn't.... I guess once I'd started I used alll

kinds of different things, building cooperative classes book, Joan

Dalton one, andothers and then try to link it up with other things that

I've learnt about, like the effective teaching course.... I like to try

and integrate things as opposed to having them disparate.... FI

¥ teachers need to make specific the rationale for teaching thinking

and reflection ...so the kids know why FI

¥there were several proformas that I kept going back to when I was

planning lessons FI

¥ the reflective journal for teachers ....I guess .... in one sense I

was writing down what I was thinking ..... what I thought about the

kids and their problems .... on the other hand I had thsoe thoughts

anyway .... so I didn't really need to write them down ... but I was

... I don't really think that on very many occassions I actually, not

for starters, began to write down the thoughts I had about the way the

children were thinking, ..... I actually extended that much more .....

I had thought around the problem anyway FI

5. What evidence suggests teachers understood the MDQS model?

I'm not a writing down person so I find that very difficult, but I do

think abou the lesson afterwards , I still don't think I'm doing m,y

lessons and thinking about each and every one of them ... I do it with

the ones you come to see .... I'd like to sort of get better at that

...at least saying to myself that I could think more about say ... two

lessons a day ... rather than one ...

well I think because as well trying to explian to them what we've been

doing I've also been saying it is so imporatnt for next year, HS ...

when they're required to be more independent so I think they're going

to go away not only from being in Year 6 but from participating in a

program where they think hey maybe some of that stuff thsat we learnt

is going to help me next year , when we say if you going to have to be

able to discuss things then some of the quiet kids that don't like to

talk about things ..... will feel this is all going to help them ....

in the future

the next step will be on a daily basis to sit and think what can I do

here to really make this much more challenging type of lesson... (do

you think you have internalised MDQS? for your planning) that answer at

the moment is no but I hope in the future, yes ... I feel isolated as a

teacher and I don't know if I have internalised it ... I mean you are

ver y positive my lessons in general were not too bad ... but then you

wonder I don't really have a benchmark ... so I would have to say no

.....

I think it is almost worthwhile as a perspective that you try

incorporate into everything .... you do because most definitely there

are huge benefits ..... but it has to be done not in isolation and not

in one year .

its given them a language about their thinking ..... which they did not

have befor ethey started .. its been very useful indeed .....

its changed the way they look at thinking, maybe themselves even, its

given the language to discus thinking, its improved their vocabulary

.... it has opened up a whole new avenue of which they were previously

unaware ... and its only a small start ... even if they do not get any

more it has given them this experience .... for the future which they

would not have had ... very beneficial .... it has broadened their

minds .... T3

I think the students are more comfortable about that kind of thinking,

about inferential thinking and about creative thinking and about the

concept of there not necessarily being a "right" answer... but a

solution that is workable, to their problem and I think that it has ,

in afunny way that in at least half the class that it has improved

their reading,T2

6. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of

metacognition in the MDQS process?

getting the kids to think about it rather than just the skill part

when you ask the children to reflect .. the kids who would be quite

happy to write down what they thought ... I know initially they found

it difficult, I think some of them started to see the purpose to it and

they would tell me why would you write about what you have learnt or

how you do something, they would say "because next time you might make

the same mistake, a couple of them have actually said that to mee which

I thought was really interesting, a lot of adult don't even realise

that .... so I thought that was good .. most of those comments that

came through I thought wow .... that is what I'm trying to do ... and I

haven't actually been explicit yet about that but you have picked up on

it ... I thought that was really interesting

definitely want to have more time on how to get the children to reflect

... written reflection ...

its given them a language about their thinking ..... which they did not

have befor ethey started .. its been very useful indeed ..... T2

it has changed their thinking about their thinking ...the language to

talk about their thinking ...not all of them have taken this step to be

comfortable doing it regularly but some of them are significantly been

able to talk about thier thinking spontaneously ... not from me ...

they will find words from the thinking list, use the hats from the wall

...into the day to day activities.....they have a framework and a

terminology and langauge for thinking about their thinking T2

well its made me more aware of doing metacognitive exercises in

evrything I do T2

I think the students have sometimes felt a bit threatened by the

process...because the kids here are fairly used to being able to do

what they can do first off and I think many of them have learnt to

skate across the surface of things and they do a competent jos , a

really competent job without very much thinking going into it ...and

they found that quite threatening because there aren't any black and

white answers, and they're already socialised in to the idea that

there's a right and wrong and a tick or a cross and so on.... and some

of them have been actually quite reluctant to do much except think on

the surface, I found that really interesting... some of the kids in

class who have in fact in class produce really competent work....

haven't really proved to be deep thinkers, they're competent...but

they're really not getting deeply into things and that's come out

particularly in the Learning logs, where there have been many children

who 've felt more comforable at describing what they've done rather

than talking about the thinking that went into it...

7. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of

disposition in the MDQS process?

thinking of particular students, A for example battling and then being

disruptive in the group, making advances and then coming back to just

working with the boys again ..... I had some breakthroughs with that

but I had to structure the activities so that they'd definitely have

success, so that the whole group had success .... then it would be a

positive thing then he would be able to see how to do that ... striaght

away ... he'd say I don't want to be doing this .... so I think to

answer that question properly I'd like to say that if my class had had

some type of a continuum where they had a leader for this type of thing

where they had to do this work together more cooperatively it would

have been better....

8. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of

questioning in the MDQS process?

well its revised some things I already knew about questioning, its

deepened my knowledge of questioning techniques, and reminded me to use

wait time say T3

I've found the hierarchy of questions , you know working backwards and

those techniques, questioning skills has been very good T2

9. What evidence suggests teachers understood the significance of

skills in the MDQS process?

I'd like to do my own thinking skills program say STH hats next year so

I know what is happening and how it is going, not have someone else do

it .....

we stopped using the SThats after a while because every time we did

they'd groan, "ahrr not that again"... if they've done it in previous

classes it can become a bit old hat, its interesting to see that they

go back to that, just yesterday when we were doing Antarctica, we'd

been away for months so we really hadn't done anything... some of them

sat down and started to use Six hat thinking, some of them sat down and

did the pluses minuses and interesting, ..... that was interesting.....

10. What did teachers say about the efficacy of the training sessions

in hindsight?

no, I think I may have found it easier in the beginning if I had been

given general information about M and then innovated from the level of

the classroom, and gone from Q to D and then M again...because it

wasn't until we were into the third week of the training sessions, that

I started to do the stuff about Qs that it all started to fit together,

and I think from what .... I know about PD you need classroom based

action research, this is what you can do .... and how do you theorise

from the basis of that practice ... probably when I go back to it I'll

star t at that level again....

I wouldn't suggest that teachers be given a set of strategies without a

philosophy or framework, collegial learning, the ELIC model where

people try things out and have a formal reflective bit, a sharing bit,

.... peer review, the ELIC thing has been the big innovation in PD,

that has stayed with people and actually changed their practice, but

the disadvantage is that it is time consuming T2

11. How did they evaluate the significance of the readings in the

training process in hindsight?

when we did the course there was lots of detail in theory...I enjoyed

reading, but there was also a good mix of theory and practice,

11a. What other aspects of the training sessions did teachers comment

about?

Students

¥ .-_

_þ_þ _«, _N_"o_"p_"–_"±_"Á_"Â_"Ä_"Å_"Ê_"ã_"û_"ü_-__-__-__-__-__-%_-d_-n_-o_-_-±_-²_-³_-¿_-À_-ù_________$_C_J_b_j_k_Š_Ž_"_™_¸_¹_Å_Æ_Þ_æ_é_ _ __ _ __ _

_ _ R_ S_ ^_ __ e_ w_ }_ �_ ‚_ ƒ_ ¥_ Á_ Å_ Î_ Ï_ ×_ á_ ã_ ä_ æ_ ç_ é_

î_!

_!__!>_!?_!–_!—_!É_!é_!ê_!î_"=_">_"C_"D_"P_"n_""_"•_"²_"¶_"½_"

Ìþ_@d_"Ì_"×_"Û_"ì_"í_"û_"ü_"ý_#_#__# _#

_# _#

_#

_#

_#__#__#N_#Q_$Ã_$Å_$Õ_$Ø_'__'_)

_)__)__)+_)é_)ì_*s_*t_*u_*w_*–_*¹_*Ø_+__+"_+I_+h_+—_+¶_+å_,__,"_,%_,(_,>_,m_,o_,p_,€_,"_,

³_,µ_,¶_,Ó_,Þ_,ß_,à_,å_,æ_,í_-_-__-__-M_-N_-‘_-"_-"_-ù_-ü_.?_.B_.†_.ˆ_.«_.¯_1-_1._10_1"_1"_1–_1Þ_1ß_2"_2_2#_2n_2o

_2_2²_2³_2Î_2ú_2ûþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ_@d_2û_3__32_3D_3E_3"_3‘_3¿_3À_3Û_3Ü_4__4 _4

_4

_4L_4M_4\_4^_4a_4¢_4£_4Ø_4Û_4ì_4í_58_59_5N_5m_5„_5…_5†_5š_5´_5¾_5Ë_5Ì_5ß_5à_5å_5ô_5õ_5ù_6__6__6

_6

_6__6__6/_68_6<_6X_6Y_6¡_6¢_6»_6Û_6î_6ï_6ú_7:_7;_7€_7%_7Ë_7Ì_8__8__8,_86_8N_8O_8T_8V_8\_8]_8a_8b_8d_8f_8l_8m_8š_8

$_8ž_9__9__9L_9M_9"_9•_9Þ_9ß_:,_:-_:u_:v_:Ã_:Äþþ_@d_:Ä_;__;__;O_;Z_;[_;o_;p_;q_;s_;ˆ_;‰_;£_;¤_;Þ_;ß_<B_<E_<j_<ˆ_<

‰_<Š_<Í_<Î_<à_<á_<â_<ã_<å_= _=_=

_=)_=2_=>_=[_=e_=g_=i_=j_=k_=È_=É_=Ë_>f_>h_>„_>–_>˜_>¬_>-_>®_>È_>Ê_>Î_>_>û_>ü_?

__?K_?L_?c_?#_?Ž_?©_?¶_?Ï_?Ô_?Õ_?å_?è_?ë_?ì_?ò_?ô_@__@__@,_@X_@Y_@Z_@®_@¯_@±_@ý_@þ_AC_AD_AR_A‰_AŠ_AÕ_AÖ_B__B__B

_B%_B&_B*_B+_B/þþþþþþþþþþþþþ_@d_B/_B0_Bo_Bp_B‚_Bƒ_B²_B¶_B·_B¸_BÀ_BÁ_BÄ_BÅ_C_C__C!_CQ_CR_Cd_Ce_Ci_C

"_C•_CÎ_CÏ_CÚ_CÜ_CÝ_Cá_Câ_Cí_D__D&_D'_D+_D6_Da_Dk_Dl_D•_D™_Dú_Dû_Dý_E__E._E6_EC_ED_EE_E‚_E„_E…_EŠ_EÑ_EÒ_EÓ_EÔ_E

Ü_EÝ_Eß_Eá_Eä_R_R(_RG_RR_RS_R\_R]_Rw_R–_R«_R¬_RÂ_Rá_S__S_S

_S)_S._S/_SS_SX_SY_Ss_S¬_Sº_TØ_TÚ_TÝ_Tß_U‚_Uƒ_U©_U«_U®_U¯þþþþþþþþý÷

@___€_@b_'__)__)__)ê_)ë_*s_*t_,&_,'_-"_-•_-ú_-û_.@_.A_1._1/_1"_1•_2 _2!_2"_4

_4 _4__4`_8ž_8Ÿ_9_9__;ß_;à_<C_<D_<ã_<ä_=j_=k_=É_=Ê_>f_>g_@Y_@Z_@[_@¯_@°_C__C__D™_Dš_Dû_Dü_Eƒ_E…_EÒ_EÓ_EÔ_EÝ_EÞ_Eà_T

Û_TÜ_U¬_U_U_Uñ_Uò_V _V"_V-_VI_VU_VV_Vj_V–_V¤_VÃ_Ví_Vþ_V__WûöñöìöçöçöìöööâöìöìööûöìöÝöìöâöìöìöìöööìöûööööØöçöööìöÒööÍööâöñööööÍööööÍöÍìööÍÍö__%

€

___%€

_

%€

_ %€

_%€

_%€

__%€

__%€

__%€

Q..the answers the children have given not only in

question time but in classroom situation s have led me to realise ...

there is a lot of mature in depth thinking going on with a significant

minority ... they're very deep thinkers, they ponder, consider things

to a greater extent than I give them credit for, it challenges me to

consider how we can motivate those children to use those skills to

productive ends, and not just a chore "here's an activity because

you're a good thinker" but enjoy and extend themselves actually ...

so that's what I've learnt about their thinking ...its varied as well,

there's a big range ..... a lot of the younger one tend to be literal

in their analyses of literature say ...... FI

¥ making sure it has been integrated into as many KLAs as I feel

capable of doing ... so in that sense it has definitely permeated my

teaching this year ... and it has imporoved my teaching skills .....FI

¥... it has changed my teaching and my thinking about teaching FI

¥ FI ¥ FIe

¥ FI¥ FI¥ FI¥ e

¥ ,disruptive in the group, FI

¥ FI¥ FI

use wait time ...ve

¥ oing, not have someone else do ¥

FI FI

¥ FI¥ FI

¥ good mix of theory and practice FI

"" SE

Classroom observations

totals_5/10_10/10_10/10_2/10 for STH specific,

8/10 for general

_8/10_10/10_10/10_3/10 for STH specific 7/10 for general_9/10_10/10_10/10_8/10

for STH specific,

2/10 for

general__%€"%€

_%€__%€__%€__%€__%€

_%€

_%€

__U¯_U°_U²_U³_Uí_Uï_U_Uó_Uõ_Uö_U÷_Uú_Uû_Uý_Uþ_U__V_V__V_V__V__V__V

__V _V

_V _V

_V__V__V__V__V__V__V__V"_V"_V_V!_V"_V-_V._V1_V<_V=_V>_V?_V@_VA_VB_VC_VH_VJ_VL_VM_VO_VQ_VR_VT_VU_VV_Vg_Vi_Vl_Vm_VŒ_VŽ_V!_V"_V

‘_V’_V"_V"_V•_V–_V˜_V£_V§_V¨_V©_Vª_V«_V¬_V-_V·_V¹_Vº_V»_V¼_V½_VÂ_VÄ_VÆ_VÇ_Vì_Ví_Vî_Vï_V_Vü_Vý_Vþþþþ_@d_Vþ_V

__W_W

_W__W__W-_WW_WX_W!_W"_WÈ_WÉ_WÊ_\_\>_\K_^!_^š_a0_a;_b!_b•_dH_dK_dL_dN_dO_dP_dQ_dR_dt_d%_dÖ_d×_dØ_dÙ_dÚ_dê_dë_d

ö_d÷_dþ_e_e__e!_e(_ea_eb_e™_eš_eÒ_eÔ_eÕ_eØ_eÙ_eÚ_eã_eå_eæ_eí_eî_eü_eþ_l_l _l*_l8_lM_l€_l‚_l‰_l›_lÔ_lÖ_lã_m

_m

_m__m"_m'_m(_mÉ_mÊ_nÊ_nÖ_n×_nç_o!_o(_oZ_o[þþþøøøòþþþþþþìøøøþæò

€_""

___

@__

_

_€[

Analysis of this table suggests teachers' efforts to promote

metacognition were varied in their success. Teachers T2 and T3 were 80%

and 90% successful respectively, the three sessions in which they did

not provide clear opportunities for student metacognition were early in

the research period. Teacher T1 provided metacognition opportunities

for half the sessions. Metacognition opportunities included:

journal/learning log writing, oral reflection and discussion; mind

mapping, questioning about curriculum content and processes using six

thinking hats, self evaluation reports and written class assignments.

Teachers' efforts to promote a positive disposition were highly

successful. Every observed session showed clear evidence of students

working with a positive disposition, for example:

- groups worked with clear expectations and when specified, roles to

play,

- pairs worked with on-going, between student questioning and problem

solving,

- students appeared challenged yet skilled enough to attack the tasks

at hand,

- they spent maximum time-on-task,

- work was relevant, it clearly related to major classroom themes or

subject matter and,

- students negotiated learning tasks together and with their teachers.

Similarly, all sessions provided clear understanding of the importance

of "good" questions and questioning techniques, for example:

- "wait time" was used effectively and consistently by all teachers,

- pre-planning of key questions was obvious in many sessions,

- teachers discussed the components of good questions with their

students and,

- students demonstrated effective group/pairs/self questioning.

Each teacher embedded the thinking skills used into their classroom

curriculum. No thinking skills were taught in isolation. Both T1 and T2

used Six Thinking Hats twice and three times respectively. In both

these classes the STH program was taught by another teacher in a

withdrawal program. In other sessions they presented or emphasised

generic thinking skills from a variety of sources. T3 taught his class

the STH and used the STH process in 90% of the observed sessions.

os

A table of observations was made to records the frequencies of

examples of metacognition, disposition, questioning and skills events.

Teacher 1 Teachers 2 Teacher 3

session_M_D_Q_S_M_D_Q_S_M_D_Q_S__totals_5/10_10/10_10/10_2/10 for STH specific,

8/10 for general

_8/10_10/10_10/10_3/10 for STH specific 7/10 for general_9/10_10/10_10/10_8/10

for STH specific,

2/10 for general__

sscores on

eHowever, they are

presen

_W_W__W-_W#_W)_W/_WF_WW_WX_W]_Wc_Wi_W"_W•_W›_W¡_W¸_WÉ_WÊ_\__^f_^g____k__»_` _`/

_`ˆ_`_`Ñ_aV_aœ_aÛ_b+_bk_bl_dIûõïéïãÝ×ïïéÑéïéËÅlûgûbûûûûûûû]ûûûûûû_%€

__%€

__%€

X____"P˜

_°Ê_" p

Ã___i_¼_"b

µ$_'[*®@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@¼____¼___¼____¨

__¨____¨____¨____¼____l

____%€

$_dI_dJ_dK_dL_dO_dP_d×_dØ_e_e

__e

_e

_e

_e__e__e__e__e__e_e"_e-_e

_e!_e(_e-_e3_e9_eP_ea_eb_eg_em_es_eš_eŸ_e¥_e«_eÂ_eÓûûöûûñûûëåßååßååßååß剃}w}q

kåw}}e}}wqk__¤_____"____"_____¤_____"____"

__U____"P˜š

_°_ç_-_U_Œ

Ã

ú_1_h_Ÿ_Ö_

D"{IIIIIIIIIIIIIII__¤

____"

___" ___%€

___%€

&_eÓ_eÔ_eÕ_eÖ_e×_eØ_eÙ_eä_eå_lÕ_lÖ_m(_mÊ_o

_o!_o#_oŽ_o!_oå_r__s)_s*_så_sæ_s÷_t__ts_tt_tu_tv_tË_u#_u$_ud_ue_uì_vÍ_vÎ_vÏ_v

_vÑ_vÒ_w·_zý_|O_|–_|™_|¼_|½_|Í_}=»¶¶¶¶±««¦¶±±¡¶¶¶±±¶¶œ—¶±±¶±¦¶±±«‘‘‘‹‘±±…‘±±€±‘‘±‘±_%

€

_%€

___%€

___%€

____%€

__%€__%€

__%€

_%€______%€

D____"P˜x

_°_ç_-_U_Œ

Ã

ú_1_h_Ÿ_Ö_

D"{II2ted largely as raw data with only minimal linking text, discussion

or comment. This is not intended to challenge the reader but is rather

an indication of the state of progrees of the writing up of the

research.

Data analysis will include content analysis of written evaluations and

interviews

. Triangulation will be applied to data sourced from students, teachers

and the researcher. Aggregation of data will be utilised where

appropriate and practical.

For example there are some instances where teachers planned lessons

using a proforma, made comments abou the lessons in their own journal,

students completed journal entries aboiut the same session and the

researcher kept field notes on the samne session. For example, the

below table of data observed during classroom observation sessions.

record observed duirng 30 classroom observation sessions eacher Further

application of this data will be

,MDQS lesson planning ts completed journal entries aboher kept field

notes on the sam

( table 1)t"u@uAuI_o[_o\_ob_od_oŒ_oŽ_o!_o"_o¥_o¦_oÅ_oä_oå_o_r_r*_rF_rs_r…_r¶_r½_rí_s

_s(_s)_s<_s=_sN_sO_sj_sl_s†_s‡_sÍ_sæ_sè_sê_sì_sí_sô_sö_s÷_sù_sý_t__t__t _t

_t

_t

_t__t__tr_ts_tt_tu_tv_t}_t‚_t¡_t¯_t»_tÊ_tË_t_tÒ_tÔ_tá_t_u"_u#_u$_u?_u@_uI_uZ_u[_u__u`_ub_uc_ud_ue_ug_ui_ut_u

°_u²_u³_u»_u_uê_uë_uì_uï_u__v/ùó

€_""

@__`

table 1 frequencies of MDQS instancese full classroom observation

complete mini case studies of each teachers to reflect their

understanding and application of the MDQS model. These data will also

be used to triagulate with student and teacher reflective

journal/diary/learning log entries.

Data from teachers' final evaluations of the MDQS training program and

their final interviews are provided below linked as instances of

supporting evidence related to research questions.

¥ SE¥ ¥

FI

FI,,m Data from students written evaluation sis provided as evidence

related to the research questions.

learnt and d use of classroom strategies ?etacognition, isposition,

uestioning and

kills. Wae method used these teachersdays to share skills and

enthusiasm anderspective.

Brief comments are provided.training generally yes but addi p.

wawaClassroom withdrawal program to teach thinking skills seem to have

little transfer into home classrooms and other curriculum work.

Two teachers who have recently completed MDQS work in their schools

made these comments. They were not in the research project and have had

MDQS training with modifications made subsequent to the research

project evaluation.

The significant differences highlighted by the t test P values for the

Q task and the LTCTP need close analysis and clarification. The

reliability of both instruments as a valid pre and post test measure

needs further trialing.

Both results may be considered as evidence

of~·~¹~¼~Â~Ç~Í~Ó_v/_vµ_vÍ_vÎ_vÏ_v_vÖ_vî_w__w__w__w._w3_wF_wS_w

U_wV_w¶_w·_w¼_wÄ_wÊ_wË_wÙ_wã_wä_z_z

_z!_z&_z+_z0_z2_z5_zT_zU_zV_zs_zt_z{_z}_z%_z™_zµ_z¶_z·_zÁ_zÆ_zÇ_zË_zÌ_zÍ_z÷_z

ü_zý_{__{__{__{&_{2_{3_{4_{@_{A_{B_{J_{P_{[_{b_{i_{p_{}_{�_{†_{‡_{Ž_{œ_{ž_{£_{«_{²_{¹_{À_{Â_{Ê_{Ø_{â_{ë_{ò_{ú_{þ_|

_|

_|__|/_|O_|n_|#_|•ù

@__b success of the MDQS, however, tsclaim, had a genuine disposition to

use and enjoy using thinking skills, had a greater awareness about good

questioning and knew more thinking skills to apply, only Gwith:m can be

developed in teachers and studentscore

conclusiondescribedcomparisonssignificantHypothesisedDFHypothesisedDFpro

gressduringtriangulate1. What3. What4. Whatslow learnersFI5. What 6.

Whatacknowledgmentchtheirlanguage7. What8. What9. Whatch10.

Whatacknowledgmentopen endedresponses11. How12. What¥ it¥

thereoccasionsisuggest better ways to do things use of classroom

strategies ?

you think about it, it's greatlearnt how to make thinking funstudents

of

Did incorporate the best features,

e researchApril

An activity called Q-task was designed and administered to evaluate

student sunderstanding of good questioning.

ministered to evaluate students' classroom artefacts is an summary of a

larger table used to ni case studies of each teacherdevelopment, are

similarly matched with research questions to

�9�?�_|•_|–_|˜_|$_|º_|»_|¼_|½_|Ç_|Ì_|Ó_|Ô_|Ø_}<_}=_}[_}]_}^_}r_}

’_}š_}¹_}Æ_}÷_€_€

_€ _€

_€__€(_€+_€6_€;_€C_€D_€E_€F_€G_€H_€I_€S_€T_€Uùøò

€_""_@

@__*samples oft

process Many instances of mereSimilarly aofferlimited

,s

Conclusion

@ËûÞAá_____

__Ü________!____ü________5@____Œ___ T__

____ *__

____

___

í____x___&_____5___ ____‡@___^_v_"_?_ò_ó_ô_õ3

MËNíNõTUûW X*X±X²XÂZbZcZdZ™\B\•__a#e»g0i

j!j"kåkækùlClDl–l—m#m$mCnZnóo rœrêrërìs

s"s•t(_}=_€

_€D_€E_€H_€I_€Uûõïïûû_%€

___%€

____àm@_____õ_n&

4\@ÉNíZdgCqãyâ…_!~™È¤o°·ÛÂÃËgÝàm____

__Ü________!____ü________5_______ ___

____ *__

____

___

í____x___&_____5___ ____‡@___^_v_"_?_ò_ó_ô_õ3

MËNíNõTUûW X*X±X²XÂZbZcZdZ™\B\•]_]*`_a7eÏgDi!j£j¤kùkúl

lWlXlªl«m7m8mWnno_o´r°rþr_ss-s¨s©t<t=t?u

u

u½u¾uÆv‡vˆwËwÌwìxx!x@x_x`yJyKyjyƒyŸy¾yÞyßyàyáyâyãyô{À{Á~I~J~a~b�

�

�7�?�A�C�E�G�I�K�M�O�Q�S�U�X�^�c�i�o�†�—�˜�$�£�©��Õ�Û�á�ø€

€ €5†¡ˆ~ˆ�‰¸‰¹‰º‰Š«Š¬Šß‹

‹_‹_‹"‹•Œ_Œ;Œ<ŒÏŒ#'#(#‘#’Ž~Ž�!~!�!€!þ!_"e"Õ‘_’?’A"9

":"}"~"¼"½"

"

"–_––j–k–——Š™s™t™È™Éš,š-šqšÛ›

›C›D›§›ìœTœUœõœö$�$€$Þ$ßž_ž ŸAŸBŸZŸ[Ÿ¯Ÿ° E ° é¡d

£Ç¥\¥]¥Â¥Ã¦_¦$¦ž¦ê¦ë§¢¨Ó©*ª_ªÕ«%«ï¬g¬Ë®ï®®ñ®ò®û¯"¯"°°Ú°_±’±Þ²?²Ô²Ö²ú³ÈµWµz

µ{º

º

º_º/¼„¼…½Ï¿KÂ

Â-ÃøÄ

ÅsÅtÅ�dzǴȺȻÈùÉoÉÍÉÎʯʰÊüËcËdÓÛÔQàeàm

%€

_%€

_%€"%€

_%€__%€__%€__%€__%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%

€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€__%€__%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%

€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€__%€__%€__%€__%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_l

_D

_D

_D

_D

_0

_D

_D

_D

_D

_D

_D

_0

_l

_D__D__D__D_D__D

_0__D__D_D__D__D__D__0_0__%€

_%€

_%

€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€__%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%

€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%

€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

%€

%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%

€

%€

_%€

%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€__%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€__%€__%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%

€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

_%€

%€

_%€

_%€

%€

%€

__n†°Š¿_óÕü$_

Ñ_"o_"Ì_2û_:Ä_B/_U¯_Vþ_o[_v/_|•_€U`abjz�Œ£¤¥¦§¬¸¼¿_/@]Ñ}5–#®=݇óc__¤_'__W_dI_eÓ_}=_€Ucdefght{

#¨³´µÁ__

_______!"_____×_á_è_í_ô_ö_ø_þ__ Ó_V*X*Š*‘*$*Í*×9Û:~:£�

_HH_(0_ö_ï_>A,x_Þ__h_h_È

__d___

_0___Î_«_6 E ___A .h_n_n_n_nÅB___BH__-:Color SW 2400

'_Chicago_New York__Geneva__Monaco

Zapf Dingbats

_Bookman__N Helvetica Narrow__Palatino_

Zapf Chancery_Times_ Helvetica__Courier__Symbol! Avant Garde"_New Century

Schlbk___Teletext_

Lucida Bright__Garamond Narrow_×_Delphian_á

Lubalin Graph_è_Machine_í_Nadianne_ô_Old English Text_ö_Onyx_ø_Oxford_þSwing___Zeal

Ó_MT Extra_V_TTYFont*X_Klang MT*Š

Script MT Bold*‘_Old English Text MT*$_New

Berolina MT*Í_Bodoni MT Ultra Bold*×_Arial MT Condensed Light9Û_Helvetica

Compressed:~_Helvetica Black:£_Gill Sans Condensed Bold�

VT100€__ÅÝÅÝ_€€ÅÝ(_Õ_ü_

_à_ü_

á ___€_1Tt‹àí_d_hFf_u_v_~_ž%ˆŠ•©ßþ_____ ___"_ _‹_Œ_¤_Ö_ï_ò_õ3

3_N5N6NFNGNíNôNõNöTUýV_WdWeXœX¡X±X²YXY]ZAZCZbZd[-[\"\›\œ\ \Â\à\â\ã]]_]Õ]é`_`Y

`c`|`"`$`Æ`Üa_a_aa'a6a7f™f±gsgtgug~iòjj£j¤j¥jãjójûk5kCkjkukùkúl

lWlXlYlªl¬mm_m6m7m8m9mDmVmWnÖnØnÜnÝníooŸo©o²o³o´r°r¶rþr_ss_s s s"s-s¨t>u

u½u¾uÆv‡vˆv¢v¥v¦vÁvôw_w_w6wNwVwaw£w®w¹wºwÊwËwÌwàwåwëxx_x-x.x/xXxYx_x`x€x%x³x

ÁxÊxÙxëxìx÷y8yIyKy_ydyiyƒy!y«y¬yyËyÌyÖy×yßyàyáyãyóyôzz_z#zBzCzDzHzIzJzKz

czozpzqzzz{z†zŽz"z£z¤z½zÒzÓzÚzÛzézëzô{_{#{8{k{m{t{†{"{›{¿{Á{Î{õ{÷|_|_|_|m|y|

z|»||ì|í}_}6}Y}x}‚}È}Ô}Õ}å}}ñ~_~J~X~`~a~b~c~d~j~v~}~‚~Ö~à~æ�_� �

� �

�

�

�_�� �!�'�+�-�.�5�7�X�]€

€4€5ˆ}ˆ~ˆ�ˆ˜ˆ´ˆÁˆÂˆÊˆÕˆôˆõ‰_‰_‰D‰K‰d‰o‰|‰œ‰·‰¹‰º‰ïŠŠ_Š_Š_Š0Š2ŠLŠMŠ"Š¬‹

‹

‹_‹_‹_‹Ú‹òŒŒ_Œ_Œ

Œ Œ3Œ:Œ<ŒÏŒÑ#_###%#&#(#+#/#’#Ó#òŽ4ŽEŽFŽTŽ{Ž}Ž~Ž€Ž‚Ž®Ž¯ŽÈŽÉŽÔŽÕŽû!_!&!'

!)!*!/!H!`!a!w!z!{!}!~!€!ý!þ!_""_"Ò"Ô‘_‘‘_‘‘,’<’>’@’A’B’E’m’Œ’—’˜’¡’¢’¼’Û’’ñ"_"&

"."6"8";"<"="?"@"z"|"}"~"%"…"¼"_" "

"_"*"_"`"¸"¹"è"é"í"ï""ñ"ó"õ•_•7•C•D•W•‚•—•˜•¢•É•Ï•×•å•æ•ì•ö––_–_––_–

–l

–n–¦–´–»–¿–Í–Ï–î–—_—"——

—"—…—ˆ—‹—#—ؗ٘_˜"˜1˜2˜8˜d˜w˜|˜†˜‡˜œ˜®˜Þ˜ß˜ú™(™)™4™5™E

™M™p™r™s™u™w™·™¹™º™Ç™È™É™Ì™šYšnšpštšušØšÚšÞšß›_›_›@›B›C›D›G›K›é›ëœQœSœTœV

œXœ}œ›œœœ§œ¨œàœñœòœôœõœ÷œøœú$$3$<$E$G$H$R$i$k$p$z$|$~$�$€$ƒ$‡ž\ž^žožqž$žŸž ž£žÔžÕžèžéŸ_Ÿ5

Ÿ>Ÿ@ŸAŸBŸ[Ÿ_Ÿc " * B D - ¯ æ è û¡¡+¡4¡[¡c¡g¡³¡´¡ù¢_¢¢_¢?¢V¢W¢‹¢°¢±¢¹¢¼¢¿¢Û¢ß¢à¢ä¢å¢þ¢_£%

£7£8£L£M£h£l£m£u£v£y£z£¤£¥£¸£¼£Æ£È£Ê£â¤_¤"¤-¤%¤&¤*¤U¤o¤p¤!¤"¤›¤$¤¡¤¢¤-¤Ç¤È¤Ò¤ç¤ë¤ö¥_¥¥"

¥,¥U¥V¥[¥]¥a¥d¥í¦

¦

¦_¦_¦$¦C¦K¦X¦Y¦e¦f¦w¦œ¦$¦ž¦¢¦¦§c§d§h§i§"§‘§•§¡§¢§£¨¨Ò¨Ó©íª

ª

ª_ª_ª_ª´ªÔªÖªÚ«_

«€«ì«î«ï««ñ«ò¬9¬:¬E¬H¬I¬L¬^¬d¬f¬g¬h¬o¬Œ¬¨¬¬¬µ¬¶¬¾¬È¬Ê¬Ë¬Ì¬Í¬Ï¬Ô¬ò¬÷¬ø%

&}~‘"°Ñ-Õ®_®_®#®$®)®*®6®T®z®{®˜®œ®£®²®½®Á®Ò®Ó®á®â®ã®ë®í®ï®®ñ®ò®ú®û¯!

¯R¯Z¯[¯e¯’¯"¯"¯—°"°°w°–°Ú°ä°å°í°î°±±r±!±’±Þ²-²=²I²h²Ô²Ö²ß²à²è²ê²ý³Æ³Ý³ä´´µW

µ`µaµkµzµ{µ~¶ ¶*º

º

º_¼d¼ƒ¼‰¼¡¼´¼µ¼º¼Ä¼á¼æ¼ù½_½_½ ½

½_½"½"½+½5½6½J½R½^½„½£½¤½¼¿B¿G¿K¿aÂ

Â"ÂûÃ5Ã:Ã?ÃAÃDÃcÃdÃeÂÃÊÌÃ"ÑÃ"Ã¥ÃÁÃÂÃÃÃÍÃøÄ ÅrÅtÅ~Å�ŀŎÅ!śŜūŬűÅÛÅÜÅÝÅÅýÅþÆ_Æ.

Æ9ÆiÆkÇ)Ç4ÇgÇlÇmÇuÇ}Ç’Ç$ǢDZDzdzǴǸǺǼÇÅÇÇÑÇîÇ÷È_È_È

È_È_ÈÈ_ÈÈ&È*È/È0È1È2È:È;ÈWÈfȆȇțȜȫÈȷȸȹȺȻÉ_ÉE

ÉIÉQÉnÉËÉÌÉÍÉÎÉÑÉáÊ_ʗʯʰʵÊÔÊüÊýËËË_Ë_Ë

Ë

Ë_Ë_ËbËcËdËfËgÔPÔ€ÔŸÔ¶Ô¸Ô¿ÔÀÔÎÔÞàeàfàhàiàjàkàlàm_€¾_€_t€òÈ€_É€¾0€E€òÕ€_Ö¾4€_C€òõ€_k

€¾5€_a€¾<€_$€¾G€¾}€¾œ€_±_æ€_ñ€ó_€ó_€ó#€ó$€ !€ó<

¾

"€óU4T€óW€Oz€óXOŠ€óYP;€¾°P@Um€_|½Wc€¾±XÀ€_|ÇYúó`d!€J€e5€¿.f"óaf<€óciZ_|Ì€_|Ó€_|

Ô€_|Ø€_}=€_}[€_}]€_}jÏjÒ€_}^k €ÖÚ€_zý€×+€×D€_{_€×e€ø€×–€ø_€ø_€ø €ø-mÊZ

€ód_l€¾Ì€`.€¾Í`9€¾ÖbÍ¿_€¿_€c^€¿€¾Â€c¨€¿_€c〿#d

×Ë¿Ró|óÆ€óÇÖ=%óÈ€ÖQ=%€óÊ€Ö§=%×ÌøE€òm€òn€ê_ê*ê+€0€òy€ò}€ò~€2몀óË€óÕ€óÞì‡ìã€óßïßçt

'€(<%€òX€òY€ò[×Í×ÎÛ&à

â~çumËnuú$€øå€ø_€ü߀ù€ù"€ùP€ù]€ùs€ù’€úž€_{_€ú±€_{_€ú_€û

€û øHû_€ùª€ù¾€ùÃøm€_{&ø"€_{2€_{3ø±€øÚøÛùÉ€û"€_eÙ€û<€ûn€_eÚ€û�€ûŽ€û €û¡€û¬€ûíùÊ€ùÌ€ùà€ùåùê€_{

4ú_€_{@€_{Aú.€úL€úM€úWúXøáøâ_eã€o7øF€û_€ü

€ü_€ü.€üM€üN€üO€üS€_eå€üU€üV€ün€üz€ü{€üà€ü„€ü…€ü"€ü˜€ü$€ü-€ü®€üÇ€üÜ€_eæ€_eí€_e

î€_eü€_l€_l €_l*€_l8€_lM€_l€€_l‚€_l‰€_l›€_{B€_l°_lÔ€_lÖ€_lã€_m

€_m

€_m_€_m"€_m(€_mÊ€_o!€_mÖ€_o"€_n_€_o¥€_n3€_o¦€_n}€_oÅ€_nÀ€_mƒ€_nÊ€_nÖ€_n×€_oå€_nç€_}r_nè€_W€_W

_dN_dO

€_dP€_dQ€_dR€_dh€_o!€_d|€_d%€_o(€_{J€_o8€_dÕ_dÖ€_Dü_d×€_dØ€_oZ€_dÙ€_dÚ€_o[€_dê€_o\€_dò€_ob€_dö€_d

÷_dþ_e€€_e!€_e'€_r_eÔ_\_tt___€_od€_r*€_o�€_rF€_}’€_rG€_}š€_rr€_rt€_}¹€_r…€_r¶€_r½€_{P€_rà€_rí€_s

_oŒ_s(€üï_s)€_s<€_s=€_sN€_sO€_sj€_sl€_s†€_s‡_sÍ___üêý$€_{[€_{^=%ý,€_€__€_+_-€_"6€_sæ€_"7€_"__"f_‡__€__"€__N€__n€__p

__q€_{b€_{e=%__y€__Ü€_"€_<€_~€_!€_"€_ž€_Å_Ç_"_€_sô€_""€_"I€_"J€_"c€_"d€_"o€_"p€_"–€_"±€_"Á€_"€_"Ä€_"Å€_"Ê€_"ã€_"û€_"ü€_-_€_-_€_s÷__,_ €__-_

_d€_{i€_{l=%_l€__8__:€__i__k€__l€_{p€__‘€__¡__£_EÝ€_Eà€_Eá€_R€_R(€_RG€_RR€_RS€_R\€_R]€_Rw€_R–€_R«€_R

¬€_R€_Rá€_T€_{}_U«€_U®€_U¯€_U°€_U²€_U³€_Uí__¥_Uï€_{�€_{‚=%____º€_

__U€_Uó€_)_€_)+€_Uõ€_)`€_Uö€_)¸€_U÷€_sù€_U

ø_*r€_Uú€_Uû€_*u€_*w€_*–€_*¹€_Uý€_*Å€_*Ø€_+_€_Uþ€_+_€_+"€_+I€_+ü€_,_€_{†€_,_€_,_€_sý€_,"€_V_ €_{‡€_{Š=%_ _€_

q€_ s€_{Ž€_ º€_ Á€_ Å€_ Ó_ Õ€_{œ€_ ÷€_

"_.?€_1/€_V €_10€_t__2

€_V_€_2#€_2n€_2o€_2-€_2³€_V_€_2È€_2΀_2û€_{ž€_3_€_V_€_3"€_32€_3E€_V_€_3u€_3‘€_3¿€_3À€_V

€_3Ë€_{£€_3ä€_V__4 _4

€_V_€_4

€_4M€_V_€_4O_V"_

%€_{«€_{®=%_

,€_

µ€_

Ê_

Ì€_

€_

Ñ€_ 4_ 6€_ :€_ ;€_ b_ d€_ œ_;Þ_ ž€_{²€_{µ=%_ ¦€_

D_

F€_

¬_

®_VH€_VJ€_<E€_<j€_<‰€_<Š€_VL€_<•€_VV€_<߀_VM_<â_<ã€_<å€_V

O€_<æ€_= €_= €_=)€_=2€_VQ€_=4€_=>€_Vg€_=V€_=[€_=e€_VR_

¯_VT€_{¹€_{¼=%_

¶€_

‹_

d€_{À€_

x€_

¤_

¦€_Vj€_=Ë€_t €_=ü€_t

€_>_€_Vm€_>\€_V–_>e_

§_

¨€_{€_{Æ=%_

È€_{Ê€__"€__¨__ª€______€__L__N€_{Ø€__j€_{â€__™€__À_V

£€_@±€_@ý€_@þ€_AD€_V§€_AO€_AR€_AŠ€_V¨€_A¡€_AÖ€_V©€_Aû€_B_€_B_€_B

€_B&€_B*€_B+€_B/€_B0€_Vª€_BI€_Bp€_B‚€_B

ƒ€_V«€_B—€_B²€_B¶€_B¸€_BÀ€_BÁ€_BÄ€_BÅ€_V¬€_Bï€_C€_V_C_€_V·€_C

€_C!€_CR€_V¹€_C]€_Cd€_Ce€_Ci€_C•€_Vº€_C¯€_C

΀_CÏ€_CÚ€_CÝ€_Cá€_Câ€_Cí€_V»€_D_€_D_€_D'€_D+€_D6€_V¼€_DY€_Da€_Dl€_D•€_V½__È€_{ë€_{ï=%__€__Y€__x__z€_VÀ_D

ý€_E_€_E.€_E6€_ED€_EE€_VÆ€_EQ€_VÇ__{_Vì€_{ò€_{ö=%__ƒ€_Ví€__@€_Vî€__D€_Vï€__k€_V__o€_Vü€__€€____¯__±€__Ë€__ê__ì€__î€_t

€__ò€__Ñ__µ€_{ú€__º€__ñ__a€_____Ï€_ _€_ €_

€_ €_ R€_ S€_ _€_t

€_ b€_ e€_ w€_ }_ �€_ %€_{þ€_ ˆ€_ ¥€_ Á€_ Å€_ ΀_ Ï€_ ×€_ á_ ã€_ å€_ æ€_ ç€_ é€_

î€_!

€_t_€_!_€_!>€_!?€_!–€_!—€_dL€_!¬€_!É€_!é€_!ê€_!î€_|€_"2€_"=€_">€_"C€_"D€_"P€_"n€_""€_"•€_"²€_"¶€_"

½€_"Ì€_"×€_"Û€_"ì€_"í€_"û€_"ü€_"ý€_#_#__@Y_V__E„€_EÔüÝ€_t_€_}Æ€_t9€_tB€_€€_tE_tr_tu€×΀×Ñ=%ØW€Ø×€_|

_ÚÇ€ú`€Û_€új€úr€úsÛ_€Û*=%€_|/=%_|LÜ#€Üp€_|OÝ…€_|nÞ9ßñ€úu€ßý€_|#€ú†ßþ€à_=%àÚ€_tv€àñ€_t

}á,€úˆ€ân€ú‘âoú›€â~€â%=%€_t‚=%ã‘oG{Ž™³€¿3_v€_vÖ€_vî€_€

€_w=%€_w_€_w_€_w.€_w3€_wF€_wS€_wU€_w·€_w¼€_wÄ€_wÊ€_wË€_wÙ€_wã€_z€_€

€_z_€_wW€_w�€_z

€_wžž_€_z!Ÿž€Ÿ¢<%Ÿ¸€¢a<%¢t€£Ü€_z&€_z+€_z0€_z2€_z5€_zT

€_zU€_zV€_zs€_zt€_z{€_z}€¤_€_|–€_z‡€_z™€_zµ€_z¶€_z·¤_€¤C<%¤VòÅ€_€I_u#€ñ!€_t¡€ñ"€_t¯€ñ#€_t»€ñ$

€_tË€_zÍ€_t€_€S€_€_€¦ó€_ue€_€(€§€_€+€§0€_ug€§a€_ui€_ut€_€6€_u²€_€;€_u³€_u»€_u€_z÷€_uÛ€_uê_€C

_€D€_|™€ñ*€_tÔ€_u@€_tÖ€ñ.€_|$€ñ;€_tá€ñD€_zÆ€_uJ€_|º€_uV€_uZ€_zÇ€ñN€_u[€ñ]€_zË€_u_€_zÌ€ñe€ñm

€ñn€ñŠ€òŽ€ñ¹€_t€_€E€_u_€_u`€_u_€_€F€_u!ñºòW¦_€O€¦r€y€¦v¦"€_ub¦_uc€_uì€_uï€_u_€_v/_vµ_v

Í€ñ»€ñÀñ߀ò_€ò_€ò®€ò°€ò±€ò²€ò»€ò¼€òÄ€ò òV©.©¤€òÇ©¨„€´€Ó€ê€ì=%€ó=%€ô=

%€ñ²‘_€T€ø?€øAøBøCøD¾_€_ øCøD¾_€_