Thesis_published CORT Critical Thinking 4hardcover

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable i

CoRT CRITICAL THINKING

AUTHENTIC, EFFECTIVE, AND TRANSFERABLE

FOR SUSTAINABLE EMPOWERMENT OF LEARNING OUTCOMES:

FROM COGNITIVE TO METACOGNITIVE SKILLS

A Deductive Analytic Study on the Impact of a Thinking Skill Program,

CoRT Breadth of Thinking

On Students’ Test Scores and Thinking Behavior in Lebanon

By

Manal Mustapha Sharab Ramadan

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment for

A Master Degree of Education in Educational Management and Leadership

Lebanese International University, SoEd

Beirut Campus

Supervised by

Dr. Anwar Kawtharani, the Dean of the School of Education

June, 2015

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable ii

CoRT CRITICAL THINKING

AUTHENTIC, EFFECTIVE, AND TRANSFERABLE

FOR SUSTAINABLE EMPOWERMENT OF LEARNING OUTVOMES

FROM COGNITIVE TO METACOGNITIVE SKILLS

The Impact of a Thinking Skill Program, CoRT Breadth of Thinking

On Students’ Test Scores and Thinking Behavior in Lebanon

“Thinking is the operational skill with which intelligence acts up on experience,” Edward

DeBono (1970). Because thought is action in rehearsal, the researcher believes it needs

training until flexible and fluent thinking becomes a habit of the mind.

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable iii

Abstract

This study sought the effectiveness, authenticity, and transferability of CoRT Breadth of

thinking lessons in enhancing learners’ achievements and extending learning outcomes both at

the school and university levels. The research followed the quantitative design. 122 participants

formed the study sample, (79) at the school level and (43) at the university level. First, in a

private school in Beirut, CoRT (1) thinking lessons were directly communicated to a random

experimental group of (32) 7 and 8 graders contrasted to (30) students as the control group.

Also, (12) educators and (5) parents participated in the study course. CoRT thinking skills were

envisioned as tools to enhance students’ test scores in comprehension, extend students’ HOTS,

and create a thinking behavior. Second, CoRT (1) thinking skills were infused in a composition

and research skills course in a private university in Beirut to discern its impact on a random

sample of (43) learners’ achievements in critical thinking and creative problem solving. For

the study purpose, the researcher applied a triangular method including pre-test post-test,

questionnaires, interviews, and class observations at the school level accompanied with pre and

post students’ self-assessment questionnaires at the university level. The data result was

analysed by using ANOVA measures, multiple tests, and P-values, and means were compared

and interpreted inferentially and descriptively. The implemented program alleviated the test

scores. However, sustainable learning outcomes were hardly observed due to time constraints

though a birth of a positive thinking behavior was acclaimed. At the university level, the

infused thinking skills enhanced students’ critical thinking and creative problem solving. To

conclude, CoRT thinking tools were authentic and effective in creating a positive thinking

behavior. Still, the study recommended more research in the thinking based teaching approach

until transformation of learning endows sustainable learning outcomes.

Key Terms: CoRT Critical Thinking - Creative Problem Solving - Thinking Behavior,

Metacognitive Skills - Authentic, Effective, & Transferable Learning

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable iv

Table of Contents

Abstract….................................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgement.....................................................................................................................vi

Dedication................................................................................................................................vii

Definition of Terms.................................................................................................................viii

List of Acronyms.......................................................................................................................xi

List of Tables............................................................................................................................xii

List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………..xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………...1

Background ………………………………………………………………………………...1

Organization of the Study…………………………………………………………………..8

Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………………………..8

Research Questions ………………………………………………………………….…...9

Statements of Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………..9

Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………….....10

Delimitations of the Study………………………………………………………………...11

Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………..……….……11

Assumptions of the Study…………………………………………………………………12

Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………………13

Thinking: To be taught Skill………………………………………………………………13

The Main Theories on Thinking…………………………….…………………………..........17

Thinking and Intelligence…………………………........................................................... 22

Approaches to Enhance Learners’ Ability to Think Skillfully……………………………… 24

Factors in Teaching Critical and Creative Thinking………………………………………31

Reading Comprehension & Thinking Skills………………………………………………35

Thinking Programs………………………………………………………………………..37

Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Program………………………………………....37

Lipman’s Philosophy for Children…………………………………………………......38

Pogrow’s Higher Order Thinking Skills…………………………………………….....38

Edward’s De Bono Cognitive Research Trust, CoRT………………………………….39

Review on the Effectiveness of CoRT…………………………………………………….44

Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………………...50

Study Design………………………………………………………………………………50

Participants………………………………………………………………………………..51

Instruments………………………………………………………………………………..52

Procedures………………………………………………………………………………...53

Chapter 4: Data Result ………...…………………………………………………………......56

At the School Level………………………………………………………………….…….56

At the University Level…………………………………………………………………....76

Chapter 5: Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………..82

At the School Level…………………………………………………………………….....82

At the University Level……………………………………………………………………88

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………………92

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable v

References………………………………………………………………………….………..96

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………….105

Appendix A. Habits of the Mind…………………………………………………………105

Appendix B. About Thinking…………………………………………………………….109

Appendix C. CoRT Thinking Program…………………………………………………..114

Appendix D: List of Research Instruments………………………………………………118

Appendix E: Statistical Data Result……………………………………………………...134

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable vi

Acknowledgement

The researcher would like to thank her advisor Dr. Anwar Kawtharani, the Dean for the

School of Education at the Lebanese International University, who maintained a prompt,

effective, and efficient advising system throughout the course of this work. Words remain less

expressive in showing gratitude for how sincerely his prodigious assistance and devoted

support are appreciated.

Moreover, special thankfulness goes to the readers of this thesis, Dr. Samir Abou

Nassif, the Vice President at LIU along with Dr. Ali Tarabay, the Provost, for the efficient time

they dedicated to read and enrich the study with their fruitful recommendations.

In addition, all my debts of gratitude are owed to the Lebanese International University

and to the private school, which recommended its name to remain confidential, for consenting

to be a part of this study.

Last yet not least, I would like to thank the students, educators, and parents involved in

the core of this work for maintaining exceptional degree of interest in the study issue.

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable vii

Dedication

The researcher dedicates the efforts exerted in this modest work to every human being

who serves education envisioning for an enhanced, extended, and empowered future.

First, thank you God for enlightening my mind throughout the course of this study.

Second, to my great parents, who have always been by my side, the soul that strengthen my

willpower to achieve what once seemed too far, I am extremely indebted. Third, to the best

ally, my husband, Ali Ramadan, thank you for believing in me and implanting the confidence

that the impossible is only what God meant it to be not my dice. Finally, to my 3 little angels,

Malak, Maryam, and Abdallah, I dedicate my first published book; thank you for tolerating the

aspiration allowing inspiration.

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable viii

Definition of Research Terms

Academic Achievement – What a student has learned from classroom instruction.

Assessment — method of measuring the learning and achievement of students; examples

include achievement tests, minimum competency tests, developmental screening tests, aptitude

tests, observation instruments, performance tasks, etc.

Attainment - is an individual’s level of success in educational assessments of any kind. A key

indicator might be a young child’s school readiness, such as the ability to read letters of the

alphabet and count to ten. Another could be the level of qualifications gained by the end

of compulsory schooling.

Authentic learning - refers to a wide variety of educational and instructional techniques

focused on connecting what students are taught in school to real-world issues, problems, and

applications.

Cognitive – A term that refers to reasoning or intellectual capacity

Cognitive Development – The changes in the way we think, process information and learn.

The process begins at birth and is affected by sensory perception, memory, and observation.

Comprehension – This is a term used to describe the interpretations, understanding, analysis

and meaning readers construct as they listen to and read a variety of genres.

Convergent Thinking is a characteristic of effective critical thinking.

CoRT Thinking Lessons – (deBono, 1983a) is an acronym that stands for Cognitive Research

Trust based on the premise that it is indeed possible to teach thinking as a skill; it contains 60

lessons divided into six sets of 10 lessons each. This study engaged only the first 10 lessons.

Creative Problem Solving - A way of looking at problems or situations from a fresh

perspective that suggests unorthodox solutions (which may look unsettling at first). Creative

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/problem.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/perspective.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/solution.html

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable ix

thinking can be stimulated both by an unstructured process such as brainstorming, and by a

structured process such as lateral thinking.

Critical Thinking – It is logical thinking based on sound evidence. Critical thinking is the

active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or form of knowledge, the grounds that

support it, and the conclusions that follow. It involves analysing and evaluating one’s own

thinking and that of others.

Direct Instruction – A teaching technique in which the teacher presents the content and

students are expected to respond in a specific manner.

Divergent Thinking is a characteristic of creative thinking.

Effective learning – is the context in which the goals of learning need to focus less on

knowledge acquisition by individuals, and more on knowledge-generation with others.

Effective thinking is a broad term that includes a diverse group of mental activities from which

emerge anew systematized ideas, products, and outcomes as well as solutions to problems; i.e.,

an innovative thinking design.

Flexible thinking - the mental ability to switch between thinking about two different concepts,

and to think about multiple concepts simultaneously; also known by cognitive flexibility

Higher-Order Thinking Skills – It is the ability to understand complex concepts to solve a

problem that may have more than one correct answer. It is a generic phrase referring to any of

several abilities; critical, convergent, flexible, creative, divergent, or fluent thinking, cognitive

complexity and problem solving. These skills are analytical rather than perceptual and are often

the source of many errors in thinking (De Bono, 1983b).

Infusion - Integration

Lateral Thinking - is thinking across conventional patterns to generate new ideas. It is solving

problems through an indirect and creative approach, using reasoning that is not immediately

obvious and involving ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional systematic

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/process.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/brainstorming.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/structured.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_speech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable x

logic. The term was coined in 1967 by Edward de Bono. According to de Bono, lateral thinking

deliberately distances itself from standard perceptions of creativity as either "vertical" logic

(the classic method for problem solving: working out the solution step-by-step from the given

data) or "horizontal" imagination (having a thousand ideas but being unconcerned with the

detailed implementation of them).

Meta-cognition is a very complex phenomenon that refers to the cognitive control and

monitoring of all sorts of cognitive processes like perception, action, memory, reasoning or

emoting. It is also plausible that control over such cognitive processes can be either explicit or

implicit. The term is considered in educational psychology texts to be concerned with the

process of monitoring, regulating and controlling individuals’ thinking about their thinking. It

is useful to consider it as the reflection of the process of thinking about thinking to describe the

awareness of thinking.

Outcomes – Outputs that students are supposed to know and be able to do

Self-efficacy – Learners' beliefs about their capacity of succeeding when learning specific

topics or tasks.A key indicator might be learners’ beliefs about their cognitive abilities in a

particular subject area.

Thinking Behavior – is the link between the mind and body, how thought processes interact

with and influence behavior. The point is THINKING is the KEY. It affects how we feel and

this, in turn, affects how we behave, thinking affecting performance

Thinking Fluency – The ability to think accurately, quickly, reasonably, and innovatively to

generate quantitative and qualitative ideas, responses, or solutions

Transfer of Learning – The ability to take previously learned knowledge or skills and apply

them to new situations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Educational_psychology

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable xi

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

CORT- Cognitive Research Trust

HOTS- Higher Order Thinking Skills

IPT- Information Processing Theory

IQ- Intelligence Quotient

LTM- Long Term Memory

MI- Multiple Intelligences

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable xii

List of Tables

Appendix D…………………………………………………………………………………118

Table 1. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment (Before CoRT)

Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment (After CoRT)

Table 3. Educators’ Self-assessment Checklist (Before CoRT Training)

Table 4. Educators’ Questionnaire (After CoRT Training)

Table 5. Structured Interviews with Parents (After CoRT Training)

Table 6. Structured Interview with Educators (After CoRT Training)

Table 7. Structured Interview with Students (After CoRT Training)

Table 8. Observation Scheme Sheet (During CoRT)

Table 9. Comparing the Means of School Students’ Thinking Behavior Self-assessment

(Before and After CoRT)

Table 10. Comparing the Means of University Students’ Thinking Behavior Self-assessment


CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable xiii

List of Figures

Chapter 4. Data Result……………………………………………………………………….56

Figure 1. Students’ Reflection on CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

Figure 2. Usability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

Figure 3. Students’ Evaluation of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

Figure 4(a, b). Percentage and Frequency of the Usability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools at

School, during lessons

Figure 5. Lessons during which CoRT (1) Thinking Tools were Mostly Applicable

Figure 6. Enhancement in Students’ Ability to observe and analyse information

Figure 7. Effectiveness of CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools

Figure 8. Learners’ Self-conception about their ability to handle problems after CoRT

Figure 9. Impact of CoRT Breadth of Thinking on Students’ Thinking Behavior

Figure 10. Educators’ Self –Assessment for their Class Attitude, Before CoRT

Figure 11. Evaluation of CoRT Information Presented in the Workshop

Figure 12. Students’ Using CoRT in Class from the Educators’ Perspective

Figure 13. Students Using CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools in Situations

Figure 14. Percentage of Educators who Implemented CoRT Thinking Tools with Students

Figure 15. CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools Application in Various Subject Matters

Figure 16. Students’ Discussions about CoRT (1) Thinking Tools with Teachers

Figure 17. Educators’ Noticing Change in Students’ Thinking Behavior

Figure 18. Educators’ Perspectives about Students’ Understanding OPV

Figure 19. Educators’ Perspectives about Students’ planning their work better

Figure 20. Students’ responding to Complex situations with Less Impulsivity

Figure 21. Educators’ Perspectives about Students’ Ability to reflect on their Behavior

Figure 22. Students’ ability to underpin their statements with more arguments

Figure 23. Students’ Looking After Consequences

CoRT Critical Thinking: Authentic, Effective, and Transferrable xiv

Figure 24. Students’ Ability to generate more alternative solutions to problems

Figure 25. Students’ Ability to connect CoRT (1) Thinking Tools, APC-AGO-FIP

Figure 26. Transferability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

Figure 27. CoRT (1) Thinking Tools in non-educational Contexts

Figure 28. Educators’ Reflections on the Effectiveness of CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools

Figure 29. Most Productive Approach in Implementing CoRT Thinking Tools

Figure 30. Educators’ Reflections on CoRT (1) thinking Tools Enhancing HOTS

Figure 31. Educators’ Evaluation of CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools

Figure 32. Educators’ Advocate CoRT Integration in the Lebanese Curriculum

Figure 33. CoRT Thinking Program Goal-Orientation

Figure 34. Observation Scheme of CoRT (1) Thinking tools Habit Frequency

Figure 35. University Students’ Reflection on CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

Figure 36. Usability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools to University Students

Figure 37. University Students’ Evaluation of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

Figure 38(a, b) Percentage and Frequency of the Usability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools at the

university level, during courses

Figure 39. Courses during which CoRT (1) Thinking Tools were Mostly Applicable


Figure 41. Effectiveness of CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools to University Learners

Figure 42. University Learners’ Concept about their ability to handle problems after CoRT

Figure 43. Frequency of Impact of CoRT Breadth of Thinking on University Students’

Thinking Behavior

Figure 44. Percentage of the Impact of CoRT Breadth of Thinking on University Students’

Thinking Behavior

T h e I m p a c t o f C o R T ( 1 ) o n L e a r n e r s ’ T h i n k i n g B e h a v i o r 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background of the Study

Thinking exists in all life activities, in both conscious and unconscious mind states.

The term ‘thinking skills’ refers to capacities that involve thinking and learning. However,

the primordial conviction in education was that a good learner would demonstrate ability to

absorb information and had a lot of receptive knowledge; i.e. be knowledgeable. It believed

in convocation and congregating students in classes to teach them the transfer of knowledge

and dialogue in aim to increase their logical thinking. Fisher, R., (2003) claims that such

traditional teaching is efficient in the technical side of knowing how to do, yet ineffective in

the practical intelligence, the higher order of thinking.

Quite earlier, Gough (1991) in ‘Thinking about Thinking’ says that thinking skills are

the most substantial tools in today’s information age and the most crucial to comprehend and

apply in the rapidly changing world we live. Because knowledge is growing rapidly and

explosively, Halpern (2002) emphasizes the significance of teaching thinking skills by

saying, “The rapidly accelerating pace of change that marks the opening of the 21st century

has made the ability to think critically more important than at any other time in history.” The

postmodern world of today demands different attitudes, different knowledge, and other skills.

Teaching how to think constructively, critically, and creatively is such a skill essential for

learners if they want to enhance their potentials in handling the complex present and future

world and be knowledge-able. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in enhancing

and extending thinking and learning skills (Fisher, A., 2005). Fisher, R., (2005) states that if

students are taught how to think, they will be more effectively able to communicate, solve

problems, and face new challenges. “Thoughtfulness should not only be the intellectual but

also the moral aim of education” (Fisher, A., 2005).


Bayliss (2003) revealed that understanding the knowledge that students would need in

the future was impossible. She wrote that we got wrong in 1998 had been our judgment of

speed. 2003 was a staging post towards our 20-year vision, but many of the changes predicted

by 2020 were already with us that year.

According to Claxton (2007), knowledge is changing so rapidly that it is hard to

imagine what one has to teach to students. Twenty two years earlier, Costa (1985), in his

book about developing minds, noted that helping students to become thinkers that are more

effective is increasingly recognized as a primary goal of education.

In the light of this, the researcher assumed the perspective that intending to have

knowledgeable learners in the aim of enhancing logical thinking is no more the effective goal

in education. The 21st century key educational need lies in the empowerment of timeless

critical and creative thinking skills that could be acquired and will be required in almost any

career path that students may follow. Educators are accountable to prepare students to be

successful in careers that have not even existed yet. The future global workplace, whether

technological or not, will need employees who are critical, creative, flexible and fluent

thinkers, adaptable to changing environments, and capable of resolving unwarranted

situations before these situations even arise while considering long-term effects and

alternative possibilities and choices. Moreover, the present and the future work place needs

timeless thinking skills that enable prospect bodies to determine their first important priorities

highly relevant with their established aims, goals, and objectives. Likewise, it is no more

optional for the future white collars to consider all the factors, all the pluses, minuses, and

interesting points for any decision making process, in which they too should think of other

people’s views to empathize and effectively lead. Critical and creative thinking will be vital

to succeed in this setting.


Hence, over the last few years, there has been an explosion of interest associated with

teaching the skill of thinking through programs that offer a diverse dimension to learners’

education where no answer is considered wrong as long as it could be sensible or

innovatively justified. Thus, developing the students’ potential to think skilfully through an

educational program is recurrent suggestion in education since a raft of research has been

globally carried out regarding this topic and has embraced methods for training thinking

skills. Nisbet et al (1990) listed over 20 programs often used across Europe and the United

States. Besides, a research carried out by Al-Ittihad model school in UAE in April 2009

claimed that schools in the United Arabic Emirates, especially Abu Dhabi, have included

‘teaching thinking skills’ as one of the intended goals in their vision and mission statements

for educational strategic planning. Since there is a consensus that in order to turn out to

productive citizens, educators have to equip them with the right thinking tools in the right

way. To make a long story short, it could be inferred that enhancing and extending students’

thinking skills lie at the heart of 21st century education worldwide.

Conversely, in Lebanon, literacy, math, science, and other subjects are well

established in the national curriculum, yet convergent and divergent thinking skills, which are

remarkable as higher order thinking skills have significantly received less attention, and there

seems to be a call for a wide range of competences, and thinking is one of them, not as a final

end of teaching and learning outcomes; nonetheless, as a stage towards attaining educational

metacognitive sustainable aptitudes like:

a. learning how to proceed in skilful thinking,

b. learning how to think skilfully in order to learn,

c. learning how to constructively criticize, communicate, collaborate, and create,

d. learning how to reflect on learning

e. learning how to reflect on the future,


f. learning how to think abundantly, and

g. learning how to think about thinking

In view of that, the national educational growing concern on how to equip learners

with the necessary future work place competences necessitates enhancing, extending, and

empowering authentic, transferable, and effective timeless analytical thinking skills. Though

engaging students’ full potential to think critically, problem solve, and make decisions is an

issue of increasing importance facing all educators nowadays, assessments of students’

achievement still suggest that the student population may be failing to enhance effective

thinking and problem solving skills (Bransford & Sherwood,1986). After the last curriculum

reform in 2004, schools have relied on a curriculum well defined in scope and sequence to

transmit conceptual knowledge to students in all subject areas, yet, with modest effective

emphasis on the transferable employment of thinking skills in authentic situations.

Thinking skills are not a new topic in education; the major advocate of inquiry /

problem solving, also called discovery learning was John Dewey (1933).The inquiry method,

which is familiar to educators as they essentially guide class-room teaching practices, is a

process of investigation that moves through the following six steps: (a) recognizing the

problem, (b) analyzing the problem, (c) formulating hypothesis, (d) selecting and defining

problems, (e) collecting data, and (f) drawing conclusions based on data.

Dewey’s work assisted in the development and identification of Bloom’s levels of

thinking skills (1956). These cognitive skills form the basis of schools’ critical thinking

curriculums.

To make instruction in thinking more practicable for teachers, Hilda Taba (1962)

grouped thinking abilities much as Bloom did in his taxonomy (Fair & Shaftel, 1967). Taba

described thinking skills in the following way:

(a) Conceptualizing or forming ideas and concepts,


(b) Interpreting or making more meaning out of a set of data than is literally there,

(c) Applying or using ideas in new and specific situations, and

(d) Evaluating or judging by standards that may or may not be value-laden or

approved.

Moreover, Costa and Kallick (2000) reflected on effective learning that it should

integrate 16 habits of the mind (Appendix A). They said that in outcomes-based learning

environments, there are generally three elements in play.

1) Learning objectives that are created from given standards;

2) Instruction of some kind is given; then

3) Learning results are assessed.

These assessments offer data to inform the revision of further planned instruction,

rinse and repeat, but lost in this quantifiable sequence are the Habits of the Mind that, often

predictably, lead to success or failure in the mastery of given standards. In fact, it is not in the

standards or assessments, but rather these personal habits where success or failure in

academic terms, actually begins.

The habits themselves are not new-fangled at all since considerable effort has already

been done in the areas of these thinking habits. Nevertheless, in a 21st century learning

environment, one often inundated with information, stimulation and connectivity, there may

be a newfound context for their application along with a renewed stipulation for their

integration. They do not simply represent fragments of practice and training to "add on" to

what educators already do, but rather new ways to think about how students learn in terms of

metacognition prior to cognition. Accordingly, they are just a tip of the iceberg guiding

educators to study which of these habits the most needs support for students and how they

will integrate them into classroom learning practices.


After Dewey, Taba, and Bloom among others, educators have continually addressed

curricular reform in the area of critical thinking (Fair & Kachaturoff, 1988), and due to this

growing interest in teaching thinking, several programs have been designed specifically for

that purpose (Chance, 1986). These programs differ in terms of their theoretical rationale,

methods, type of learners addressed, and in the evidence of their effectiveness; nevertheless,

they all have achieved favorable and non-ignorable results.

(a) Osborn’s Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem

Solving (1953),

(b) Taba’s Thinking Skills (1962),

(c) Feuerstein Instructional Enrichment Program (1980),

(d) Lipman’s Philosophy for Children (1980),

(e) Guilford Structure of Intellect SOL (1982),

(f) De Bono’s CoRT Thinking Program (1983a),

(g) Pogrow’s HOTS (1988), and

(h) William’s Cognitive-Affective Interactive Program (1993)

All are established and recognized programs that have earned credibility in

empowering critical thinking and creative problem solving.

Of these, De Bono’s CoRT (Cognitive Research Trust) program, (Appendix C), is of

particular interest to the researcher due to its practical design and ease of implementation in

diverse educational contexts, various age groups, and different abilities. CoRT is a

mnemonic that stands for (Cognitive Research Trust); it is a six-unit program, 10 lessons

each, that teaches thinking directly as a skill as well as a comprehensive array of critical,

constructive, and creative thinking skills. The six CoRT units are;

CoRT 1: Breadth of Thinking – directions in which to look

CoRT 2: Organization – operations to be performed


CoRT 3: Interaction – things to be observed

CoRT 4: Creativity – innovative generation of ideas

CoRT 5: Information and Feeling – awareness of feelings, information, and situation

CoRT 6: Action – The total process of thinking

CoRT Thinking Program (de Bono, 1983b) serves all learners ability levels via

approaching cooperative learning and class discussion using perceptual tools from real life

situations. De Bono’s (1991) definition of the program is, “CoRT is designed to teach

students a set of thinking tools that allows them to consciously break away from established

patterns of thought, to see things more broadly and clearly and to develop a more creative

approach to problem solving.”

Therefore, the study rationale is that not only cognitive development should get

attention in education, but also higher metacognitive functions. Metacognition involves

thinking about one’s own thinking, including skills in recognizing problems and planning

what to do to solve them and how to do it, and CoRT thinking skill program is one approach

to develop these functions. Nickerson et al (1985) says, “The CoRT operations can be seen as

simple practical tactics that may help individuals to think sensibly about non-technical things

and also help them to perceive themselves as thinkers.” The strong belief is that students of

all ages are capable of facing complex situations while they are learning CoRT thinking tools.

As it is estimated that only 5% of our brain capacity is used (Burnaford et al 2001),

research (Higgins et al 2004) shows how powerful CoRT is in improving students learning,

thinking, and self-efficacy. By applying CoRT program, the students’ ability to solve

problems improves (Edwards and Baldauf 1986).

Serving education, the researcher had been interested in elevating the learners’

potential to think critically and creatively, so she delved into extensive research of this

program, CoRT (De Bono, 1986), a comprehensive program consisting of sixty thinking


lessons divided into six sections. It was first published in 1973, and it derived its name from

the Cognitive Research Trust that Edward de Bono established at Cambridge University,

England, proclaiming that thinking is a skill that can be learned, practised, and enjoyed (De

Bono, 1992). This was where the program came into inception.

Organization of the Study

The research study is organized into six chapters preceded by an abstract. Chapter 1

presents an introduction of the background of the study, the purpose of the study, the research

questions and statements of hypotheses, description and significance of the study, definition

of research key terms, delimitations, limitations, and assumptions of the study. In chapter

two, the researcher explicates on thinking in relation to reviewed literature, subsequently

clarifying the study methodological design in chapter three. The data of the research is SPSS

presented in chapter four and analysed in chapter five. Chapter six draws up conclusions from

the study and provides recommendations for further anticipated research. All the references

used in this study are in English; however, the study itself is taking place in an Arabic region,

Lebanon: Beirut.

Purpose of the Study

Accrediting that effective, authentic, transferable, and sustainable education is

attained through enhancing, extending, and empowering both deep and broad convergent and

divergent thinking skills, which are invincible timeless skills, the researcher conducted a

study to discover whether CoRT, as one among many International thinking skills programs

can adequately and effectively serve education in Lebanon through having a positive impact

on sustaining learning outcomes in general and on enhancing students’ thinking behavior and

attitude in particular. For this purpose, the study raised four instrumental questions.


Research Questions

1. Will the direct instruction of the thinking skill program CoRT (1) to students aged

12-13 enhance the learners’ test scores in, yet not limited to, reading

comprehension?

2. Will the direct instruction of the thinking skill program CoRT (1) have a positive

impact on learners’ attainments?

3. After teaching CoRT (1), will students’ attitudes demonstrate a thinking behavior

through applying CoRT thinking tools in non-educational contexts?

4. Will the infusion of CoRT (1) thinking tools in a composition and research skills

course offered to students aged 18-19 enhance students’ critical thinking and

extend their potential of effective problem solving?

Research Hypotheses

The following statements of hypotheses will be tested at a statistically significant

level of P-value < α = 0.05.

H01: The direct instruction of the thinking skill program CoRT (1) to students aged 12-13

will hardly enhance the learners’ test scores in, yet not limited to, reading comprehension.

HA1: The direct instruction of the thinking skill program CoRT (1) to students aged 12-13

will elevate the learners’ test scores in, yet not limited to, reading comprehension.

H02: The direct instruction of the thinking skill program CoRT (1) will have either a negative

or a null impact on learners’ attainments.

HA2: The direct instruction of the thinking skill program CoRT (1) will have a positive

impact on learners’ attainments.

H03: After teaching CoRT (1), students’ attitudes will barely demonstrate a thinking behavior

since CoRT thinking tools are inapplicable in non-educational contexts.

T h e I m p a c t o f C o R T ( 1 ) o n L e a r n e r s ’ T h i n k i n g B e h a v i o r

10

HA3: After teaching CoRT (1), students’ attitudes will demonstrate a thinking behavior

through applying CoRT thinking tools in non-educational contexts.

H04: The infusion of CoRT (1) thinking tools in a composition and research skills course

offered to students aged 18-26 will neither enhance students’ critical and creative thinking

nor extend their potential of effective problem solving.

HA4: The infusion of CoRT (1) thinking tools in a composition and research skills course

offered to students aged 18-26 will obviously enhance students’ critical and creative thinking

and extend their potential of effective problem solving.

Significance of the Study

Believing that training students how to think critically and creatively does have

positive effects that are the pillars of both transferable and authentic learning, the researcher

trained students how to think with de Bono’s methods and sensed a flow between her and the

students, which rose students’ motivation for thinking lessons. In this study, the researcher

tried to explain this flow in academic terms, providing the outcome of the methodology used

to analyse the data collected.

Besides, the initial objective of this study is to introduce CoRT thinking program to

the Lebanese ministry of education in the purpose of infusing it in the Lebanese curriculum,

so that it may become part of the approach to learners, and part of every school’s culture. In

other words, if the outcome of the research shows that CoRT has a positive impact on

education, and students effectively and efficiently use its techniques, this thinking skill

program might become an integral part of the Lebanese educational system. As well, the

researcher will present her thesis to the Lebanese International University, the School of

Education, in the aim of attaining a Master’s degree of Education in Education Management

and Leadership.


11

Delimitations of the Study

Past research demonstrated that CoRT thinking program played a significant role not

only in enhancing but also in extending learners’ thinking skills. There were two approaches

in implementing the thinking skills program CoRT. For a valid conclusion about the

effectiveness of its implementation, the researcher applied the direct instruction of CoRT

thinking lessons at the school level and the infusion of CoRT thinking skills at the level of

higher education. Likewise, the researcher utilized a triangular approach of pre-test post-test

method, conducted questionnaires to both educators and learners, and held interviews with a

number of parents, educators, and students on the school level to provide feedback about the

implemented program. In order to assure the impact of accuracy and relevance of the study,

all sorted samples engaged either in surveys or in interviews and observations.

Limitations of the Study

1. This study was limited to explore the effectiveness of CoRT thinking skill program to

students in Beirut. Thus, the research cannot generalize that the same impact of the program

implementation would have been witnessed had CoRT thinking skills been taught in remote

areas.

2. In response to the school principal request, the study at the school level was interrupted for

one month after the eighth CoRT lesson was successfully accomplished, and a co-educator,

not the researcher, taught the last two CoRT thinking lessons. The changed trainer effect will

remain out of examination.

3. There will be no attempt to ascertain the relationship between the socio-economic status

and the learners’ academic achievement in the subjects in the study due to the school

disapproval to conduct a questionnaire about the socio economic conditions of students.

4. The sample chosen for the study was a random sample; thus, diversity neither in gender

nor in the level of students’ IQ was not a variable in analysing the study results.


12

Assumptions of the Study

1. Students will be given ample and similar time to complete the tests to the best of their

ability.

2. Students will comprehend the elements of the comprehension test to assure that the results

of assessments are validly used and interpreted for their specific purpose.

3. Students and educators will reflect on their opinions about critical thinking teaching

practices and the effectiveness of CoRT(1) thinking through filling in pre and post

questionnaires and participating in interviews.

4. Parents will echo their feedback about the effectiveness and transferability of CoRT

Breadth thinking skills through participating in interviews.

5. Class observations will reveal whether students in multi- educational contexts use CoRT

(1) thinking tools. Moreover, the observations will detect the most frequent used tools.


13

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This review examines the literature related to thinking as a skill, whether it can be

taught, the need of teaching thinking, and the main learning theories on thinking along with

the effective approaches educators have taken so far. Moreover, literature related to critical

thinking and problem-solving skills is reviewed. The literature review also focuses on

research identifying critical thinking related to reading comprehension along with a variety of

programs designed to teach convergent and divergent thinking skills, particularly De Bono’s

CoRT.

Thinking: to be taught Skill

Nisbet (cited in Coles & Robinson 1991) states the concept of teaching thinking is not

novel. The same notion was emphasized before by Swartz &Perkins (1990), “it is important

to remember that concern with developing students' thinking, far from being a fad, is one of

the most persistent and ambitious aspirations of education, with a tradition stretching back at

least to Plato.” Plato was famous for teaching thinking through the Socratic dialogue and

traditional logic. In the 19th century, Latin and Mathematics were taught to strengthen the

faculty of reason. Formal logic was added to school curricula in many countries to provide

students with training in reasonable thinking. The theory of constructivism has the most

noticeable effects on teaching practices by viewing learners as active creators of their own

knowledge. By the end of the twentieth century, many programs for teaching thinking

invaded education in response to the expansion in educational and cognitive psychology and

the growth of information technology.

Some profitable programs focus on placing thinking at the heart of school curriculum.

Though, can educators teach thinking? Can they teach students to be effective skilful

thinkers? If so, how? Before reviewing the two main approaches of teaching thinking, it is


14

necessary to apprehend the meaning of thinking, the reasons for teaching thinking at schools,

and theories on thinking.

defining thinking. There are various definitions of thinking and thinking skills, yet

they all focus on mental activity, logic and reason and the analytical use of knowledge. Beyer

(1991) considers thinking to be the mental operation of sensory input and recalled

perceptions to make or find meaning, to reason about or with, to synthesize, and to evaluate.

De Bono (1991) provides a broader meaning of thinking; this can include most of the other

definitions by stating that thinking is the deliberate thoughtful exploration of experience for a

purpose. That purpose may be understanding, decision making, planning, problem solving,

judgement, action and so on. According to de bono, knowledge, intelligence and thinking are

the ABCs of education. Swartz and Perkins (1990) describe good thinking as something

having, at its roots, something with which we are all familiar. Thus, it is sometimes assessed,

not as an observable process, yet as a result-based practice generating choices, making

decisions, or even solving problems; i.e. its effectiveness.

defining thinking skills. According to Beyer (1991), “Thinking skills are the

discrete, precisely delineated mental operations used in varying combinations as we think.”

De Bono (1991) describes these skills as tools of effective thinking. Swartz and Perkins

(1989) talk about 'sub-skills' to avoid any misunderstanding of the main five kinds of

thinking. They say that a “thinking skill is a competence that contributes to some kind of

thinking.” Each type of thinking includes a number of thinking skills or sub-skills.

Kagan (2003) divides thinking skills into three types: understanding information,

manipulating information, and generating information. In each of the three categories are

specific skills. For example, “summarize” is related to understanding information; problem

solving is related to manipulating information; and questioning is related to generating

information. In contrast to the above list of skills, Lipman (1983) thinks that “Thinking skills


15

is a catch-all phrase” (also cited in Coles & Robinson 1991) because the list of skills has no

end due to the abundant nature of the intellectual powers of individuals.

From what has been said, it is clear that thinking has many skills. The word 'skill'

means that it is something that can be taught, learnt and practised in the course of teaching

and learning. This implies that thinking has to be viewed as a “process, not a place” in the

mind of the learner. Thus, thinking skills are processes which, when practised, “empower the

brain to work more efficiently” (Kagan 2003), more authentically and effectively.

the need for teaching thinking. No one doubts, theoretically, the importance of

fostering effective habits of thinking in schools. But apart from the fact that the

acknowledgement is not so great in practice as in theory, there is not adequate theoretical

recognition that all which the school can or need do for students, so far as their minds are

concerned, is to enhance and expand their ability to think (Dewey1997).

Fisher, A (2001) states that 'the key function of education is to teach [students] to

think critically, creatively and effectively.'

Another reason for teaching thinking skills is that students are more motivated to

engage in constructing their own learning when their higher order thinking skills are

motivated. Many students prefer to find the answer rather than be given it without thinking

time. That is, students favour teachers who focus on higher order questions because they

inspire them to be engaged in their learning process. Fisher, R. (2003) echoes this when he

says that students “like those teachers who make them think. They prefer lessons in which

they are for example asked to interpret, analyse, or manipulate information, or apply acquired

knowledge and skills to novel problems or new situations.”

Moreover, thinking is not only a source of enjoyment, but also enhances academic

achievements. Fisher, R. (2003) claims that teaching thinking and reasoning is principal to

raising standards even in the most basic skills of the curriculum. Teaching thinking skills


16

enables students to utilize new information in new situations. Hamers & Overtoom (1997)

assert that 'It is precisely the capacity to think which enables students to acquire new

knowledge and replace old knowledge by original one, and it teaches them to recognise the

value of gaining knowledge' (Hamers & Overtoom, 1997).

In this rapidly changing world, it is difficult to assess what knowledge our students

will need in the future. Therefore, it is logical to provide them with the skills necessary to

deal with the flow of information. Kagan (2003) makes this perspective obvious:

“In the face of the accelerating information explosion, having the student memorize one more

fact is of little value compared to having the students learn how to categorize, analyse,

synthesize, summarize, and apply information.”

Psychologists also promote the interest in developing students' thinking. The efforts

of Bruner, Sternberg, Vygotsky, Gardner, etc. have contributed to the increasing concern with

the development of intellectual potential of students. Their achievements and others put

educators in a better position today to plan intelligent approaches to developing students'

intellect than was the case during the last swing of the pendulum' (Swartz & Perkins 1989).

For example, Sternberg (1986) lists four aims for teaching thinking at the general level

1. To make students better all-round thinkers, and also better thinkers in certain disciplines;

2. To aide students learn to make the most of their best abilities;

3. To help to lessen achievement gaps referred to thinking skills;

4. To teach them to realise their potential and extend their potential (cited in Hamers &

Overtoom 1997).

The Main Theories on Thinking

Learning theories describe how thinking develops though it is not appropriate to cover

all of these perspectives within the constraints of this paper. The best-known views that have


17

been put forward by Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky, the information processing theory (ITP),

constructivism, and Howard Gardner’s work on multiple intelligences are displayed.

Jean Piaget. Piaget's theory of cognitive development explains the development of

thinking in children. According to Piaget, “the development of thinking in children

progresses according to successive, discrete stadia” (cited in Hamers et al, 1999).

Children think and reason differently at four periods in their lives. Piaget thinks that everyone

passes through these distinct stages in order. Each stage has specific cognitive accomplished

functions. Hester (1994) gives a brief summary of the four stages: 'the sensory-motor period

(birth to two years), the pre-operational period (two to seven years), the stage of concrete

operations (seven to twelve years), and the formal operation (beginning at age eleven).

Piaget & Inhelder (1969) consider the most critical factor in a child's cognitive

development is to interact with peers and environment. Such interaction results in arguing

and debating with peers. In addition, Piaget sees the child as an active processor of new

impressions and experiences that lead to thinking.

Furthermore, Piaget states that “The child can only learn that which fits in with its

current thinking stage' (Hamers & Overtoon 1997). However, his theory and studies highlight

a number of significant elements in teaching children how to think. Fisher, A. (2001)

mentions three needs:

1. To look at the reasons why the child is thinking in such a way;

2. To remember that thinking is doing and not just being told, that is an active not a

passive process;

3. For children, to explore certain key concepts which help unlock their potential

Jerome Bruner. Bruner's work on childhood learning has made him a key figure in

educational reform in the US and Britain. Bruner ascribes an important role to language in the

development of thinking: thinking leads to language, but, thereafter, language is responsible


18

for the improved development of thinking' (Hamers & Overtoon1997). Bruner considers

learning as an active, social process in which students construct new ideas or concepts based

on their current knowledge (cited in Flores 2001). He thinks that the child experiences three

stages of continual process of processing and representing information. Bruner (cited in

Hevern 2004) differentiates between three phases or stages in which learning occurs:

Enactive, iconic and symbolic. Bruner (cited in Flores 2001) asserts that education should

help students to experience cognitive and intellectual mastery. This is very useful to students

because “they are able to access information that they were previously unable to utilize. This

reward and excitement perpetuate the student to learn even more.”

Nonetheless, one important difference between Piaget and Bruner is that the latter

believes that we can learn anything at any age. Bruner states “No matter the age, or stage of

development as Piaget believed, there is an appropriate version that corresponds to that age-

even if it is preparatory” (cited in Flores 2001). Bruner emphasises the strategy being used in

teaching rather than by the environment alone. According to Bruner (1977), the intellectual

development of the child is “no clockwork sequence of events; it also responds to influences

from the environment, notably the school environment. … It [instruction] can also lead to

intellectual development by providing challenging and usable opportunities for the child to

forge ahead in his development.”

Lev Vygotsky. The Soviet psychologist Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1986-1934)

emphasises that “cognitive functioning occurs first on the social level, among people, and

that the child then internalizes this individual development” (cited in Rogoff & Wertcsch

1984). A central concept in his theory is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).Vygotsky

(1978) defines ZPD as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by

independent problem solving and the level of potential development through problem solving

under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers, [scaffolding]” (Vygotsky


19

1978). He believes that what children can do with our help today, they will be able to do by

themselves in the future. It is in the proximal zone that teaching may be defined. In

Vygotskian terms, teaching is effective only when it “awakens and rouses to life those

functions which are in a stage of maturing, which lie in the zone of proximal development”

(cited in Rogoff & Wertcsch 1984).

To Vygotsky (1978), testing does not show us the mental age of children. Tests show

what children can do by themselves, but they ignore what they can do with the assistance of

others. He gives an example of two children who are chronologically ten and eight years old

in terms of mental development. If we help children by giving those clues or explanations,

they do better. When we ask a seven-year old child to solve a problem, and he does, we

usually say that his mental age is seven. Suppose that we gave the same problem to a four-

year child, he would not answer it. However, if we offer the child with leading questions, the

child will solve the problem. In this case, the two children are mentally at the same age

although their actual development age is different. The concept of ZPD explains this

difference between four and seven. The two children in the given example revealed the same

mental age from the viewpoint of developmental cycles already completed, but the

developmental dynamics of both were entirely distinct.

Vygotsky emphasises the significance of social interaction in developing the

intellectual development of youngsters. He states that “learning awakens a variety of internal

developmental processes that are able to operate only when the [learner] is interacting with

people in his environment and in cooperation with his peers.” Once these processes are

internalized, they become part of the youth's independent developmental achievement.

the information processing theory (IPT). George Miller describes the processes that

take place between the input and output of information processing. Orey (2001) points out

that the 'Information Processing (IP) is a cognitive processing theory… which seeks to


20

explain how the mind functions.' The IPT gives more weight to the mechanism of

information processing rather than to how we learn. In explaining its concept, Miller uses the

computer as a model for human learning. The human mind takes in information 'input',

processes it, stores and locates it and generates responses to it 'output'. Hassan (2005)

clarifies this concept by saying that ' processing involves gathering and representing

information, or encoding; holding information or retention; and getting the information when

needed, or retrieval.' Hamers et al (1999) described the concept of thinking as follows:

Thinking denotes for psychology a coherent complex of specific theoretical problems,

dealing with the complexity of the information processing activities (what do they

consist of and how are they controlled?) and with the roles these representations of

information play) how are they established, what is their nature and structure?

In his book “Cognitive Psychology”, Sternberg (1999) also identifies three different

components involved in processing information. They are,

(a) Meta-component [control]: executive processes (i.e., metacognition)

(b) Performance components [output]:

(c) knowledge-acquisition components [input].

For better encoding of information, the material has to be meaningful; hence,

activation of prior knowledge is a necessity. Better encoding of information will enable

students to store this information in the long-term memory (LTM) in a way that makes it easy

to retrieve it when needed.

In the researcher’s opinion, students who do not have the opportunity to practise

thinking skills that ensure their active engagement with the taught material will fail to make

meaningful connections among the thousands of information chunks they store in their LTM,

long term memory.


21

A valuable term borrowed from IPT is 'metacognition': thinking about one's own

thinking which works as executive processors. In teaching thinking, it is very important to

provide the students with metacognitive strategies or skills like planning for learning,

thinking about thinking, evaluating learning, graphic organizers, mind mapping, learning

about learning, among others.

In the ‘Cognitive Revolution’, Miller (2003) highlights the importance of

metacognition by stating that when learners put effort into processing information, they will

become capable of a metacognitive or executive level of thinking that includes self-

awareness, self-inquiry (self-dialogue), self-monitoring and self-regulation of the processes

and contents of thoughts, knowledge structures and memories.

Hamers and Overtoom (1997) also believe that metacognition is necessary for

developing higher order thinking skills. They point out that students need to think about their

thinking “before, during, and after a task by, respectively, activating acquired knowledge,

monitoring [their] own activity and assessing performance and consequences.”

Similarly, Kagan (2003) believes that “there is consensus that information processing

is the essence of thinking skills.” The question becomes, How best to develop them?

He suggests an instructional approach which 'treats thinking skills as a process and demands

that educators teach existing content and lessons using instructional strategies that foster

thinking.

constructivism. Constructivism is another instrumental theory that has largely

influenced teaching, learning approaches, and thinking. It clarifies how individuals learn.

According to Martin Briner (1999), learning is based on students' active participation in

problem-solving and critical thinking regarding a learning activity that they find relevant and

engaging. He believes that in a constructivist classroom, the teacher acts as a facilitator.

He/she guides the student, stimulating and provoking the student's critical thinking, analysis


22

and synthesis throughout the learning process. For a student to practice thinking, he/she needs

to be an active creator of his/her own knowledge through asking questions, exploring,

assessing what he/she knows and applying metacognitive strategies, etc. In a constructivist

classroom, the environment encourages critical and creative thinking.

In addition, Murphy (1997) describes a number of different characteristics of

constructivism as perceived by some researchers and theorists. Cited in Murphy (1997),

Jonassen (1991) identifies eight principles of constructivism; for example,

1. Create real-world environments that employ the context in which learning is relevant;

2. The instructor is a coach and analyser of the strategies used to solve these problems;

3. Evaluation should serve as a self-analysis tool;

4. Learning should be internally controlled and mediated by the learner

Thinking and Intelligence

Part of our knowledge of thinking is derived from the works of psychologists.

Psychometry is an important theory that has its impact on the teaching of teaching.

Hamers and Csapo (1999) think that the psychometric studies have influenced the research of

thinking in at least two important ways:

(a) by making psychological traits measurable… and

(b) by launching the concept of intelligence' (cited in Hamers et al, 1999).

Alfred Binet (1875-1911) was the first to develop an intelligence test in France, later

to be known as IQ tests. Binet believes that we can improve children's thinking in spite of not

having got the innate ability contrary to what many psychologists thought of intelligence as

something that we cannot improve because it is largely inherited (cited in Fisher, R. 2001).

He disapproves the claim that a person's intelligence is a fixed quantity and cannot be

enhanced. For Binet, the mental faculties that humans are born with are not as important as

how these mental faculties are used and developed. He thinks that what students need to do is


23

to learn how to learn' (Fisher, R. 2001). Binet used IQ tests to help students learn by

providing them with appropriate teaching. A low or high IQ score does not tell us a real

picture about the thinking abilities of two different persons. Therefore, to him, IQ tests are

rejected for many reasons. Fisher, R. (2001) thinks that two individuals may receive the same

IQ score, one being at a peak of his thinking power, while the other is capable of a huge spurt

of intellectual attainment. … The IQ test does not recognise potential, nor does it assess a

student's learning experiences, for it cannot judge key qualities like imagination, creativity, or

perseverance.

Besides, Edward de Bono (1991) clarifies the relationship between thinking and

intelligence by saying that thinking is the operating skill through which intelligence acts upon

experience. In other words, thinking guides and directs intelligence to reach its goals.

Since the relationship between thinking and intelligence is so interrelated, there is a need to

acquire satisfactory knowledge of the multiple intelligence (MI) theory, which was developed

by Gardner.

multiple intelligences (MI). Howard Gardner set forth the theory of MI as a response

to the prevailing understanding of intelligence as something unitary, fixed and that can be

measured by IQ tests. Gardener defines intelligence as “… the ability to solve problems of

fashion products that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting or community” (cited

in Kagan 1998). According to Gardner, “humans possess many ways of knowing and

expressing their world” (cited in Weber 2005).These ways are described as the eight multiple

intelligences, now they become twelve. Kagan (1998), pairs the eight intelligences to make it

easy to remember them:

1. Traditional intelligences (Verbal/linguistic & Logical /Mathematical),

2. Art and Music Intelligences (Visual/Spatial & Musical/Rhythmic),

3. Outdoor Intelligences (Bodily/Kinaesthetic & Naturalist), and


24

4. Personal intelligences (Interpersonal & Intrapersonal)

Gardner's definition of intelligence implies a number of functions. Kagan (1998) lists

eight functions: survival, skills, perceptiveness, problem solving, communication, creativity,

knowledge, and wisdom. Understanding these functions enables educators to create suitable

learning environments and experiences.

Approaches To Enhance Learners’ Ability to Think Skilfully

There is a general agreement among writers on two approaches (Maclure &Davies,

1991),

(a) The direct instruction of teaching thinking, and

(b) The specific approach with integrated courses, which means that the thinking skills are

embedded in a certain subject (cited in Hamers et al, 1999).

Fischer, Parks and Swartz (1998) classify the approaches to teaching thinking into

three categories. They divide the second approach into two types. They differentiate between

teaching thinking using the school subjects implicitly and explicitly.

infusion approaches. In infusion approaches, the development of thinking is

integrated in and through the existing curriculum. Hence, the goals of content understanding

and developing thinking are concurrently pursued. “In the context of teaching thinking, it

means that the teaching of curricular content is infused with explicit instruction in thinking,

with developing understandings of the kinds of thinking that might be required and with

being strategic and self-regulatory about one's own thinking” (McGuinness, 2005).

defining infusion. ‘Infusion’ was the term used by Swartz and Perkins (1989) in their

book entitled Teaching Thinking: Issues and Approaches (1989). They described it as

'infusing teaching for thinking into regular classroom instruction by restructuring the way

traditional curriculum materials are used'. Later, Fischer et al (1998) described infusion 'as an

approach to teaching thinking which is based on the natural infusion of information that is


25

taught in the content areas with forms of skilful thinking that we should use every day to live

productively.' It is natural that all people think, but not skilfully. Skilful thinking needs to be

learnt explicitly.

Swartz and Perkins (1989) differentiate between better thinking outcomes and

processes. In terms of outcomes, they list the following: more conclusions that are reliable,

deeper insights, sounder decisions, more finely crafted products, more creative inventions,

and keener critical assessments. In process terms, Swartz and Perkins (1989) think that better

thinking considers more possibilities, explores farther and wider, exercises keener judgment,

marshals more data, challenges assumptions, exercises precision, checks for errors, and

maintains objectivity and balance. It is necessary that education offer students the opportunity

to be involved in activities that yield such outcomes. Learners need to practise a wide variety

of thinking skills that enable them to produce sounder decisions and solve their problems in

the future.

the purpose of infusion. Which comes first: thinking or content? Swartz and Perkins

(1989) answer this question discussing two hazards and suggesting a help. The first hazard is

that educators have to teach content first and when student acquire a considerable base

knowledge, they become ready to practise thinking. The second hazard is that educators start

with thinking then they move to content. Swartz and Perkins (1989) suggested a solution to

overcome the hazards that occur when thinking and content are learned together, the thinking

illuminates the content and vice versa. Fischer et al (1998) listed three main principles which

provide a basic rationale for infusing critical and creative thinking into content instruction.

1. The more explicit the teaching, the greater impact it will have on students.

2. The more classroom instruction incorporates an atmosphere of thoughtfulness, the

more open students will be to appreciating good thinking.


26

3. The more the teaching of thinking is integrated into content instruction, the more

students will think about what they are learning.

The researcher’s experience in teaching thinking skills allows the addition of three

more reasons for infusion. The first is that the school timetable is over-crowded, and there is

no place for a separate thinking programme. Likewise, a separate programme means less cost

effectiveness, which is resisted by many administrations. The second reason is that educators

and students spend thousands of hours studying the contents of school subjects, which is

repeated every year; therefore, it is more efficient to use this time in enhancing students’

thinking skills. Finally, students understand the content better when higher-level thinking

skills are integrated since they feel more engaged in their learning process, and they have a

purpose to learn.

the ingredients of effective infusion lessons. Swartz and his colleagues wrote a

number of books that have many model lessons. These books have detailed explanation of the

different ingredients that every lesson should have. The four ingredients are:

(a) Explicit strategies for skilful thinking,

(b) Collaborative thinking activities,

(c) Metacognitive reflection, and

(d) Transfer

Swartz et al (1999) point out that these lessons blend together a cluster of well-

researched instructional practices into what educators feel is the most powerful way to

instruct students so that they achieve a deep understanding of the content they are learning

and develop habits of skilful thought that will serve them all of their lives.

Making Explicit What Goes Into Skilful Thinking. In comparing two texts, the

educator writes the important questions that students must identify when thinking about how

the two texts are similar or different. These questions create an explicit verbal strategy for


27

comparing and contrasting. They will guide the students' thinking explicitly as they engage in

the compare and contrast learning process. This 'guide' is called a thinking map of comparing

and contrasting. 'The map defines a cluster of ideas about what is important to focus on—

what questions are important to answer—in skilfully engaging in [comparing and

contrasting]' (Swartz et al, 1999).

Compare and Contrast Questions

1. How are they similar/alike?

2. How are they different?

3. What similarities and differences seem significant?

4. What categories or patterns do you see in the significant similarities and differences?

5. What interpretation or conclusion is suggested by the significant similarities and

differences?

It happens many times that people chose the wrong thing because their thinking was

not skilful. The thinking map helps them avoid such problems because the questions make

them think skilfully about many different aspects that they do not think about without using a

thinking map. There is a thinking map for each thinking skill. However, how does infusion

see the range of thinking skills, which can be taught?

Fischer et al (1994) included a chart of the thinking skills and processes featured in

the infusion approach. The chart demonstrates that the infusion approach distinguishes

between thinking skills, which are based on clarification and understanding (deep

understanding and accurate recall), critical thinking (critical judgment) and creative thinking

(original product), and the two thinking processes, which are problem solving and decision-

making. In this approach, educators restructure the content of both lessons to teach a specific

thinking skill based on the thinking map of that skill. All the activities in the lessons are

determined by thinking maps. It is important for both the teacher and the student to be aware


28

of the role of the thinking map because they have the basic strategies for teaching these kinds

of thinking.

collaborative thinking. Marzano et al. (1989) believed that attitude and learning

environment play an extremely significant role in the acquisition of thinking skills taught in

the classroom. Covington (1985) noted that students must believe in their ability to

accomplish a task in order to accomplish it well; otherwise, it becomes a threat to their

competence. To Maslow (1968), having a sense of acceptance by the teacher and peers,

safety and comfort as perceived by the student, and the learner’s attitude toward the task at

hand are essential to the environment in which learners are intended to enhance and extend

their learning skills.

Two Heads Are Better Than One. Students become confident that they can generate

creative ideas and better solutions if they practise collaborative reflection. Johnson and

Johnson (1984) ‘found that when students work cooperatively in groups, increased reasoning

strategies and greater critical thinking competencies result than in competitive or

individualistic settings’ (cited in Costa & Lowery 1989). Cooperative learning and critical

reflection are natural allies. This message is stressed by (Swartz, Kiser and Reagan 1999)

who think that “Collaborative thinking activities are also practised in these lessons to give

students an important message: teamwork in thinking through issues is not only acceptable; it

is to be preferred over more individualized thinking tasks.”

Swartz and his colleagues employ many structures to engage content learning besides

giving students the chance to practice the thinking strategies they are learning. (Kagan 1994)

developed the structures to be effective in making all students get involved in the process of

learning and practising the various thinking skills. Using these structures enables students

acquire and develop thinking skills while mastering traditional subject area content. He talked

about more than 200 structures of cooperative learning in his book ‘Cooperative Learning’. In


29

chapter eleven, he talks about the structures that can be used in teaching thinking and

identifies six types of thinking skills structures: generative, reflective, relational thinking,

analytical thinking, concept attainment, application categorizing, question generation and

response.

metacognition. ‘The main thinking-skill goal of infusion lessons is to help students

internalize thinking strategies that make their thinking more skilful’ (Swartz, Kiser and

Reagan 1999). Metacognition or thinking about thinking forms an instrumental part in

infusion lessons. Swartz and Perkins (1989) use the term 'metacognition' to refer to 'one's

knowledge about, awareness of, and control over one's own mind and thinking. It is used in

infusion lessons as a mechanism for helping learners take control of their thinking by learning

to monitor and guide themselves. Students are trained to reflect on their thinking by

answering a number of questions like: What do we call this kind of thinking? What questions

did you answer? Where did you write the answers? Why? What is the difference between this

way of thinking and the way you applied in the past? Would you use this method in the

future? Why? Etc...

Costa and Lowery (1989) highlight the value of metacognition. They assert that if

teachers wish to develop effective thinking and intelligent behaviours in students, their

instructional strategies should be purposefully designed to develop students’ metacognitive

abilities. They suggest a number of strategies for enhancing metacognition. These include:

strategy planning, question generating, conscious choosing, taking credit, outlawing “I

cannot”, paraphrasing or reflecting back students’ ideas, labelling students’ cognitive

behaviours, clarifying students’ terminology, role playing and simulations, journal keeping,

discussing and evaluating thinking abilities admired in others and modelling. It takes time

and effort from both educators and learners to internalize the mechanism and strategies of

metacognition. This is what students need to have in order to be able to apply their thinking


30

into other contexts by themselves. This leads the talk about the fourth ingredient of effective

infusion lessons, transfer.

transfer. After students think about their thinking, they need to apply the learnt

thinking skills to similar and different situations. Later, students apply the same thinking skill

in other subjects. Finally, students are asked to transfer these skills into other authentic

situations. This 'far transfer' teaches the thinking skills in an authentic context similar to how

thinking is used in real life. In this way, education can avoid the transfer gap. This transfer

gap is created because students are not engaged in the full range of real life's situations. The

structure of the infusion lessons provides a broad range of authentic situations to promote

thinking and authentic transfer.

In his two parts of ‘Teaching Critical Thinking’, Sternberg (1985) believed that

training students to solve specifically stated problems does not transfer learning, for informal

knowledge forms the basis for solving problems that require critical thinking. Programs

designed to teach thinking skills that reflect problems similar to real life situations are the

means whereby Sternberg believes thinking and problem solving should be taught, for the

student’s ability to transfer these skills to daily life is a crucial component in becoming a

competent problem solver.

Edward de Bono (1983b) contended that only when thinking skills relate to

circumstances individual face on daily basis, they could be directly learnt and be

transferrable.

Factors in Teaching Critical and Creative Thinking

Blooms (1956) and Anderson’s et al (2001) taxonomies of the cognitive domain are

often referred to by educators to promote the higher levels of thinking including to analyse,

evaluate, and create. While most educators agree that achieving higher order thinking skills is

an intended objective in education, many students lack the prerequisites for such attainment.


31

Some question whether creativity can be taught at all. Couger (1995) contended that

creative thinking can be taught and offers many examples in his book, Creative Problem

Solving and Opportunity Finding. Couger gives the example of famous poets and musicians

that are perceived as being creative but in reality used a system to produce some of their best

works.

Emotions also play a role in the thinking process. Psychologists Tucker-Ladd (2003),

believes that emotions can be triggered at will and can have a profound effect on one’s

thinking. Tucker-Ladd also states that thoughts can also change emotions and that people can

control emotions and thoughts by changing the state of one’s mind and attention directing it

towards something to think of. This may give some credence to de Bono’s claims that

altering chemicals in the brain can affect the thinking process.

Barell (1995), a former director of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development Network on Teaching Thinking, carries workshops across the country about

teaching thoughtfulness. Methods have been developed to trigger ideas and organize

information for processing. According to him, graphic organizers, KWLH charts, goal

setting, listening, quality responding, brainstorming, problem-based learning, narratives,

analogy/metaphor use, reflection, and alternate assessment assignments are all strategies to

help students reach thoughtfulness according to Barell.

De Bono (1985) believed that thinking must be viewed as a combination of

interacting with information, native intelligence, and thinking. According to de Bono the

thinking portion of this interaction can be taught and that one can become a better thinker.

Some research suggest that teaching creative and critical thinking skills aided by technology

can lead to higher levels of thinking (Van Gelder, 2001).

critical thinking. Critical thinking is another way of defining creative problem

solving. To be creative, one has to be exposed to all alternatives. Critical thinking and


32

flexibility is an inevitable unavoidable component of creativity. “…the ability to switch

between conventional and unconventional modes of thinking is important to creativity”

(Sternberg R. J., 2006). There is a historical precedent for intertwining the concepts of

creativity and critical problem solving. Dewey’s model, since 1910, comprised stages of

perceiving a difficulty, locating or defining a problem, suggesting possible solutions,

elaborating implications of these solutions, and testing the validity of the solutions, is often

cited as an early model of the creative process even though it was meant to describe problem

solving in general. (Lubart, 2000-2001)

Many times courses that focus on creativity are not taken seriously at the college level

(Fasko, 2000-2001). Vidal (2009) recommends the following considerations for effective

teaching of creativity, with an embedded focus on problem solving:

• Introduce modern interdisciplinary concepts about creativity,

• Adopt creative tools and approaches that can be included in the problem solvers toolbox to

complement the traditional hard and soft rational approaches, and

• Show how creativity methods can be used in the practice of problem solvers.

Individuals make use of their critical and creative thinking skills to help them solve

problems in the classroom and everyday life. Many researchers agree on the importance of

teaching critical thinking skills as an essential component for developing creativity (Fasko,

2000-2001; Guilford, 1950; Vidal, 2009).

creative thinking. One accepted approach to creative thinking is labelled divergent

thinking, “The process of generating many alternative ideas” (Lubart, 2000-2001). The

divergent thinking process emphasizes that there is not one correct solution to a problem.

Another more encompassing term is referred to as lateral thinking. For this study, the

elements of lateral thinking stress on flexibility and fluency of thinking with De Bono’s focus

on a change of perception by the participants.


33

Wallas (1926), in his book “The Art of Thought”, formulated a four-step Creative Problem

Solving (CPS) process:

a. preparation,

b. incubation,

c. illumination, and

d. verification

One of the difficulties in discussing creativity is determining an agreed upon

definition of the term creativity. Hermann (1996) explains that, among other things, creativity

is the ability to challenge assumptions, recognize patterns, see in new ways, make

connections, take risks, and seize upon chance. Another viewpoint is expressed by Hokanson

(2007),

Creativity can be recognized as the ability to generate a wide number of ideas

addressing a given problem or stimulus [fluency]; it implies the ability to develop

different types of ideas for any given instance [originality]; also the ability to generate

unexpected ideas [flexibility]. These three areas are the main aspects of standardized

tests of creativity developed by Dr. Paul Torrance, and are categorized as fluency,

originality, and flexibility.

Dr. Paul E. Torrance developed the most widely used standardized test of creativity:

the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Kaufman et al, 2006). The TTCT focuses

on measuring fluency, originality, and flexibility of thinking among learners. Furthermore,

for more than half a century Guilford (1950, 1967) has been writing on the connection

between learning and creativity. He goes as far as stating that “creativity is the key to

education in its fullest sense and to the solution of man’s most serious problems” (Guilford,

1967). He finds it difficult to separate creativity from theories of learning. “A creative act is

an instance of learning…a comprehensive learning theory must take into account both insight


34

and creative activity.” (Guilford, 1950). Besides, Vidal (2009) urges teachers to integrate

creativity into the curriculum. “There is a growing demand that educators all around Society

enhance and adopt creativity in their teaching activities. Creativity is a way to cope with

complexity.”

However, creativity needs to be considered beyond the classroom. The corporate

world is beginning to recognize the importance of creativity as a “key to greater productivity”

(Cox, 2005). New marketing opportunities and the growth of emerging technologies have

increased the importance of creative solutions.

“Creativity is the generation of new ideas—either new ways of looking at existing

problems, or of seeing new opportunities, perhaps by exploiting emerging

technologies or changes in markets” (Cox, 2005).

This idea is supported by Torrance’s (1974) creativity characteristics of originality

and flexibility. He considers that creativity can also be viewed through the lens of problem

solving. Driscoll (2005) says,

“What constitutes creative thinking is certainly a matter of debate, but most agree

that it involves originality, seeing problems in new and insightful ways, or finding a

solution to what others did not recognize as a problem.”

The process of teaching critical thinking skills using De Bono’s CoRT Breadth to

solve a problem creatively is the focal point of the research study addressed in this paper.

Reading Comprehension and Thinking Skills

Research findings indicate that reading comprehension is directly related to students’

ability to reason, think about, or think differently about a printed material.

Pogrow (1990) argued that the ability to master the basic thinking skills process is the

basis that underlies all learning activities; however, students reveal disability to think

skilfully because their thought are unorganized, they cannot verbalize or visualize their ideas,


35

nor can they carry out integrated operations, or even generalize because these are not parts of

their behavioural repertoires.

Whimby (1985) regarded reasoning as the foundation of learning because it is

fundamental to reading development. After teaching reasoning skills (Feuerstein, 1980),

reading comprehension scores on tests have consistently shown enhancement.

According to Ennis (1985b), critical thinking is reflective and reasonable; he

identifies four attributes that are compulsory in convergent thinking in order to comprehend

what is being read. These are:

a. the ability to define and clarify,

b. the ability to evaluate information and infer,

c. the ability to solve problems, and

d. the ability to draw conclusions

Within the subject domain of reading, several specific tasks are related to higher order

thinking skills. These tasks include comparing and contrasting meanings, themes, plots, and

reasons; inferring causes and effects; evaluating significance, credibility, clarity and

relevance, and analysing components of the literature.

Educators who instruct in critical thinking should do more than teach strategies. Their

students should learn how to generate predicting and posing questions that serve to focus the

reader’s attention and access to prior knowledge (Redding, 1990). Learners need to stay

inspired to remain open minded and resist impulsivity.

Educators (Sternberg & Baron, 1985) realized that it was the student who has the

ability to comprehend and use information, not merely possess it; such thing makes the

difference in student’s academic achievement.

Beck (1989) added that reading programs are one of the excellent vehicles for

enhancing and extending reasonable and generative thinking. In reading comprehension,


36

there has been a long tradition of concern for critical and creative thinking skills, with

emphasis on questioning.

Thinking Programs

“In 1990, Nisbet and Davies identified over 30 programs of instruction on thinking

skills but went on to suggest that there were in fact over a hundred in the USA alone’ (cited

in Wilson 2000). .In this section, the review will examine programs specifically designed to

teach higher order thinking skills.

feuerstein instrumental enrichment program (1980). Feuerstein (1980) spent years

trying to enhance the intellectual achievement of learners labelled slow or retarded. His

efforts resulted in a program called Instrumental Enrichment. His program was based on the

perspective that slow learners suffered from the lack of mediated learning experience, which

happens when a knowledgeable person intervenes between the student and the environment.

The mediator transforms, reorders, organizes, groups, and frames the stimuli in the direction

of some particular intended goal or purpose. Research by Feuerstein and Jensen (1980)

indicated virtually that any experience could become a mediated learning experience if

someone intervenes in such a way as to make the experience meaningful.

A mediated learning experience has five major goals associated with it (Sternberg &

Bhana, 1986):

a. correction of deficient intellectual functions,

b. provision of concepts necessary for progress on the exercises of the instrumental

enrichment program,

c. development of intrinsic as well as socially reinforced motivation,

d. production of insight, and

e. achievement of change in the learner’s perception from that of being a passive

organism to that of being an active one.


37

Instrumental Enrichment consists of 15 units called instruments because each is

instrumental in helping students overcome one or more cognitive deficiencies. Most of the

instruments are free of traditional academic concepts; rather, concepts are taught merely as

prerequisites to teaching thinking skills.

Instrumental Enrichment program resulted in tremendous investment of student and

teacher time (Chance, 1986). Teacher training is mandatory, and the program is viewed as

complex and challenging.

lipman’s philosophy for children (1980). This program supports the idea of teaching

thinking as a separate subject (Huggins, 1988). Six novels serve as a core describing daily

experiences of children in which the characters apply philosophical thinking. The major goal

is for students to reason well and to enjoy thinking for themselves. This is accomplished

through classroom discussion of philosophical topics. It is intended to be used for three 40

minutes periods per week by educators extensively trained in its implementation.

Studies (Lipman, Oscanyan, and Sharp, 1980) indicated beneficiary effects of the

program since students have become more thoughtful and reflective, more considerate, and

thus, more reasonable individuals. Teacher training and dedication are essential to ensure the

program success. Lipman (1983) believed that teachers had to be committed to free inquiry,

respect the opinions of learners, and must have the ability to think spontaneously.

pogrow’s (1988) higher order thinking skills, (HOTS). This program was designed to

serve the at-risk students or low achievers who do not seem to be working up to their full

ability. Pogrow (1990) contended that students who are low functioning are not really

suffering from knowledge deficit; however, they simply do not understand the meaning of

understanding. Therefore, they do not respond to remediation. The HOTS program advocates

a 35 minute per day period for emphasizing thinking activities with small groups of students


38

utilizing a specially trained teacher. Learning must be made fun and consistent with theories

of learning during the 35 minutes of sophisticated conversation.

Pogrow (1990) believes that low achievers or at risk students need general thinking

experiences for two years before they can be expected to do well in intensive thinking

activities. General thinking experiences, according to Porgrow, are built around ideas that

students are already familiar with, and that involve basic language comprehension.

The HOTS program is a computer-assisted program where software is selected for

motivation, not for its explicit goals. The programs are usually games or adventure stories

that are used solely to present an interesting activity, not to enhance content knowledge or

technical expertise.

Intensive teaching training and dedication are necessary for HOTS instruction. The

number of students and pressures of the regular classroom do not provide an atmosphere

conducive for the intensive HOTS experience.

cognitive research trust (CoRT) – Edward De Bono. Edward De Bono is considered as

the leading authority in the direct teaching of thinking as a skill. His program, CoRT, is

considered the largest program anywhere in the world for the direct teaching of thinking as a

skill. The CoRT program has six sections, each of which consists of ten lessons. Each section

covers one aspect of De Bono's definition of thinking: breadth, organisation, interaction,

creativity, information and feeling, and action. Its overall aim is to translate thinking which,

he claims, is 'a pretty nebulous subject and needs anchoring with some focus of attention' (De

Bono, 1991) by use of structured exercises.

The popularity of this approach stems from its simplicity and practicality. The ideas

and concepts are clear to learn and teach. All people, no matter their ages, classes, or location

can be trained to practise this program. There are no requirements for mastering the various

thinking skills apart from being interested in learning thinking skills along with a strong


39

belief that these skills are learnable, teachable, authentic, and transferable. The essence of the

CoRT thinking method is to direct attention on purpose to different aspects of thinking and to

crystallize some aspects into definite concepts and tools that can be used deliberately or even

artificially. De Bono (1986) believes that the ultimate aim of the thinking lessons is very

similar to that of coaching in sports: to make the basic operations of thinking second nature

so that they are carried out automatically, smoothly, and effortlessly. This requires defining

the operations and practising them intentionally, and that is exactly what the CoRT Thinking

Lessons engage.

De Bono (1970) coined the term lateral thinking as a method to break away from

vertical thinking methods and created the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) program to

promote the teaching of thinking skills. While not all educators and researchers agree that

thinking skills can be taught, there are numerous strategies and techniques that have been

developed to promote creative and critical thinking skills in schools. In addition, de Bono

(1985a) coined the term “operacy” as the skill of doing which is a critical component in the

CoRT system. For De Bono operacy is to thinking, what numeracy is to mathematics, and

literacy is to reading. De Bono (1970) believed that traditional vertical thinking in schools

has originated from a logical yes/no system evolved from the traditional Socratic teaching of

dialect and argument. To him, lateral thinking is generative thinking that can break away

from assumptions that may be a blocking point. Lateral thinking allows one to explore

relationships in new ways that are often overlooked or not even considered by vertical

thinking methods. The strategies used to promote lateral thinking can be used by children and

adults alike. De Bono has been criticized that his programs lack the rigorous scientific proof

to justify his claims. (Polson, 1985) states specifically that the effectiveness and usability of

de Bono’s CoRT program in the educational field is arbitrary, unreliable, chaotic,

unpredictable, and unsystematic.


40

About the effectiveness of CoRT, Polson writes,

“… De Bono makes strong claims concerning the effectiveness of the CoRT program.

Yet after 10 years of widespread use, we have no adequate evidence concerning those

claims and thus no support for the effectiveness of the program or the theoretical

assumptions from which it was derived.”

This criticism was published in 1985, and still exists today despite the internationally

wide spread use of CoRT. In fact, there has been significant academic research carried out on

the effects of teaching thinking skill programs, and the findings are favourable for CoRT

program. First, research was carried out in a school in Ragusa, Italy making use of the de

Bono CoRT program to assess the effects of teaching Thinking Skills to young people

(Tidona 2001). The process was used over a whole year with 14-year old students in

secondary schools, and the effects on the experimental group and the control group were

described. Pre- and post-tests were used and the experimental group showed a significant

increase in the skills that were assessed by the assigned tests, while the achievement of the

control group did not improve.

Moreover, The Center for Learning and Teaching, based at the University of

Newcastle upon Tyne, also presented a review on the effects of thinking skill approaches and

its evidence (Higgins et al, 2004). This review concluded the presence of a positive impact on

learners’ attainment and that there was also some evidence that learners benefited from

explicit training in the use of thinking skills strategies.

Dingli (2001) compiled a literature review of some research studies of the CoRT

program concluding that De Bono’s CoRT system has been implemented in schools around

the world for millions of students and demonstrated positive gains on standardized test scores

(Edwards, 1991). Likewise, Barak and Doppelt (1999) conducted a three-year study of the

CoRT program when integrated with technology and found students had a deeper


41

understanding and provided new insights of how to use the CoRT program in a

technologically rich environment to promote deeper thinking.

CoRT thinking lessons use tools to teach thinking. For instance, in order to find 'plus',

minus' and 'interesting' points about an idea, De Bono suggests the tool 'PMI'. What happens

when the teacher asks his /her students to apply (PMI) in discussing an idea is that the

students’ attention is directed towards the plus, minus, and interesting points. In another

situation when a teacher writes on the board, sentences like this: (All schools should open

only for three days a week. Discuss.) It is possible that many students agree with the

statement through focusing only on the advantages (pluses). They will not justify the

disadvantages, and some may ignore the 'minuses' in their discussion. Nevertheless, if

teachers direct their students’ attention by using 'PMI', the situation will be completely

different. These artificial tools are not only tangible, but also transferable and renewable

Thus, Edward de Bono (1983a) believed that thinking skills could be taught directly

and should be available to all learners. He believed existing thinking skills programs that

teach critical and creative thinking are not adequately effective due to their limitations in

addressing all age groups and all learning abilities. He also thought that effective critical and

creative thinking programs should closely combine mental techniques with meaningful

content; thus, the program textbook exercises adequately resemble real-world problems.

De Bono (1985a) incorporated six major principles into his CoRT Thinking Program.

The first and most important principle dictated that the program’s implementation is simple

for both the teacher and the students. Second, a program should have diversity, so that all

students of different abilities and cultures may benefit. Third, the skills taught should be those

required in real life. Solutions to everyday problems depend on and interact with contexts in

which problems are presented. Fourth, CoRT favoured learning environment free from

depending on previous learning in a particular outcome. All students begin on the same level,


42

so that an equal opportunity exists regardless of cultural differences or socio-economic

conditions. De Bono’s fifth principle of the program is to ensure a student’s ability to transfer

thinking skills to real life situations. One way to ensure the transfer of training from thinking

skills programs to everyday lives is to teach for transfer. This is accomplished in CoRT by

having students consciously identify and practise thinking strategies until they become aware

of the thinking process and unconsciously applying the newly acquired thinking patterns to

novel authentic situations. The sixth principle for CoRT involves the individual student’s

perception of problem solving. De Bono (1985a) believes that the mind has a natural

tendency toward making and using patterns when processing the information involved with a

particular problem.

De Bono, when developing the CoRT program, deliberately avoided a logic-based

program due to his strong belief that those types of programs are too dependent on

knowledge to engage in a lateral thinking process. Sternberg (1985) supported this belief

when he reminded educators to state the importance of providing problems, which in some

way measure the learner’s ability to apply thinking skills in everyday life.

Perceptual mapping and lateral thinking were terms De Bono coined to help describe

the goals of CoRT. Perceptual maps encouraged students to explore a variety of solutions to a

problem rather than to follow a point-by-point one-dimensional examination of a solution,

vertical thinking in which one solves a problem by going from one logical step to the next. In

contrast, lateral thinking disregarded the conventional approach to a problem playing games

with data and by not taking information for granted (De Bono, 1983 b).

De Bono (1986) reported that information arrives sequentially to people throughout

their life. However, at any moment, they may be called upon to make a decision based upon

information received. Normally, individuals make such a decision based on concepts

determined by particular sequence of experience. His perspective is that individuals must


43

think laterally and form perceptual maps to escape the thinking paradigms they have

established. To attain this, they must have the willingness to look for further alternatives.

Once alternatives have been generated, they could work backward to a variety of possible

creative solutions. To make a long story short, De Bono developed CoRT to enable students

to think about their thinking; authentic experiences provide the framework for the practice

necessary to achieve the program goals.

Review on the Effectiveness of CoRT ‘Widespread Use’ (Polson et al, 1986) in

Education

The introduction of De Bono CoRT program in educational settings is sometimes

criticised as, it is claimed, not much research has been carried out on its effects. Polson et al

(1985) states,

We find the lack of adequate evaluation studies on the CoRT program to be both

surprising and disturbing. The program has been in existence for over 10 years and is

claimed to be in wide use in both British Isles and Venzuella. Furthermore, De Bono

makes strong claims concerning the effectiveness of his program. Yet after 10 years of

widespread use, we have no adequate evidence concerning those claims and thus no

support for the effectiveness of the program or the theoretical assumptions from

which it was derived.”

Although this criticism was published in 1985, it reflects statements that have

continued to be directed towards De Bono’s CoRT program in recent years, that is, after more

than 30 years of its ‘widespread use’ (Polson, 1985). Whether the statement was correct or

not when it was published in 1985 is disputable. However, it can, today, be considered as a

mistaken assumption as a great deal of serious academic research has been carried out on the

effectiveness of CoRT implementation in the educational field.


44

Dingli (2001) compiled some representative research that has been carried out, mainly

in educational contexts, in the hope of demonstrating the increased, evolving and progressive

research that has been conducted on the impact of the direct and infused instruction of

thinking using De Bono methodology.

a. teaching thinking in secondary science in philadelphia, baldauf and edwards

(1983). Baldauf and Edwards (1983) reported on the effects of a five week of exposure to

CoRT 1 on 72 fifteen year old male students as part of their grade 10 science program. Using

pre and post essays on familiar and unfamiliar topics, they report educationally significant

improvements on both essays. They further report significant correlations between

achievement on CoRT and on the end of year science exam. Student reaction to CoRT 1

program was positive ... having a positive effect on their thinking. Anecdotal data from

experienced teachers ... supported the view of an improvement in student thinking skills. This

study is, however, of limited value as it had no control group” (cited in Dingli, 2001).

b. the effects of teaching CoRT in venezuela, astorga and de sanchez (1983).

They report to the Venezuelan Ministry of Education on the impact of the Venezuelan

implementation of an adaptation of CoRT that it offered increasing gains over three years for

treatment students compared with control students on open-ended problem solving similar to

those used in real life situations (Cited in Nickerson et al. 1985).

c. ‘the direct teaching of CoRT breadth to seven graders’, unpublished ph.d.

thesis, james cook university of north queensland, australia, edwards (1991). Edwards’

research used De Bono’s CoRT 1 program to investigate whether students can be taught

thinking skills directly through a heuristics-based program that is independent of domain-

specific knowledge. The study includes investigation of seven claims identified in De Bono’s

literature about his program. The basis of Edwards work involved the teaching of CoRT 1 to

Grade 7 students in Queensland and a delayed post-test (15 weeks after the pre-test and 11


45

weeks post-treatment) in order to assess the long term effects of CoRT on students’ academic

achievements. The intervention involved 8 hours of classroom time and the positive results

indicated great potential in the use of domain-independent heuristics-based program such as

CoRT 1 for the direct teaching of thinking in education” (Cited in Dingli, 2001).

d. ‘observing a thinking skills classroom’, unpublished paper presented to the

fourth international conference on thinking, san juan, puerto rico, august 1989, clayton

and edwards (1989).

“The paper discusses the effects of teaching a group of 12-year-old students all the 60

CoRT lessons (2 lessons a week for 30 weeks). The teacher infused CoRT thinking Skills

through all disciplines of the school curriculum. Students showed improved scores on

a range of quantitative measures” [; likewise,] “the teacher showed growth on a range

of measures... The teacher noted that her teaching style had become more interactive.

She now used group work more often, and she knew her students and their thinking at

a much deeper level than ever before in thirteen years of teaching. The students

achieved outstanding and unexpected results on a set of standardised tests and

contributed many more ideas of a far higher quality than they had done before CoRT

instruction. The headmaster confirmed the teacher’s observations and noted that

students exhibited more responsiveness and more confidence in their thinking than any

group he had taught” (cited in Dingli, 2001).

e. ‘thinking and change’ on the first international conference on creative thinking

in malta, edwards (1994). Edwards (1994) attacks the educational system saying that,

“Students spend most of their time bobbing up and down in the sea of blah issuing from the

mouth of the teacher.” He claims that,

“Learning is not simply the accumulation of knowledge drawing on his extensive

experience to make the claim that change comes about because of thoughtful, lived


46

experience. Also, he states that a combination of understanding the change process

and blending De Bono processes offers one route to the type of thinking” [needed in

the 21st century] “both in education and business. CoRT trained students perform

better than others in a number of academic spheres. He would like to see increased

research on the subject of teaching thinking to convince educational authorities that

the teaching of thinking should be a major focus in the curriculum” (cited in Dingli,

2001).

f. sandra dingli (1996) on the second international conference on creative

thinking in malta.

“Perkins and Prime (1996) express a strong belief in the efficacy of De Bono’s

thinking tools as an effective strategy for change of attitude among employees. A real

life case study is described where De Bono thinking tools are combined with other

activities. They maintain that thinking tools develop and maintain mental flexibility,

and they stress the importance of learning to use tools and strategies, which help us

to escape from outdated paradigms. People need to be taught how to change

their way of thinking and not merely told to think differently” (cited in Dingli, 2001).

g. ‘teaching children to think’, dissertation, ganado (1997), university of malta,

july 1997.

“Leone Ganado describes her experience of teaching De Bono’s CoRT 1 program to

children aged 7-8 in a state primary school in Malta in an attempt to assess the

viability of the lessons. Six CoRT tools were taught to children. Ganado (1997)

comments" [that] ‘in spite of their young age children benefitted tremendously

from the program and would give comments, ideas and considerations, which

would not normally be forthcoming from children of that age.” “Leone Ganado

found that teaching CoRT 1 lent itself readily to group work which was enhanced and


47

that thinking skills acquired in the CoRT lessons as well as the interpersonal skills

which form an integral part of thinking lessons are readily transferable to other

contexts” (cited in Dingli, 2001).

h. ‘teaching thinking in a secondary school in malta’, paper presented at the

fourth international conference on creative thinking, azzopardi et al. (2000), university

of malta. This paper discusses the introduction of the de Bono thinking skills in two

state area secondary schools in Malta, Girls’ Secondary School and Boys’ Secondary School.

The schools were both situated in relatively underprivileged areas, yet they were pioneers in

the introduction of CoRT Thinking skills in Malta. The objectives of the program within the

school were:

The introduction of divergent thinking skills by means of the de Bono program

for members of staff;

The implementation of the skills within the classroom;

The infiltration of the skills across the whole curriculum;

The ability to use the skills in a variety of situations including within the school

environment and within a wider context

The paper describes the successful experience of implementing CoRT into the

school culture and reflects on the positive impact of introducing CoRT Thinking Skill

program to both staff and students. (Cited in Dingli, 2001).

i.‘teaching thinking’, paper presented at the fourth international conference on

creative thinking, sandra dingli (2000), university of malta, july 2000. Dingli describes a

number of projects with which the Edward de Bono Program for the Design and

Development of Thinking has been involved over the past couple of years. These include the

introduction of the de Bono thinking tools into a large area of secondary schools in Malta.

Her paper demonstrates the broad application of the de Bono techniques, which have been


48

used by six-year old children and by mature professionals. She demonstrates a practical

application of the de Bono thinking tools with responses elicited from mature professionals

at an international conference on creativity (cited in Dingli, 2001).


49

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

Research Design

In the field of education, most research design can be classified into one of three

research paradigms: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research (Johnson et al

2004). Since this study aimed to quantify an achievement level and a thinking behavior,

measure variables concerning that behavior, compare variables and try to find correlation

between them, it required a quantitative research design to obtain numeric insight in order to

make it possible produce percentages and other statistics. Because the study embraced 122

participants, a representative sample, it is qualified for a quantitative research design, in

which the results will be presented in charts, tables, and graphics. Through deduction, the

study formulated hypotheses based on general constructive education theories discussed

earlier. However, in turning the research questions into project, the research conducted a

mixed or triangular, both quantitative and qualitative, data collection methods.

On the one hand, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the direct

teaching of a thinking skill program, CoRT (1), on students’ test scores in, yet not limited to,

reading comprehension, the along with its impact on students’ attitudes in critical and

creative problem solving in educational and non-educational contexts. On the other hand, the

study intended to examine the impact of the infused teaching of CoRT (1) thinking skills on

university students’ ability to think critically and solve problems creatively.

The Research Independent Variable

CoRT (1) Thinking Lessons:

1. The Direct Instruction of CoRT (1) Thinking Lessons:

(PMI, CAF, Rules, FIP, ACP, C&S, OPV, AGO, Planning, and Decision Making)

2. The Infusion of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools in a composition and Research Skills Course:

(PMI, CAF, Rules, FIP, ACP, C&S, OPV, AGO, Planning, and Decision Making)


50

The Research Dependent Variables

1. Students’ Achievements

2. Students’ Learning Outcomes

3. Students’ Thinking Behavior

4. Students’ Critical Thinking and Creative Problem Solving Skills

Participants

The subjects that participated in this study were:

First, at the school level:

1. The research experimental group included a random sample of (32) seven and eight

graders of age group between 12 and 14 years old who study at a private school in Beirut. 18

students were males and 14 were females. 6 of them participated in an interview conducted

after CoRT. .

2. The research control group included a random sample of (30) seven and eight graders, 16

males and 14 females, of age group similar to that of the experimental group.

3. 12 middle school educators of teaching experience between 5 to 16 years aged between 28

and 40 years old teach seven and eight graders the subjects of English Language Arts, Arabic,

French, Geography, History, Civics, Social Studies, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry,

Biology, and Physical Education. 5 of them participated in an interview.

4. The experimental group’s parents participated in a workshop introducing CoRT Breadth of

thinking. Five parents were interviewed after the direct teaching of CoRT (1)

Second, at the University Level

5. A random sample of (43) university students of age group between18 and 26 years old who

study various majors at a private university in Beirut; the subjects were chosen to be studying

ENGL 201- a composition and research skills course. Students were majoring in engineering,

biochemistry, graphic design, business administration, journalism, math, and pharmacy.


51

Instruments

The study utilized a triangular approach of data collection and varied the research tools

between qualitative and quantitative on the basis of the dependent variable hypothesized.

That is, to measure the level of achievement in test scores during and after CoRT (1) thinking

lessons direct instruction on the school level, the researcher used the pre and post-test

method. Moreover, to figure out the nature of the skills gained and outcomes attained along

with the degree to which a thinking behavior has been established after the direct instruction

of CoRT (1) thinking lessons on the school level, the research implemented pre and post self-

assessment questionnaires designed by the researcher in accordance with the study statements

of hypotheses. Before endorsing the quantitative instruments involved in the study, the

researcher piloted the questionnaires by distributing the behavior assessment checklists to

people around who reflected on the items degree of understanding. Moreover, the measure of

Cronbach Alpha was a tool to reflect on the construct validity of the behavior self-assessment

items, (see appendix E). To validate the usefulness, adequacy, and consistency of results

obtained, the researcher, also, sought the aid of interviews with the study subjects and

classroom observations.

First, at the School Level:

1. Reading Comprehension Pre-test scores (experimental and control group)

2. Reading Comprehension Post-tests (scores of 4 Quizzes and 2 Tests; experimental and

control group)

In order to get an insight into the study objectives, the researcher designed

questionnaires for subjects to assure the relevance of the questionnaire items with the

hypotheses claimed in this study. The questionnaire items varied between dichotomous

questions and Likert scale.

3. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment (Before CoRT); Appendix D (Table 1)


52

4. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment (After CoRT); Appendix D (Table 2)

5. Educators’ Self-assessment Checklist (Before CoRT Training); Appendix D (Table 3)

6. Educators’ Questionnaire (After CoRT Training); Appendix D (Table 4)

7. Structured interviews with parents, educators, and students (After CoRT), Appendix D

(Tables 5, 6, & 7)

8. Observation Scheme Sheet (During CoRT); Appendix D (Table 8)

Second, at the University Level:

9. The Students’ Behavior Self-assessment (Before CoRT); Appendix D (Table 1)

10. The Students’ Behavior Self-assessment (After CoRT); Appendix D (Table 2)

Procedures

At the school level, the researcher presented CoRT (1) Thinking skill program to the

administration and middle school educators who welcomed its direct instruction in grades 7

and 8. Before introducing CoRT, educators filled a self-assessment questionnaire examining

and assessing their attitudes and teaching practices that help in cultivating, activating, and

interacting students’ skilful thinking in the educational experience. The questionnaire

measured whether educators motivate their students to learn to think, think to learn, think

collaboratively, think about their thinking, and think big.

For 10 weeks, CoRT 1 lessons were given in standalone units for 50 minutes a week

for 32 seven and eight graders assembled in one classroom to form the research experimental

group whereas 30 students who belonged to the same grade level formed the control group.

The control group did not receive any CoRT training.

Moreover, prior to teaching CoRT (1), learners filled a thinking behavior checklist to

examine the degree to which they apply analytical thinking skills in educational and non-

educational contexts. After the direct instruction of CoRT (1), the students in the

experimental group self-assessed their thinking behavior through filling another


53

questionnaire. Besides, reading comprehension pre-test score served as a comparison tool

measuring the degree of enhancement in students’ reading comprehension post-test scores

during and after teaching CoRT (1) thinking skills.

To assure validity of results, first, the research utilized another questionnaire to be

filled by educators after accomplishing the direct instruction of CoRT (1). The questionnaire

revealed whether educators have witnessed enhancement in students’ higher order thinking

skills and thinking behavior. Second, during the instruction of CoRT tools, the researcher and

a co-educator conducted (12) observations, (6) in each class, to reflect how frequent students

have applied the taught skills in educational contexts and to identify the tools that have been

most utilized. Finally, the study conducted structured interviews with (5) parents during

parents’ meetings, (5) teachers, and (6) 7 and 8 graders to reveal their perspectives

concerning the authenticity, transferability, and effectiveness of CoRT (1) thinking skills.

At the university level, the research premediated prior and post students’ behavior

self-assessment checklists as tools to monitor the utilization and effectiveness of CoRT (1)

thinking skills in enhancing and extending the learners’ critical thinking and creative problem

solving skills and in changing the learners’ treatment of thoughts in educational and non-

educational contexts. Explicitly, a pioneering private university in Beirut agreed to integrate

CoRT (1) thinking tools in a composition and research skills course, ENGL 201, offered to

(43) students aged between 19 and 26 prospecting that infusing linear, and associative

thinking into the course subject matter will enhance and extend the learners’ potential of

skilful thinking. The course focuses on the development of writing skills appropriate to

specific academic purposes, the analysis and practice of various methods of organization and

rhetorical patterns used in formal expository and persuasive writing, the refinement of critical

reading writing strategies and project search techniques, and the completion of an

academically acceptable library research paper.


54

Chapter 4: Data Result

At the School Level

Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT)

Students’ Reflection on CoRT (1) Thinking Tools, Q. (1-8).

Figure 1. Students’ Reflection on CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

Usability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools. Q. (9-14). Best answers that suit the respondents

(1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neutral; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree)

Figure 2. Usability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

9. CoRT thinkingtools have

enhanced myskilful critical

thinking ability.

10. CoRT thinkingtools have

extended myproblem solving

skills.

11. CoRT thinkingtools helped me

enhance myattitude.

12. After CoRT 10thinking lessons, Ican apply, explain,

summarize,connect, and

analyseinformation

better.

13. CoRT thinkingtools helped mehypothesize, find

more alternatives,and make

reasonablepredictions based

on given facts.

14. With CoRTthinking lessons, I

believe I am amore effectiveindependent

thinker.

Mean Std.dev

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

1. Are youaware ofCoRT (1)ThinkingTools?

2. Did you useCoRT (1)

thinking skillsin any real life

situation?

3. Did you useCoRT (1)

thinking skillsduring lessons

or in othersubjects/courses?

4. Do youadvocate

teaching CoRT(1) thinking

tools to otherstudents?

5. After CoRT,I can think

more flexiblyand fluently.

6. Do youthink thatCoRT (1)

thinking toolshave an

impact onyour thinking

behavior?

7. Did youexplain theuse of CoRT(1) thinking

tools to any ofyour parents,relatives, or

friends?

8. Did youexplain theuse of CoRT(1) thinking

tools to otherteacher/

instructor?

Yes/ No

Yes


55

Q. 15. CoRT (1) thinking lessons are (Multiple answers).

Figure 3. Students’ Evaluation of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

16. Which of the tools do you mostly use at school during lessons?

Figure 4a. Percentage of the Usability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools at School, during

lessons

93.75% 90.63% 90.63%84.38%

78.13%65.63%

Transferrable Useful Easy to use Authentic Practical Effective

Percentage

96.88%90.63% 87.50% 87.50% 84.38%

71.88% 68.75%59.38%

50.00% 46.88%

PMI DM CAF APC C&S Pl FIP OPV AGO R

Percentage

3027

21

29 29

Transferrable Authentic Effective Useful Easy to use

Characteristics of CoRT Thinking Tools


56

Figure 4b. Frequency of the Usability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools at School, during

lessons

17. During which lessons do you mostly use CoRT (1) thinking tools?

Figure 5. Lessons during which CoRT (1) Thinking Tools were Mostly Applicable

3129 28 28 27

23 22

19

16 15

PMI DM CAF APC C&S Pl FIP OPV AGO R

Frequency


57

18. After CoRT, my ability to observe, compare and contrast, categorize and organize

information has become.


19. In what situations do you find CoRT (1) thinking tools useful?

Figure 7. Effectiveness of CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Effectiveness of CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools

. In what situations do you find CoRT (1) thinking tools useful? Frequency

. In what situations do you find CoRT (1) thinking tools useful? Percentage


58

20. Now that you have learnt CoRT (1) thinking skills, can you handle problems in a

different way?

Figure 8. Learners’ Self-conception about their ability to handle problems after CoRT

21. Describe how different your handling is: (Only for respondents who answered

Yes on Q20).

Figure 9. Impact of CoRT Breadth of Thinking on Students’ Thinking Behavior

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Impact of CoRT Breadth of Thinking Skills on Students' Thinking Behavior

Frequency

Percentage


59

Table 3. Educators’ Self-assessment Checklist (Before CoRT)

0=never; 1=rarely; 2=sometimes; 3=often; 4= usually 5= always.

Figure 10. (Educators’ Self –Assessment for their Class Attitude, Before CoRT)

4.83

2.42

3.92

3.58

2.67

4.5

2.83

3.58

2.25

3.58

2.33

1.51.42

4.17

1.42

3.834.08

1.33

2.58

2.17

2.58

0.58

0.92

3.08

3.42

2.25

2.92

3.42

4.08

2

3.673.83

3.42

2.67

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. I

cal

l stu

den

ts b

y th

eir

nam

es.

2. I

use

dif

fere

nt

inte

ract

ive

teac

hin

g st

rate

gies

.

3. I

use

a v

arie

ty o

f vi

sual

aid

s d

uri

ng

the

teac

hin

g p

roce

ss.

4. I

man

age

my

clas

s b

y o

bje

ctiv

es.

5. I

use

dia

gno

stic

ass

essm

en

t p

rio

r to

eve

ry in

stru

ctio

nal

un

it.

6. I

do

fo

rmal

ass

essm

ents

bec

ause

th

ey s

ho

w s

tud

ents

’ …

7. I

elic

it r

eal l

ife

exa

mp

les

fro

m s

tud

en

ts t

o c

lari

fy c

on

cep

ts,…

8. I

mo

ve a

rou

nd

stu

den

ts t

o s

tren

gth

en t

he

ph

ysic

al c

on

tact

wit

h…

9. A

fte

r as

kin

g a

qu

esti

on

, I w

ait

for

a w

hile

bef

ore

cal

ling

a st

ud

ent…

10

. I e

nte

r th

e cl

ass

eit

he

r b

efo

re s

tud

ents

or

wit

h t

hem

.

11

. I h

ave

no

pro

ble

m if

stu

de

nts

ch

ange

th

eir

se

atin

g ac

cord

ing

to…

12

. I p

refe

r u

sin

g th

e g

ree

n p

en

in t

est

or

assi

gnm

ent

corr

ecti

on

.

13

. I b

elie

ve t

hat

so

me

no

isy

clas

ses

are

he

alth

y cl

asse

s.

14

. In

my

clas

s, a

ll st

ud

ents

sh

ou

ld a

bid

e b

y th

e c

lass

ru

les.

15

. I o

rgan

ize

ind

ivid

ual

me

etin

gs w

ith

stu

den

ts t

o f

ollo

w u

p t

hei

r…

16

. I e

nco

ura

ge s

tud

ents

to

ask

qu

esti

on

s, w

hic

h I

answ

er c

lear

ly…

17

. I t

reat

my

stu

den

ts im

par

tial

ly.

18

. I e

mp

ath

ize

wit

h s

tud

ents

an

d a

sk a

bo

ut

the

reas

on

of…

19

. I d

istr

ibu

te q

ue

stio

ns

amo

ng

stu

den

ts r

and

om

ly t

o e

nsu

re t

hat

…

20

. Mo

st c

lass

act

ivit

ies

are

gro

up

wo

rk.

21

. I s

har

e w

ith

stu

den

ts t

he

ir o

utd

oo

r ac

tivi

ties

an

d f

ield

tri

ps.

22

. I e

valu

ate

stu

den

ts’

ach

ieve

men

t o

r b

ehav

iou

r in

pu

blic

an

d in

…

23

. I a

llow

stu

den

ts t

o e

xpre

ss t

he

ir o

pin

ion

s ab

ou

t as

sign

men

ts,…

24

. I r

aise

sti

mu

lati

ng

and

ch

alle

ngi

ng

qu

esti

on

s.

25

. I m

oti

vate

stu

den

ts a

nd

wel

l re

spo

nd

to

th

eir

dif

fere

nt

abili

ties

…

26

. I d

em

on

stra

te a

nd

acc

ep

t a

sen

se o

f h

um

or

in m

y cl

ass.

27

. I r

elat

e su

bje

ct c

on

ten

t an

d s

kill

to r

eal

life

exa

mp

les.

28

. I f

ocu

s o

n e

nh

anci

ng

the

lear

ner

s’ c

reat

ive

pro

ble

m s

olv

ing

skill

s.

29

. I h

elp

stu

de

nts

en

han

ce t

hei

r cr

itic

al t

hin

kin

g sk

ills.

30

. I h

elp

stu

de

nts

em

po

we

r th

eir

cre

ativ

e c

apac

ity.

31

. I u

rge

stu

de

nts

to

re

spe

ct d

iver

se p

ers

pec

tive

s in

cla

ss a

nd

re

al…

32

. I h

elp

in e

xten

din

g m

y st

ud

ents

’ p

rob

lem

so

lvin

g sk

ills.

33

. My

stu

de

nts

ap

pre

ciat

e in

telle

ctu

al a

ctiv

itie

s.

34

. My

teac

hin

g st

rate

gies

hel

p in

sti

mu

lati

ng

ind

epe

nd

en

t th

inki

ng…

Educators’ Attitude in Class

0=never; 1=rarely; 2=sometimes; 3=often; 4= usually 5= always

Mean


60

Table 4. Educators’ Responses (After CoRT)

1. Were you present in the workshop introducing CoRT (1) thinking skills in

October? All educators answered, “Yes.”

2. In the workshop, the information presented was (Multiple answers).

Figure 11. Evaluation of CoRT Information Presented in the Workshop

3. I noticed my students are using CoRT (1) thinking tools in my class.

Figure 12. Students’ Using CoRT in Class from the Educators’ Perspective

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

CoRT Information Presented in the workshop was

Frequency Percentage


61

4. Could you describe the situation? (Multiple answers).

Figure 13. Students Using CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools in Situations

5. Did you implement any of CoRT (1) thinking tools with your students?

Figure 14. Educators who Implemented CoRT Thinking Tools with Students

8 8

7

6 6

5 5

3

100.00% 100.00% 87.50% 75.00% 75.00% 62.50% 62.50%37.50%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

ProblemSolving

Debating DecisionMaking

AnalyticalThinking

MakingConclusions

Planning MakingInferences

OTHER

Situations Educators' noticed students Using CoRT



62

6. Specify the thinking tools that were applicable in your subject matter. (Multiple

answers).

Figure 15. CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools Application in Various Subject Matters

7. Did students discuss with you the tools as their teacher?

Figure 16. Students’ Discussions about CoRT (1) Thinking Tools with Teachers

1110 10

98 8 8

7 7 7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Frequency

Thinking Tool Applied in diverse subject matters

DM CAF C&S APC PMI FIP PL R AGO OPV

91.67%83.33% 83.33%

75.00%66.67% 66.67% 66.67%

58.33% 58.33% 58.33%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Percentage

Thinking Tool Applied in various subject matters

DM CAF C&S APC PMI FIP PL R AGO OPV


63

8. Did you notice a change in your students thinking behavior?

Figure 17. Educators’ Noticing Change in Students’ Thinking Behavior

9. Did your students start to understand and appreciate others points of views?

Figure 18. Educators’ Perspectives about Students’ Understanding OPV


64

10. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, are they planning

their work better?

Figure 19. Educators’ Perspectives of Students’ planning their work better

11. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, are they responding

to complex situations with less impulsivity?

Figure 20. Students’ responding to Complex situations with Less Impulsivity


65

12. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they reflect on

their behavior?

Figure 21. Educators’ Perspectives about Students’ Ability to reflect on their Behavior

13. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, are they able to

underpin their statements with more arguments?

Figure 22. Students’ ability to underpin their statements with more arguments


66

14. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they look after

the consequences?

Figure 23. Students’ Looking After Consequences

15. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they generate

more alternative solutions to problems?

Figure 24. Students’ Ability to generate more alternative solutions to problems


67

16. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they select the

best solution based on their AGO and FIP.

Figure 25. Students’ Ability to connect CoRT (1) Thinking Tools, APC-AGO-FIP

17. Did you see situations outside the class where students used CoRT (1) thinking

tools?

Figure 26. Transferability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tool


68

18. Specify the non-educational context(s) where students used CoRT (1) thinking

tools (Multiple answers).

Figure 27. CoRT (1) Thinking Tools in non-educational Contexts

19. In your opinion, were CoRT (1) thinking tools effective to broaden students’

skilful thinking?

Figure 28. Educators’ Reflections on the Effectiveness of CoRT Breadth of Thinking

Tools


69

20. With CoRT(1) thinking tools, students are more productive if they work

Figure 29. Most Productive Approach in Implementing CoRT Thinking Tools

21. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking tools help students enhance their high order

cognitive skills.

Figure 30. Educators’ Reflections on CoRT (1) thinking Tools Enhancing HOTS


70

Educators’ Evaluation of CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools, Q. 21-30.

75.00%

58.33%

0.00% 0.00%25.00%

41.67%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

21. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking tools helpstudents extend their high order cognitive skills.

22. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking tools helpstudents empower their high order cognitive skills.

CoRT Extending and Empowering Higher Order Thinking Skills

Yes No Maybe

58.33%66.67%

50.00%

8.33% 8.33%16.67%

33.34%25.00%

33.33%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

23. I believe that CoRT (1)

thinking lessons are a step

towards more authentic

learning.


thinking lessons are a step

towards more effective learning.


thinking lessons are tools

towards more transferable

learning outcomes.

CoRT= Authentic, Effective, and Transferable Learning Outcomes

Yes No Maybe

58.33%

50.00%

41.67%

0.00% 0.00%

16.66%

41.67%

50.00%

41.67%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

26. CoRT (1) thinking lessons enhance students’ habits of the

mind.

27. CoRT (1) thinking lessons enhance students’ flexible thinking.

28. CoRT (1) thinking lessons enhance students’ fluent thinking.

CoRT (1) Enhances the Habits of the Mind, Flexible and Fluent

Thinking

Yes No Maybe


71

Educators’ Evaluation of CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools, Q. 21-30, continued.

Figure 31. Evaluating CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

Q31. Do you advocate the integration of CoRT thinking program in the Lebanese

curriculum?

Figure 32. Educators’ Advocate CoRT Integration in the Lebanese Curriculum

67%8%

25%

31. Do you advocate the integration of CoRT thinking program in the

Lebanese curriculum?

Yes

No

Maybe

66.67%58.33%

0.00% 0.00%

33.33%41.67%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

29. CoRT (1) thinking lessons alleviate students’ confidence in generating new ideas to solve

problems or make decisions.

30. CoRT thinking program helps in transforming thespontaneous thinking process to skilful responsive

and responsible thinking potential.

CoRT increases learners' self efficacy; transforms the spontaneous

thinking process to skilful responsive and responsible thinking potential

Yes No Maybe


72

In my opinion, the thinking method can be used to work on the attainment targets of

skills in.

Figure 33. CoRT Thinking Program Goal-Orientation

Besides, the data result of pre and post comprehension tests accompanied with the

interviewees responses to interview questions are statistically presented in (Appendix E,

Tables 5, 6, and 7) respectively.

1211

10 9 98

0

5

10

15

Frequency

CoRT is goal oriented towards

Learning to learn Learning to communicate

Learning to reflect on the future Learning to know

Learning to deliver Learning to reflect on the process of learning

100.00%91.67%

83.33% 75.00% 75.00%66.67%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Percentage

CoRT is goal oriented towards

Learning to learn Learning to communicate

Learning to reflect on the future Learning to know

Learning to deliver Learning to reflect on the process of learning


73

Table 8. Observation Scheme Sheet (Frequency of CoRT (1) thinking tools Usability)

Number of Observations= 6 for every grade level.

Figure 34. Observation Scheme of CoRT (1) Thinking tools Habit Frequency

6 6

5

4

3 3

6

8

3 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Frequency

The Implementation of CoRT Thinking Tools in Curricular Activities

PMI CAF APC C&S Rules FIP Planning DM OPV AGO


74

At the University Level


University Students’ Reflection on CoRT (1) Thinking Tools Q.1 to 8.

Figure 35. University Students’ Reflection on CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

Usability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools, Q.9 to 14. Best answers that suit the respondents:

1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neutral; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree

Figure 36. Usability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools to University Students

4.0

7

3.9

3

4.0

2

4.0

7

3.8

6

3.9

3

0.6

7

0.6

3

0.7

4

0.7

4

0.7

1

0.6

3

Mean Std.Dev

95.35%90.70%

74.42%

93.00%88.37% 88.37%

72.09%

46.51%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

DICHOTOMOUS: YES/NO

Yes


75

15. CoRT (1) thinking lessons are (Multiple answers).

Figure 37. University Students’ Evaluation of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools

16. Which of the tools do you mostly use at university during lessons? (Multiple

answers).

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

95.00%

Practical Useful Easy to use Authentic Transferrable Effective

Percentage

Percentage

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

PMI OPV CAF APC DecisionMaking

AGO FIP C&S Planning Rules

Frequency of Thinking Tools Usage

Frequency

30

32

34

36

38

40

Practical Useful Easy to use Authentic Transferrable Effective

Frequency

Frequency


76

16. Which of the tools do you mostly use at university during lessons? (Multiple

answers), continued.

Figure 38 (a, b). Usability of CoRT (1) Thinking Tools at the University Level, during

courses (Frequency & Percentage)

17. During which courses do you mostly use CoRT (1) thinking tools? (Multiple

answers).

Figure 39. Courses during which CoRT (1) Thinking Tools were Mostly Applicable

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

PMI OPV CAF APC DecisionMaking

AGO FIP C&S Planning Rules

Percentage of Tools Usage

Percentage


77


information has become.



Figure 41. Effectiveness of CoRT Breadth of Thinking Tools to University Students

38 38 3734 33 32 31 31 30

28 2788.37% 88.37%

86.05% 79.07% 76.74%74.42% 72.09% 72.09% 69.77%

65.12%62.79%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



78

20. Now that you have learnt CoRT (1) thinking skills, can you handle problems in a

different way?

Figure 42. University Learners’ Concept about their ability to handle problems after

CoRT


Yes on Q20.)

Figure 43. Frequency of Impact of CoRT Breadth of Thinking on University Students’

Thinking Behavior

05

10152025303540

Frequency of Answers on how to handle problems after CoRT

Frequency


79


Yes on Q20.), continued.

Figure 44. Percentage of the Impact of CoRT Breadth of Thinking on University

Students’ Thinking Behavior

90.24% 90.24% 87.80%80.49% 78.05% 75.61% 75.61%

70.73% 68.29% 68.29% 65.85%

After CoRT, the practice of handling problemsPercentage


80

Chapter 5: Data Analysis

A closer interpretation of data will connect the results with the research literature

review, hypotheses, and research questions. At this stage, it is invalidly measurable to

confirm how transfer of learning emerged in non-educational contexts since it was explicitly

reflected in the study only via interviews with a non-parametric sample of 5 parents, 5

educators, and 6 students at the school level. With this in mind, the researcher will interpret

the data in an equitable manner considering the limitations of the research map.

On the one side, in analysing the subjects’ responses of the Behavior Checklists

before and after CoRT direct instruction, the following hypothesis has been tested;

At the School level





In order to test the 3rd hypothesis, descriptive statistics and tables are being presented.

The figures on chapter four pages show evidence of significant, positive relation between the

subject responses and the hypothesis with a P-value=0.000.

In the process, eight items mostly relevant with the 3rd research question and 3rd

statement of hypothesis have been selected from the thinking behavior self-assessment (After

CoRT), and the means were compared their correspondent items in the thinking behavior

self-assessment (Before CoRT), and degree of variance in the mean has been clarified to

elucidate the core of the 3rd hypothesis and 3rd research question. The percentage of

achievement in the learners’ thinking behavior was also significant.


81

Students’ Thinking Behavior Self-assessment Questionnaire:

Questions Mean P-

value

% of enhancement

in the respondents’

thinking behavior Before CoRT (1) After CoRT (1) Before After

Q22 Q9 2.34 4.34 0.000 85.33%

Q24 Q9 2.84 4.34 0.000 52.75%

Q7 Q10 2.06 4.22 0.000 104.55%

Q10 Q11 2.72 4.03 0.000 48.28%

Q16 Q11 2.38 4.03 0.000 69.74%

Q29 Q12 2.31 4.31 0.000 86.49%

Q13 Q13 2.47 4.06 0.000 64.56%

Q30 Q14 2.88 4.03 0.000 40.22%

Table 9. Comparing the Means of Students’ Thinking Behavior Self-assessment (Before and

After CoRT)

After comparing the above presented means with those of relevant items in the

thinking behavior self-assessment checklist preceding CoRT (1) thinking skills training, the

researcher noticed that the means of respondents’ answers have ascended with an

approximate level of 1.35 to 2.00. This marks a shift in the students’ responses from the

negative to the positive side of the scale. Since in all questions, the P-value=0.000 <α=0.05,

the researcher concludes that after CoRT (1) direct instruction, students’ attitudes

demonstrated a thinking behavior through applying CoRT thinking tools in non-educational

contexts at a significant P-value=0.000.

To estimate the reliability of the statistical significance, the following item was

selected and statistically interpreted;

Students’ Behavior Checklist (After CoRT) Students’ Behavior Checklist (Before CoRT)

1. Q24 Q6

24. I have a good range of questioning

techniques to help me think analytically.

6. Do you think that CoRT thinking

tools have an impact on your

thinking behavior? P-value

Yes No

3.07 1.60 0.017

Table 9. Comparing the Means of School Students’ Thinking Behavior Self-assessment

(Before and After CoRT), continued.


82

Since P-value < α the transformation is statistically significant.

CoRT thinking tools have an impact on students’ thinking behavior; thus, the study 3rd

alternative hypothesis was accepted since sigma= 0.017< α, which is 0.05.

HA3: After teaching CoRT (1), students’ attitudes will demonstrate a thinking

behavior through applying CoRT thinking tools in non-educational contexts. (Accepted

Hypothesis).

It is worth noted here that the limitations of the research map discussed earlier in this

chapter reduces the term ‘attitudes’ with its semantic equivalent ‘outlooks’ or ‘view points’.

Qualitatively, the experimental group of 32 students self-assessed their thinking

behaviour prior to CoRT (1) training. The results demonstrated that students had low self-

efficacy related to their positive thinking ability since the result of the thinking behaviour

self-assessment was not good with a percentage mean score less than 50% and most means of

the responses ranged between 2 and 3, disagree and neutral respectively. On the other hand,

after CoRT, 81% of the respondents revealed that they used CoRT (1) thinking tools in

authentic situations and 78% of the learners implemented the tools in other subjects, (See

Q.17 After CoRT).

When asked to specify, all respondents revealed that they employed CoRT (1)

thinking tools in the process of decision making and 96% during problem solving, 84% of the

experimental group used CoRT during debates reflecting on their attitudes towards things.

Besides, 81% of the students believed that CoRT (1) thinking tools helped them to manage

their anger as 75% exploited the taught thinking skills during conversation with their parents.

Moreover, 31 out of 32 students learning CoRT Breadth of thinking skills believed in

having the potential to handle real life situations differently when it comes to solving

problems, 30 students believed that they postpone making quick decisions, and 90% of the

respondents had the will to consider all the factors of a certain situation before making up


83

their mind. Likewise, more than 80% of the teens started to see from different perspectives;

i.e., considered other view points and understood situations more effectively and positively,

an instrumental behavioural shift at this age according to the researcher. Besides, more than

75% believed that they could react more quietly and sensibly. In short, the students’

responses to Q.21 presented in graph demonstrated the impact of CoRT thinking skills on the

selected subjects’ thinking behavior.

Furthermore, though students were not exposed to a set of new complex situations to

measure attained competence or outcome during or after the study due to limit in the number

of the sample, time constraints, the unpredictable effect of the co-educator who cordially

participated in the study during the last stages of CoRT training and data collection, more

than 90% of them still believed that CoRT (1) thinking lessons are transferable, useful and

easy to use, and over 77% still found that CoRT (1) thinking tools are practical, yet only 65%

deemed the thinking tools effective.(See Fig.Q.15)

Also, as illustrated in (Fig. Q16), Plus Minus Interesting, Decision Making, Consider

All Factors, Alternatives Possibilities Choices, and Consequences and Sequels were situated

the thinking tools that had been mostly implemented not due to their augmented ease of

application; however, the researcher assumed that the reason behind this was the fact that

those tools were the first five explained and directly taught; hence, more time was given to

observe them implemented.

In conjunction with the 32 students’ beliefs about their updated enhanced critical

thinking potential after being engaged in CoRT (1) training, the researcher skimmed and

scanned the perspectives of the educators involved in the study and inferred that the

responses do not but accord with the students’ reflections about their learning experience

with CoRT Breadth of thinking. By checking the educators’ evaluation concerning the

learners’ thinking behavior after CoRT, it could be obviously estimated that 11 out of 12


84

educators discerned CoRT (1) thinking skills interesting (Table. Q.2), especially in the

process of decision making (Fig. Q.6). While approximately 60% witnessed a shift in the

students’ thinking behavior and seen less impulsivity, still 83% observed enhancement in the

learners’ analytical thinking abilities, high order thinking skills. Interpreting the educators’

responses regarding the degree to which CoRT (1) direct instruction at the school level has

alleviated the functions of cognitive faculties, (Q. 22 to Q.30), it is noticeable that none of

them completely rejected that CoRT (1) could extend and empower HOTS, enhance flexible

and fluent thinking as well as alleviates students’ confidence in generating new ideas in the

mental processes of Problem Solving or Decision Making and helps in transforming the

spontaneous thinking process to skilful responsive and responsible thinking potential; i.e.

strategic. When asked to reflect on CoRT effectiveness in broadening students’ skilful

thinking, 9 educators agreed believing that CoRT thinking tools could extend the learners’

higher order thinking skills. Likewise, just about 67 % of educators claimed that CoRT

thinking program should be integrated in the Lebanese curriculum since it is a step towards

more effective learning.

Additionally, having an educational vision from cognition to metacognition, the

researcher elicited responses from educators evaluating the thinking method as an

implemented approach targeted to attain metacognitive skills. The answers were in favour of

CoRT being functional in this focus with a range of about 67% to 83 % on the higher order

metacognitive thinking skills and 75% to 100% on the lower metacognitive thinking skills.

Linking the anatomy that advocates planning to reach the stars, the researcher claims that if

educators intended their learning goals tracking the stages of metacognitive development, in

inferior cases, they would be educating their students on Bloom’s and Anderson’s higher

order cognitive skills (Appendix B).


85

On the other side, in interpreting the result of the test scores, the 1st and 2nd statements

of hypotheses and research questions have been tested;









In comparing test scores, the researcher used the repeated measures ANOVA, which

is a statistical test for the comparison between more than 2 waves. For the experimental

group, the values of Greenhouse-Geisser and Huynh-Feldt, which are statistical tests for the

comparison among more than 4 waves, in the 2nd table are greater than 0.7, the study has to

implement the Huynh-Feldt correction, where F is not significant because its p-value is 0.000

less than the criterion of 0.05, α. Therefore, there are significant differences between the

means with an achievement level for the experimental group = (last mean-first mean) ÷ (first

mean) = (13.78-12.16) ÷ (12.16) = 13.32%.

Thus, there was achievement in the experimental group test scores in, yet not limited to,

comprehension after CoRT(1) direct instruction at level 13.32% contrasted with the

achievement level in test scores of the control group, 0.57%.

Therefore, the study first alternative hypothesis (HA1) was accepted at a significant

P-value = 0.000; accurately, experiment showed that, HA1, the direct instruction of the

thinking skill program CoRT (1) to students aged 12-13 will elevate the learners’ test scores

in, yet not limited to, reading comprehension.


86

Nevertheless, the research map, which was affected by both time and sample

constraints excluded the 2nd hypothesis from being tested since neither outcome nor

competence has been measured during and after the study epoch of 10 weeks. Defining that a

competence needs more than test scores to be observed since it is only measured via a set of

new complex situations; students received no such exposure during the time of the study.

Consequently, the research retrieves neither the 2nd null nor the alternative hypothesis

accepted; however, recommends further study in this core.

At the University level:

In analysing the subjects’ responses of the Behavior Checklists before and after

CoRT(1) thinking skills infused instruction in a Composition and Research Skills course, the

following hypothesis has been tested;







In order to test the 4th hypothesis, descriptive statistics and tables are being presented.

The figures on chapter four pages show evidence of significant, positive relation between the

subject responses and the hypothesis with a P-value=0.000.

In the process, eight items mostly relevant with the 4th research question and 4th

statement of hypothesis have been selected from the thinking behavior self-assessment (After

CoRT), and the means were compared with their correspondent items in the thinking

behavior self-assessment (Before CoRT), and degree of variance in the mean has been

clarified to elucidate the core of the 4th hypothesis and 4th research question. The percentage


87

of achievement in the learners’ thinking behavior was also significant at a P-value = 0.000 in

all, except for (Q7.before CoRT) compared with (Q10. After CoRT) which was significant at

a P-value= 0.004.

Table 10. Comparing the Means of University Students’ Thinking Behavior Self-assessment


After comparing the above presented means with those of relevant items in the

thinking behavior self-assessment checklist preceding CoRT (1) thinking skills training, the

researcher noticed that the means of respondents’ answers have ascended with a % of

enhancement ranging between 19% and about 50%.This marks a shift in the students’

responses from the neutral to the positive side of the scale.

Since in all questions, the P-value=0.000 <α=0.05, the researcher concludes that after

CoRT (1) integrated instruction, students did enhance their critical and creative thinking and

did extend their potential of effective problem solving.

Thus, HA4: The infusion of CoRT (1) thinking tools in a composition and research

skills course offered to students aged 18-26 will obviously enhance students’ critical and

creative thinking and extend their potential of effective problem solving.(Accepted at a

significant 0.000 <P-value<0.004)

Qualitatively, the experimental group of 43 students self-assessed their thinking

behaviour prior to CoRT (1) training. The results demonstrated that students were indifferent

Questions Mean P-

value

% of enhancement

in the respondents’

thinking behavior Before CoRT (1) After CoRT (1) Before After

Q22 Q9 3.23 4.07 0.000 25.90%

Q24 Q9 3.09 4.07 0.000 31.58%

Q7 Q10 3.30 3.93 0.004 19.01%

Q10 Q11 2.70 4.02 0.000 49.14%

Q16 Q11 3.09 4.02 0.000 30.08%

Q29 Q12 3.16 4.07 0.000 28.68%

Q13 Q13 3.02 3.86 0.000 27.69%

Q30 Q14 2.70 3.93 0.000 45.69%


88

when it comes to evaluating their thinking behavior as most answers ranked 3, neutral. On the

other hand, after CoRT, 90% of the respondents disclosed that they used CoRT (1) thinking

tools in authentic situations and 75% of the learners indicated that they implemented the tools

in other subjects, (illustrated in Fig. Q.17. after CoRT).

When asked to specify, 70 % of the respondents revealed that they employed CoRT

(1) thinking tools in the process of decision making and 88% during problem solving, 72 to

76% % of the university participants used CoRT during debates reflecting on their attitudes

towards things. Besides, 86% of the students believed that CoRT (1) thinking tools helped

them to manage their anger as 67% exploited the taught thinking skills during conversation

with their parents.

What is more, 32 out of 43 students training on CoRT thinking skills believed in

having the potential to handle real life situations differently when it comes to solving

problems, 36 to 37 students assumed that they could watch longer and more accurately and

respond more quietly and sensibly; likewise, 80% of the respondents supposed that CoRT

enhanced their ability to generate possible solutions to hard situations and 88% revealed that

they most implemented CoRT thinking tools at work. By the same token, about 75% of the

students started to see from different perspective and consider all the factors of a situation

before making up their minds; i.e., considered other view points and understood situations

more effectively and positively.

To conclude, the purpose of this study was to seek the authenticity, effectiveness, and

transferability of CoRT Breadth of thinking skills in enhancing academic achievements,

extending learning outcomes, and creating a thinking behavior at the school level, the

researcher deduced that the outcome of the study was constructive since the direct instruction

of CoRT thinking skills had significantly alleviated students’ test scores in, yet not limited to,

reading comprehension. In addition, it created a thinking behavior though learning outcomes


89

had hardly been observed, a fact that delay any possible analysis to the degree and manner of

transformation of learning. Moreover, the infusion of CoRT (1) thinking tools obviously

enhanced students’ critical and creative thinking skills and assumed to extend the learners

potential of effective problem solving at the university level. The researcher will elaborate on

this in chapter six supported by recommendations on how to make CoRT thinking skills more

transferable and the outcomes more sustainable. Note mentioned, the researcher was aware

that this research was short term and small scale, but the analysis of the data indicated that

CoRT (1) tools were conceived by students and acclaimed to be effectively implemented in

authentic situations.


90

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

This final chapter provides a conclusion of the study findings linked with the analysis

in chapter five in addition to recommendations regarding how to make CoRT thinking skills

more transferable and the outcomes more sustainable.

Discerning that one should think critically is different from being able to do so, for

that entails domain knowledge and practice, as well as a skill to construct that knowledge and

skills to generate new-fangled knowledge based on the current one. Further, the

interconnected relationship between both knowledge and skill should produce attitude

capable of empowering sustainable, authentic, and effective learning outcomes; this attitude

is simply a thinking behavior. In order to accommodate the educational experience with

perpetual metacognitive skills prerequisite even at the end of the 21st Century, the researcher

arrogated a proactive instrumental step towards the thinking based approach in general and

CoRT thinking program in particular to discover its impact on the whole educational

experience in Lebanon and conducted a study that embraced the following research questions

and hypotheses.

Research Questions

1. Will the direct instruction of the thinking skill program CoRT (1) to students aged 12-

13 enhance the learners’ test scores in, yet not limited to, reading comprehension?

2. Will the direct instruction of the thinking skill program CoRT (1) have a positive

impact on learners’ attainments?

3. After teaching CoRT (1), will students’ attitudes demonstrate a thinking behavior

through applying CoRT thinking tools in non-educational contexts?

4. Will the infusion of CoRT (1) thinking tools in a composition and research skills

course offered to students aged 18-19 enhance students’ critical thinking and extend

their creative problem solving?


91

Conscious of the difficulties in investigating the transfer of thinking skills, the researcher

designed interviews, questionnaires, and an observation sheet in order to answer the research

questions and accept either null or positive hypotheses. Likewise, the researcher collected

quantitative and qualitative data. The data gave a glimpse on the effect of CoRT (1) on

students’ achievement, thinking behavior, and critical thinking skills contained at the lower

levels of metacognitive development and higher level of cognitive growth. The result of the

data collected indicated the following answers:

1. The direct instruction of the thinking skill program CoRT (1) to students aged 12-13

will enhance the learners’ test scores in, yet not limited to, reading comprehension.

2. In the core of this study, it was not measured whether the direct instruction of the

thinking skill program CoRT (1) to students aged 12-13 has a positive impact on

learners’ attainments since competences were not observed.

3. After teaching CoRT (1), students’ attitudes will demonstrate a thinking behavior

through applying CoRT thinking tools in non-educational contexts perceiving that the

term ‘attitude’ was semantically reduced to equip the learners’ outlooks about CoRT

and its impact on their self-efficacy.

4. At the university level, the infusion of CoRT (1) thinking tools in a composition and

research skills course offered to students aged 18-19 will enhance students’ critical

thinking and extend their creative problem solving.

Statements of Hypotheses

The following statements of hypotheses were tested at a statistically significant level of

P-value < α = 0.05.




92



The 1st alternative hypothesis was statistically significant at a P-value=0.000. That is, HA1

was accepted.





Both the 2nd null and the alternative hypothesis were neither observed nor tested; thus, the 2nd

hypothesis was retrieved for further research in this focus.





The third alternative hypothesis was statistically significant at a P-value=0.000. That is, HA3

was accepted.







At the university level, HA4 was statistically significant at a 0.000 <P-value< 0.004. That is,

HA4 was accepted.


93

In conclusion, CoRT Breadth of thinking tools boosted authentic and effective

educational skills through enhancing students’ achievements in test scores, critical thinking

and creative problem solving and establishing a thinking behavior. Ahead, the researcher

recommends further research in the core of this study until transferable and sustainable

learning outcomes are attained.


94

References

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A Taxonomy of learning, teaching, and assessment: A

revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Azzopardi, A., Savona, L.B., Busuttil, E., Mifsud, J., Pace, M., Zammit, J. (2000). Teaching thinking

in a secondary school in Malta'. In Dingli Sandra (ed.) Creative thinking: an indispensable

asset for a successful Future, Selected proceedings of the fourth international conference on

Creative Thinking, Malta: Malta University Press.

Barak M., and Doppelt, Y. (1999). Integrating the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) Program for

Creative Thinking. Research in Science & Technological Education, 2(17), 139.

Barell, J. (1995). Teaching for Thoughtfulness, Classroom Strategies to Enhance Intellectual

Development. USA: Longman Publishers.

Barell, J. (1995). Critical Issues: Working towards Student Self-direction and Personal Efficacy as

Educational Goals. White Plains, New York: Longman.

Bayliss, Phil. (2003). The Inclusion of Children with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties.

University of Exeter: School of Education and Lifelong Learning and Scope Inclusion,

Saltash.

Beck, I. L. (1989). Reading and Reasoning. The Reading Teacher, 42, 676-682.

Beyer, BK. (1991). Teaching Thinking Skills: A Handbook for Secondary School Teachers, Allyn

and Bacon, Boston.

Bloom, B., S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New

York: Longman.

Bransford, J., Sherwood, R. (1986). Teaching Thinking and Problem Solving. American

Psychologist, 41, 1078-1087.

Briner, M. (1999). Constructivism. Retrieved October 6, 2004 from

http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/faculty/psparks/theorists/501const.htm.

http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/faculty/psparks/theorists/501const.htm


95

Bruner, JS. (1977). 'The Process of Education', Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Burnaford, G., Fischer J., Hobson, D. (2001). Teachers Doing Research, the Power of Action into

Inquiry. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chance, P. (1986). Thinking in the Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Claxton, G., (2007). Learning to Learn: a Key Goal in a 21st Century Curriculum, retrieved 12

October2014,< http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/11469 claxton learning to

learn.pdf.

Clayton, J. & Edwards, J. (1989). Observing a thinking skills classroom. Paper presented to the

Fourth International Conference on Thinking, San Juan, Puerto Rico, August 1989.

Coles, MJ & Robinson W. D. (1991). 'Teaching thinking: A survey of Programs in Education',

Bristol, England: Bristol Classical Press.

Costa, A.L. (1985). Developing Minds, a Resource Book for Teaching Thinking. New York: ASCD.

Costa, A & Lowery (1989). 'The practitioner’s guide to teaching thinking series: Techniques for

teaching thinking', Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press and Software.

Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000). Activating and Engaging Habits of Mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Covington, M.V. (1985). Strategic Thinking and the Fear of Failure. In S.G. Paris, G.M. Olson, &

H.W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and Motivation in the Classroom (pp. 139-164). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Couger, J.D. (1995). Creative Problem Solving and Opportunity Finding. Boyd & Fraser Publishing

Company, USA.

Cox, G. (2005). Cox review of creativity in business: Building on the UK's strengths.

De Sanchez M.A., Astorga M. (1983). Project on the Effect of CoRT in Education in Venezuela:

Venezolanos, Caracas: Ministerio de Education. Venezuela.

De Bono, E. (1970). Lateral Thinking. New York: Harper & Row.

De Bono, E. (1973). The CoRT Program, Chicago: Macmillan/ McGraw-Hill.

http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/11469%20claxton%20learning%20to%20learn.pdf

http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/11469%20claxton%20learning%20to%20learn.pdf


96

De Bono, E. (1983a). CoRT Thinking Program. London: Direct Educational Services.

De Bono, E. (1983b). The Direct Teaching of Thinking as a Skill. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 703-708.

De Bono, E. (1985a). The CoRT Thinking Program. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser

(Eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills: Relating Instruction to Research. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

De Bono, E. (1986). ‘CoRT Thinking 1: Breadth: Teacher's Notes’, 2nd ed, Macmillan, McGraw Hill,

New York.

De Bono, E. (1991). 'Teaching Thinking, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth', Middlesex, England.

De Bono, E. (1991). The CoRT Program Guide. Chicago: MacMillan/McGraw-Hill.

De Bono, E. (1992). ‘Teach Your Children How to Think’. London: Penguin Books.

Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Boston: D.C. Health & Co Publishers.

Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. Boston: D.C. Health & Co Publishers.

Dewey, J. (1997). How We Think. Mineola N.Y., Dover.

Dingli, S. (1996). On the Second International Conference on Creative Thinking in Malta.

Dingli, S. (2000), ‘Teaching Thinking’, paper presented at The Fourth International Conference on

Creative Thinking, University of Malta, July 2000.

Dingli, S. (2001). Research carried out on the work of Dr. Edward de Bono. Retrieved September 22,

2014, < http://www.edwdebono.com/cort/litreview.htm

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Pearson.

Edwards J. and Baldorf R.B. (1983). ‘Teaching thinking in Secondary Science’, In W. Maxwell (ed),

Thinking: The Expanding Frontier. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.

Edwards J. and Baldorf R.B. Jr. (1986). The Effects of CoRT 1. Thinking Skills Program on Students.

N.J. Erlbaum: Hillsdale.

Edwards J. (1991). The Direct Teaching of Thinking Skills. In G. Evans (ed.) Learning and Teaching

Cognitive Skills. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

http://www.edwdebono.com/cort/litreview.htm


97

Edwards J. (1991). Research Work on the CoRT Method. In Maclure, S. & Davies, P. (eds.) Learning

to Think: Thinking to Learn. Pergamum: Oxford.

Edwards J. (1994). Thinking and Change.' In Sandra Dingli (ed) Creative thinking: A multifaceted

Approach, Proceedings of the first International conference on creative thinking, Malta:

Malta University Press.

Ennis. R. (1985b). A Logical Basis for Measuring Critical Thinking Skills. Educational Leadership,

43, 45-48.

Fair, J., & Kachaturrof, G. (1988). Teaching Thinking: Another Try. The Social Studies, 79, 64-69.

Fair, J., & Shaftel, F. R. (1967). Effective Thinking in Social Studies. Yearbook of the National

Council for the Social Studies, Washington, DC.

Fasko, J. D. (2000-2001). Education and Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 317-327.

Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: Theoretical Basis, goals, and Instruments.

Education Forum, 401-423.

Feuerstein, R., Hoffman, M. B., and Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention

Program for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Fisher, A. (2001). Critical Thinking: an Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fisher, A. (2005). Thinking Skills and Admission to Higher Education, retrieved December 28,

2012< http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/113982 Thinking Skills

Admission to HE.pdf.

Fisher, R. (2001). 'Teaching Children to think', (2nd ed.), Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham, United

Kingdom.

Fisher, R. (2003). 'Teaching Thinking: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom', (2nd ed.),

Continuum, London, New York.

Fisher, R. (2005). Teaching Children to Think. (2nd ed.) London: Nelson Thorne LTD.

http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/113982


98

Flores, N 2001, 'Jerome Bruner's Educational Theory', retrieved 17 June 2006, <

http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Bruner.html>.

Ganado, J. (1997) Teaching children to think,' unpublished P.G.C.E. Dissertation, Malta: University

of Malta. Hillsdale N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gelder, V. T. (2001). How to Improve Critical Thinking Using Educational Technology. University

of Melbourne, Australia, Department of Philosophy. Retrieved July 20, 2014, <

http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/reason/papers/ASCILITE2001.pdf.

Gough, D. (1991). Thinking about Thinking. Alexandria: VA. National Association of Elementary

School Principals.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 444-454.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Creative Behavior , 3-

14.

Guilford, J. P. (1982). The Structure of Intellect. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Halpern, D. (2002). Thought and Knowledge- an Introduction to Critical Thinking (4th ed.) NJ,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

Hamers, JHM & Overtoom, M. Th. (1997). 'Teaching Thinking in Europe: Inventory of European

Programs', Sardes, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Hamers, JHM, Luit- Van, JEH & Csapo, B. (1999). 'Teaching and Learning Thinking Skills', Swets

& Zeitlinger Publishers, Lisse, Netherlands.

Hassan, AH. (2005). 'Theories Used in IS Research Information Processing Theory', retrieved 9

August 2006, < http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/informationprocessingtheory.htm>.

Hermann, N. (1996). The whole brain business book. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hester, JP. (1994). 'Teaching for Thinking: A Program for School Improvement Through Teaching

Critical Thinking across the Curriculum', Carolina Academic Press. Durham, N.C

http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Bruner.html

http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/reason/papers/ASCILITE2001.pdf

http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/informationprocessingtheory.htm


99

Hevern, VW. (2004). 'Key Theorists: Jerome S. Bruner. Narrative psychology: Internet and resource

guide', retrieved 20 July 2006, < http://web.lemoyne.edu/~hevern/nrtheorists/

bruner_jerome_s.html>.

Higgins, S., Baumfield, V., Lin, M., Moseley, D., Butterworth, M. Downey G., Gregson, M.,

Hokanson, B. (2007). By measure: Creativity in design. Journal of Industry in Higher

Education, 352-359.

Huggins, L. G. (1988). The Influence of Specific Thinking Skills Training on Mathematic Problem

Solving Performance. University Microfilms International No. 89-10,253.

Johnson, B. R., Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004): Mixed Methods Research: a research paradigm whose

time has come. Educational Researcher Vol 33 (7) Washington: Aera, Retrieved on 11th May,

2014 < http://www.aera.net/uploaded Files/ Journals and Publications/ Journals/ Educational

Researcher/ Vol 33 No 7/03ERv33n7 Johnson.pdf .

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (1985). Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom.

Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kagan, S. (1994). 'Cooperative Learning', 2nd ed., Resources for Teachers, Inc., USA.

Kagan, S. (2003). ‘Kagan Structures for Thinking Skills’, retrieved 12 May 2006,

< http://www.kaganonline.com/KaganClub/FreeArticles/ASK22.html.

Kagan, S (1998). ‘Multiple Intelligences: The Complete MI Book’, Kagan Cooperative Learning, San

Clemente.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2006). Intelligent testing with Torrence. Creativity Research Journal, 99-

102.

Lipman, M. (1980). Philosophy for Children. Upper, Montclair, NJ: Montclair State College.

Lipman, M. (1983). The Cultivation of Reasoning through Philosophy. Educational Leadership, 42,

51-56.

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~hevern/nrtheorists/

http://www.aera.net/uploaded%20Files/%20Journals%20and%20Publications/%20Journals/%20Educational%20Researcher/%20Vol%2033%20No%207/03ERv33n7%20Johnson.pdf

http://www.aera.net/uploaded%20Files/%20Journals%20and%20Publications/%20Journals/%20Educational%20Researcher/%20Vol%2033%20No%207/03ERv33n7%20Johnson.pdf

http://www.kaganonline.com/KaganClub/FreeArticles/ASK22.html


100

Lipman, M., Sharp, A. P., & Oscanyan, F. S. (1980). Philosophy for Children (2nd Ed.). Philadelphia,

PA: Temple University Press.

Lubart, T. I. (2000-2001). Models of the Creative Process: Past, present, and future. Creativity

Research Journal, 295-308.

Marzano et al. (1989). Integrating Instructional Programs through Dimensions of Learning. Aurora,

CO: Mid- Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

McGuinness, C. (2005). 'Teaching Thinking: Theory and Practice', retrieved 13 August 2006,

<http://www.tlrp.org/dspace/retrieve/888/McGuinness20BJEP20special.pdf.

Miller, G.A. (2003). The Cognitive Revolution: A Historical Perspective and Trends in Cognitive

Science. New York, NY; Worth.

Murphy, E. (1997). ‘Characteristics of Constructivist Learning & Teaching’, retrieved 20 July 2006,

< http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle3.html.

Nickerson R.S., Perkins D.N., Smith E.E. (1985). The Teaching Of Thinking, Hillsdale, NJ,

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nisbet, J., Davies, P. (1990). The Curriculum Redefined: Learning to Think-Thinking to Learn, 5

Pages Research paper in Education for an OECD Conference.

Orey, M. (2001). 'Information Processing', retrieved December 5, 2013, <

http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/InformationProcessing.htm.

Osborn, A. F. (1983). Applied Imagination (3rd Ed). New York: Scribners.

Piaget, J & Inhelder, B. (1969). 'The Psychology of the Child', Basic Books, New York.

Pogrow, S. (1988). A Thinking Skills Approach to Enhance the Performance of At-Risk Students:

Experience from the HOTS Program. Educational Leadership, 47, 79-85.

Pogrow, S. (1990). Challenging At Risk Students: Findings from the HOTS Program. Phi Delta

Kappan, 71, 389-397.

http://www.tlrp.org/dspace/retrieve/888/McGuinness20BJEP20special.pdf

http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle3.html

http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/InformationProcessing.htm


101

Polson (1985). Analysis Instruction in General Problem Solving: An Analysis of Four Approaches.

In J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman and Glaser R. Thinking and Learning Skills: Relating

Instructions to Research (Vol.1). NJ, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Rogoff, B & Wertcsch, JV. (1984). 'Children's Learning in the "Zone of Proximal Development’,

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Teaching Critical Thinking: Part 1: Are We Making Critical Mistakes? Phi

Delta Kappan, 67, 194-198.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Teaching Critical Thinking: Part 2: Possible Solutions. Phi Delta Kappan,

277-280.

Sternberg, R., Baron, J. (1985). A Statewide Approach to Measuring Critical Thinking Skills.

Educational Leadership, 43, 40-43.

Sternberg, R., Bhana, K. (1986). Synthesis of Research on the Effectiveness of Intellectual Skills

Programs: Snake-oil Remedies or Miracle Cures. Educational Leadership, 44, 66-67.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). 'Cognitive Psychology', (2nd ed.), Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Nature of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18 (1), 87–98.

Swartz, RJ & Perkins, DN. (1990). 'Teaching Thinking Issues and Approaches'. Midwest

Publications Pacific Grove, CA.

Swartz, R.J., & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing the teaching of critical and creative thinking into content

instruction. Pacific Grove, Ca: Critical Thinking Books & Software.

Swartz, R, Fischer, S & Parks, S. (1998). 'Infusing the Teaching of Critical Thinking and Creative

Thinking into Secondary Science: A Lesson Design Handbook', Critical Thinking Books and

Software, Pacific Grove, CA.

Swartz, R., Kiser, M. & Reagan, R. (1999). 'Infusion Lessons: ‘Teaching Critical and Creative

Thinking in Language Arts’: Book C1 Grades 5 and 6, Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking

Books and Software.


102

Swartz, R, Whipple T, Gina, B & Kiser, M. (1999). 'Teaching Critical & Creative Thinking in

Language Arts' - Grade 3 & 4, Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Books and Software.

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Bruce, and

World.

Tidona, G. (2001). Can We Improve Thinking and Creativity in School Children? Dialogo - Mensile

Regionale di Cultura, Politica e Attualita, n7, anno XXVI, October 2001, retrieved November

22, 2014 < http://www.lealidiermes.net/laboratorioscoula.htm.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Personnel Press.

Tucker-Ladd, C.E. (2003). Psychological Self-Help. Retrieved July 25, 2014 from:

http://psychcentral.com/psyhelp/chap12/chap12b.htm

Vidal, R. V. (2009). Creativity for Problem solvers. AI & Society.

Vygotsky, LS. (1978). 'Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes', Harvard

University Press. Cambridge, MA.

Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. Harcourt, Fl.

Weber, E. (2005). 'MI Strategies in the Classroom and Beyond: Using Roundtable Learning',

Pearson Educational, Inc. Boston.

Whimbey, A. (1985). The Key to Higher Order Thinking is Precise Processing. Educational

Leadership, 40, 66-70.

Williams, Frank E. (1993). "The Cognitive-Affective Interaction Model for Enriching Gifted

Programs". In J.S. Renzulli. Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and

talented. Highett, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow. pp. 461–484.

Wilson, V. (2000). Education Forum on Thinking Skills. Can Thinking Skills be taught? Glasgow,

Scottish Executive Educational Department (pp.33), retrieved January 01, 2014, <

http://www.scre.ac.uk/scot-research/thinking/thinking.pdf.

http://www.lealidiermes.net/laboratorioscoula.htm

http://psychcentral.com/psyhelp/chap12/chap12b.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_E._Williams&action=edit&redlink=1

http://www.scre.ac.uk/scot-research/thinking/thinking.pdf


103

Appendix A.

HOM: Habits of Mind

Costa and Kallick (2001)

The Habits of Mind are an identified set of 16 problem solving, life related skills,

necessary to effectively operate in society and promote strategic reasoning, insightfulness,

perseverance, creativity and quality. The understanding and application of these 16 Habits of

Mind serve to provide the individual with skills to work through real life situations that equip

that person to respond using awareness (cues), thought, and intentional strategy in order to

gain a positive outcome.

1. Persisting

a. Sticking to task at hand

b. Follow through to completion

c. Can and do remain focused.

2. Managing Impulsivity

a. Take time to consider options

b. Think before speaking or acting

c. Remain calm when stressed or challenged

d. Thoughtful and considerate of others

e. Proceed carefully.

3. Listening with Understanding and Empathy

a. Pay attention to and do not dismiss another person's thoughts, feeling and ideas

b. Seek to put myself in the other person's shoes

c. Tell others when I can relate to what they are expressing

d. Hold thoughts at a distance in order to respect another person's point of view and

feelings.


104

4. Thinking Flexibly

a. Able to change perspective

b. Consider the input of others

c. Generate alternatives

d. Weigh options.

5. Thinking about Thinking (Meta-cognition)

a. Being aware of own thoughts, feelings, intentions and actions

b. Knowing what I do and say affects others

c. Willing to consider the impact of choices on myself and others.

6. Striving for Accuracy

a. Check for errors

b. Measure at least twice

c. Nurture a desire for exactness, fidelity & craftsmanship.

7. Questioning and Posing Problems

a. Ask myself, “How do I know?”

b. Develop a questioning attitude

c. Consider what information is needed, choose strategies to get that information

d. Consider the obstacles needed to resolve.

8. Applying Past Knowledge to New Situations

a. Use what is learned

b. Consider prior knowledge and experience

c. Apply knowledge beyond the situation in which it was learned

9. Thinking and Communicating with Clarity and Precision

a. Strive to be clear when speaking and writing

b. Strive be accurate to when speaking and writing


105

c. Avoid generalizations, distortions, minimizations and deletions when speaking, and

writing.

10. Gathering Data through All Senses

a. Stop to observe what I see

b. Listen to what I hear

c. Take note of what I smell

d. Taste what I am eating

e. Feel what I am touching.

11. Creating, Imagining, Innovating

a. Think about how something might be done differently from the “norm”

b. Propose new ideas

c. Strive for originality

d. Consider novel suggestions others might make.

12. Responding with Wonderment and Awe

a. Intrigued by the world's beauty, nature's power and vastness for the universe; Have

regard for what is awe-inspiring and can touch my heart

b. Open to the little and big surprises in life

c. I see others and myself

13. Taking Responsible Risks

a. Willing to try something new and different

b. Consider doing things that are safe and sane even though new to me

c. Face fear of making mistakes or of coming up short and do not let this stop me.

14. Finding Humor

a. Willing to laugh appropriately

b. Look for the whimsical, absurd, ironic and unexpected in life


106

c. Laugh at myself when I can.

15. Thinking Interdependently

a. Willing to work with others and welcome their input and perspective

b. Abide by decisions the work group makes even if I disagree somewhat

c. Willing to learn from others in reciprocal situations

16. Remaining Open to Continuous Learning

a. Open to new experiences to learn from

b. Proud and humble enough to admit when don't know

c. Welcome new information on all subjects.


107

Appendix B.

About Thinking: Types of Thinking

The Skills of Critical & Creative Thinking

Effective Thinking Ineffective Thinking

Convergent Thinking Divergent Thinking

Critical Thinking Creative Thinking

Logical Thinking Productive Thinking

Deductive Thinking Inductive Thinking

Vertical Thinking Lateral Thinking

Analytical Thinking Holistic Thinking

Impulsive Thinking Reflective Thinking

Concrete Thinking Abstract Thinking

Practical Thinking Scientific Thinking

Verbal Thinking Mathematical Thinking

Cognitive Thinking Meta-cognitive Thinking


108

Cognitive Thinking Skills

Bloom’s Set of Verbs demonstrating Cognitive Development (1956).

Skill Sample Prompts Purpose Level

Remembering Recognize, list, describe,

identify, retrieve, name, …

Memorize and recall

facts

Lower Order

Thinking Skills

Understanding Describe, explain, estimate,

predict, …

Comprehend and

interpret meaning

Applying Implement, carry out, show,

use, solve, …

Apply knowledge to

new situations

Analyzing Compare, contrast, organize,

distinguish, deconstruct,

differentiate, etc…

Examine and break

down complex

information

Higher Order

Thinking Skills

Evaluating Check, critique, judge,

conclude, hypothesize, infer,

deduce,

Make decisions

according to a set of

criteria

Creating Design, construct, plan,

produce, develop, …

Combine elements

into a new pattern or

product


109

Characteristic Processes

Remember Recalling memorized knowledge

Recognizing correspondences between memorized knowledge and

new material

Understand Paraphrasing materials

Exemplifying concepts and

principles

Classifying items

summarizing

Extrapolating

principles

Comparing items

Apply Applying procedures to a familiar task

Using a procedure to solve an unfamiliar, yet typed task

Analyze Distinguish relevant/irrelevant or important/unimportant portions

of material

Integrating heterogeneous elements into a structure

Attributing intent in materials

Evaluate Testing for consistency, appropriateness, and effectiveness in

principles and procedures

Criticizing consistency, appropriateness, and effectiveness of

principles and procedures according to a set of criteria

Create Generating multiple hypotheses based on a given criteria

Designing a procedure to accomplish a task

Inventing a product to accomplish a task

Anderson & Krathwohl Set of Assignments Demonstrating Cognitive Development

(2001).


110

Characteristics of Critical and Creative Thinking

Critical Thinking Versus Creative Thinking

Critical Thinking Creative Thinking

Analytic

(Inductive and Deductive Reasoning)

Generative

Convergent Divergent

Vertical Lateral

Probability Possibility

Judgment Suspend judgment

Focused Diffused

Objective Subjective

The answer An answer

Left Brain Right Brain

Verbal Visual

Linear Associative

Reasoning Richness, novelty

Yes, but… Yes, and …


111

Creative Problem Solving Skills

Thinking skills include three main groups of skill.

1. Creative thinking

2. Critical thinking

3. Creative problem-solving (The combination of convergent and divergent thinking)

1. Creativity

It is coming up with new, novel or original ideas and ways of doing things. It is enhanced

through looking at things from a different perspective.

Common process verbs: imagine, invent, change, design, create....

2. Critical thinking

It is analysing and evaluating or judging information or data to find the right answer.

Common process verbs: analyse, break down, compare, categorise, list, sequence, rank....

3. Creative problem solving

It is using both analytical and creative thinking to solve problems and situations. Innovative

thinking is compulsory to solve a problem since one cannot rely on the same old thinking,

which got him/her into the problem.

Common process verbs: improve, design, refine, find, invent criteria to, combine....


112

Appendix C.

CoRT Thinking Program

CoRT 1: Breadth of Thinking

Each of the lessons in CoRT 1 is designed to encourage students to broaden their

thinking. In the thinking of both children and adults, the dominant fault is often the tendency

to take too narrow a view. An example of this would be to take up an instant judgment

position on an issue without examining all the factors involved, before you reach, or make a

decision.

The lessons in CoRT 1 define attention areas into which thinking can be directed.

Looking for plus, minus, and interesting points (PMI)

Considering all factors (CAF)

Considering alternatives, possibilities, and choices (APC)

Consequences and Sequels (C & S)

Aims, goals, and objectives (AGO)

Assessing first important priorities (FIP)

Taking other people's views into account (OPV)

Rules (R)

Decisions (DM)

Planning (P)

Making the deliberate effort during the lessons to direct students’ thinking towards

these areas, students can develop the habit of broadening their higher order thinking skills.


113

CoRT 2: Organization of Thinking

The first five lessons in CoRT 2 deal with five common thinking operations.

They begin by focusing on the subjects of deliberate attention, so that students can use them

in an organized manner: asking specific questions and looking for specific answers.

The next five lessons deal with the overall organization of thinking, so that it can be used in

a deliberate and productive manner. The intention is to treat thinking as an organized

operation rather than a discursive ramble in which one thing leads to other. Some of the

lessons in the second half refer to processes learned in CoRT 1 (BREADTH).

CoRT 3: Interaction of Thinking Skills

CoRT 3 deals with two-people situations. The thinker is no longer looking directly at

the subject matter but at the thinking of someone else. The main area is that of argument,

debate, conflict, opinion, etc. These lessons provide ways of assessing evidence and examine

different strategies used to prove a point and the two main classes of error.

There are two practical procedures for helping to solve conflicts:

"Examine Both Sides (EBS)" and in the mapping operation called

"Agreement, Disagreement, Irrelevance (ADI)."

The aim of CoRT 3 is to encourage pupils to listen to what is being said and to assess

its value. Students are also encouraged to adopt a constructive approach to resolving

arguments.

CoRT 4: Creativity, a Thinking Skill

It is often assumed that creative ideas come only from inspiration and that there is

nothing else that can be done about it. This is an erroneous thought since all have the

potential to be creative. CoRT 4 covers the basic creative techniques, procedures, and

attitudes. Creativity is treated as a normal part of thinking, involving processes that can be

learned, practiced, and applied in a deliberate manner.


114

Some of the processes are concerned with the escape from imprisoning ideas. Others are

concerned with the provocation of new ideas.

"Problem definition" is an important part of creativity as is the evaluation of "Suggested

solutions".

CoRT 5: Information and Feeling

Information and feeling underlie all thinking, which depends on information and is

strongly influenced by feeling. CoRT 5 deals with information processes, such as questions,

clues, guessing, belief, ready- made opinions and the misuses of information.

It also deals with emotions and values along with the part these play when dealing with

information. The aim of CoRT 5 is to encourage a definite awareness of how emotions and

values influence, not to change them. The students are also trained to recognize what

information they have, what they still require, and how to use information. The techniques

used in each lesson are designed to develop impartial observation.

CoRT 6: Action

In this set of ten lessons, the structure takes the form of a framework, which aims to

divide the total thinking process into definite stages. At each stage in the overall framework,

there is a definite thinking task to be carried out and a definite objective. This method

simplifies thinking by both reducing complexity and confusion. Without a framework,

everything tends to crowd in at once on the thinker, who tends to be overwhelmed by all the

aspects of the situation. This can result in the thinker taking the easiest way out and using a

slogan, cliché or prejudice instead of thinking. The stages suggested in the framework are

very simple and straightforward. At each stage, the thinker concentrates on carrying out the

task defined by that stage.


115

To make the stages of the framework memorable, each has been given an acronym, a

mnemonic device. The total framework is called TEC-PISCO or TEC-PISDO, which stands

for Target-Expand-Contract-Purpose-Input-Solutions-Choice/ Decision- Operations.


116

Appendix D.

List of Research Instruments

At the School Level

Table 1. Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (before CoRT)

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.


Thinking Status 1 2 3 4 5

1. I automatically think of the pros and cons regarding any real-life

situation. I also think of what seems interesting to me.

2. I find it easy to consider all factors when thinking through situations

and outcomes.

3. I set clear outcomes and goals for my home and school life.

4. When I think of a word, I know well that I can visualize it in my mind

clearly.

5. When I think of a word, I know well that I can visualize it in my mind,

but it fades away quickly.

6. When I think of a word, I know well that I cannot see it in my mind

ever.

7. I am able to apply a range of strategies to solve problems.

8. I find it easy to get my assignments done on time.

9. I always have an unambiguous idea of what I am doing in the coming

weeks and months.

10. When it is not what I want, I can adapt easily.

11. I find it easy to consider the short-term consequences of my decisions

and actions.

12. I find it easy to consider the long-term consequences of my decisions

and actions.

13. I can generate a great deal of alternative possible solutions when I

face a hard situation.

14. I am an organized person who successfully prioritizes what should be

done first.

15. I get easily distracted when revising.

16. I am good at adapting my communication style to match the differing

styles of those around me.

17. I often feel that my mind is cluttered and confused.

18. I am good at rising over whatever is going on around me.

19. I find it easy to remember dates and numbers.

20. I objectively evaluate new ideas whether they are self-originated or

not.

21. I organize all my revisions in a short time before the exams.

22. I find it difficult to find connections between two different pieces of

information.


117

Table 1. Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (before CoRT), continued.

23. I respect, value, and trust people around me.

24. I have a good range of questioning techniques to help me think

analytically.

25. I always consider other people’s points of view.

26. When planning an essay, I struggle to come up with as many ideas as

I would like.

27. I know about CoRT thinking tools.

28. I think flexibly and fluently.

29. My ability to observe, compare, contrast, categorize, relate, and

organize information is very good.

30. I can hardly break down complex thoughts or situations.

Thank you for adequately filling this questionnaire.


Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT).

A. Please check the answer that best suits you, (yes or no)


Questions or Situations

Yes No

1. Are you aware of CoRT (1) thinking tools?

2. Did you use CoRT (1) thinking skills in any real life situation?

3. Did you use CoRT (1) thinking skills during lessons or in other subjects/

courses?

4. Do you advocate teaching CoRT (1) thinking tools to other students?

5. After CoRT, I can think more flexibly and fluently.

6. Do you think that CoRT thinking tools have an impact on your thinking

behavior?

7. Did you explain the use of CoRT (1) thinking tools to any of your parents,

relatives, or friends?

8. Did you explain the use of CoRT (1) thinking tools to other teacher /

instructor?

B. Please check the answer that best suits you.


9. CoRT thinking tools have enhanced my skillful critical thinking ability. 1 2 3 4 5

10. CoRT thinking tools have extended my problem solving skills.

11. CoRT thinking tools helped me enhance my attitude.

12. After CoRT 10 thinking lessons, I can apply, explain, summarize,

connect, and analyze information better.

13. CoRT thinking tools helped me hypothesize, find more alternatives,

and make reasonable predictions based on given facts.


118

15. CoRT (1) thinking lessons are (You may fill in several answers.)

funny interesting easy to use

shallow hard to use effective

useful boring authentic (similar to real life)

practical difficult to understand transferrable (needed in real life)

16. Which of the tools do you mostly use at school/university during lessons?

(You may fill in several answers.)

PMI C&S

CAF OPV

APC Rules

AGO Planning

FIP Decision Making



Math Sciences

English Engineering

Arabic Finance

ICT Management

Social Studies Other(s)

--------------------------------------

18. After CoRT, my ability to observe, compare and contrast, categorize and organize information

has become

Outstanding Excellent Very good Good Fair


Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT), continued


a. At learning

b. When I have an argument

c. While making decisions

d. During team work

e. When I reflect on my attitude towards things

f. During conversations with my parents

g. During conversations with my friends

h. At work

i. When I want to manage my time

j. When I have to manage my anger

k. When I have to solve problems

Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT), continued.

14. With CoRT thinking lessons, I believe I am a more effective

independent thinker.


119


20. Now that you have learnt CoRT (1) thinking skills, can you handle problems in a different

way?

Yes Maybe

No Not certain

If your answer is (yes) or (maybe), answer question (21).

21. Describe how different your handling is


a.I watch longer.

b. I see from different perspectives.

c.I watch more accurately.

d. I consider long-term consequences.

e. I react more quietly and sensibly.

f. I postpone making quick decisions.

g. I can generate many possible solutions.

h. I have more understanding of the situation.

i. I think of all the factors before making my mind.

j. I look at things in a more positive way.

k. I believe that I have the potential to solve any problem.


Table 2. Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (After CoRT)


120

3. Educators’ Self-assessment Checklist (Before CoRT).

Table 3. Educators’ Self-assessment Class Behavior: Empowering the learners’

potentials of skilful thinking (Before CoRT)

As an educator, does my attitude (behavior) empower students’ potentials of skilful thinking?

A. Please check the answer that best matches with your behavior as an educator.

(0=never; 1=rarely; 2=sometimes; 3=often; 4= usually 5= always)

Educator’s Class Behavior 0 1 2 3 4 5

1. I call students by their names.

2. I use different interactive teaching strategies.

3. I use a variety of visual aids during the teaching process.

4. I manage my class by objectives.

5. I use diagnostic assessment prior to every instructional unit.

6. I do formal assessments because they show students’

understanding of the subject matter.

7. I elicit real life examples from students to clarify concepts,

theories, or rules.

8. I move around students to strengthen the physical contact with

them during class discussion or group work.

9. After asking a question, I wait for a while before calling a student

to answer.

10. I enter the class either before students or with them.

11. I have no problem if students change their seating according to

their preferences.

12. I prefer using the green pen in test or assignment correction.

13. I believe that some noisy classes are healthy classes.

14. In my class, all students should abide by the class rules.

15. I organize individual meetings with students to follow up their

achievement.

16. I encourage students to ask questions, which I answer clearly

and explicitly.

17. I treat my students impartially.

18. I empathize with students and ask about the reason of absences

in a positive manner.

19. I distribute questions among students randomly to ensure that they are fairly treated.

20. Most class activities are group work.

21. In my class, groups are heterogeneously divided.

22. I share with students their outdoor activities and field trips.

23. I evaluate students’ achievement or behaviour in public and in

front of their friends.

24. I allow students to express their opinions about assignments,

quizzes, and exams openly.


121

Table 3. Educators’ Self-assessment Class Behavior: Empowering the learners’ potentials

of skilful thinking (Before CoRT), continued.

25. I raise stimulating and challenging questions.

26. I motivate students and well respond to their different abilities

and preferences.

27. I demonstrate and accept a sense of humor in my class.

28. I relate subject content and skill to real life examples.

29. I focus on enhancing the learners’ creative problem solving

skills.

30. I help students enhance their critical thinking skills.

31. I help students empower their creative capacity.

32. I urge students to respect diverse perspectives in class and real

life situations.

33. I help in extending my students’ problem solving skills.

34. My students appreciate intellectual activities.

35. My teaching strategies help in stimulating independent thinking

through refined learning.


Table 3. Educators’ Self-assessment Class Behavior: Empowering the learners’ potentials

of skilful thinking (Before CoRT)


122

4. Educators’ Questionnaire (After CoRT)

Table 4. Educators’ Questionnaire (After CoRT), Evaluating the Impact of CoRT (1)

Thinking Skills on Learners

A. Please, check in the right box revealing your perspective about CoRT (1) learning

experience at school.

Questions, Situations, or Thoughts Yes No

1. Were you present in the workshop introducing CoRT (1) thinking

skills in October? If yes, please answer question (2).

2. In the workshop, the information presented was


Clear Not adequately clear

Interesting Not useful

Easy to understand Creative

Difficult Important

Valuable Boring

3. I noticed my students using CoRT (1) thinking tools in my class.

If your answer is (yes), please answer question (4).

4. Could you describe the situation?

Problem solving Decision Making

Analytical thinking Debating

Planning Making Conclusions

Making Inferences Other

5. Did you implement any of CoRT (1) thinking tools with your

students? If your answer is (yes), please specify by answering question

(6).

6. Specify the thinking tools that were applicable in your subject matter.

Continuation of Table 4.


PMI

CAF R FIP APC C&S P AGO DM OPV

7. Did students discuss with you the tools as their teacher?

8. Did you notice a change in your students thinking behavior?

9. Did your students start to understand and appreciate others points of

views?

10. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, are they

planning their work better?


responding to complex situations with less impulsivity?

12. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they

reflect on their behavior?


able to underpin their statements with more arguments?


look after the consequences?


123

Table 4. Educators’ Questionnaire (After CoRT), continued.


generate more alternative solutions to problems?


select the best solution based on their AGO and FIP.

Continuation of Table 4.

17. Did you see situations outside the class where students used CoRT

(1) thinking tools? If your answer is (yes), please specify by answering

question (18)

18. Specify the non-educational context(s) where students used CoRT (1) thinking tools.

(You may fill in several

answers.) In the playground In the bus

In a field trip Other

19. In your opinion, were CoRT (1) thinking tools effective to broaden

students’ skillful thinking?

20. With CoRT(1) thinking tools, students are more productive if they work

Cooperatively

Individually

Both

None of the above

21. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking tools help students enhance their

high order cognitive skills.

yes maybe no

22. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking tools help students extend their


23. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking tools help students empower their


24. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking lessons are a step towards more

authentic learning.


effective learning.

26. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking lessons are tools towards more

transferable learning outcomes.




30. CoRT (1) thinking lessons alleviate students’ confidence in

generating new ideas to solve problems or make decisions.

31. CoRT thinking program helps in transforming the spontaneous

thinking process to skillful responsive and responsible thinking

potential.

32. Do you advocate the integration of CoRT thinking program in the

Lebanese curriculum?


124

Table 4. Educators’ Questionnaire (After CoRT); Evaluating the Impact of CoRT (1)

Thinking Skills on Learners

Table 4. Educators’ Questionnaire (After CoRT), continued.

33. Do you advocate the integration of CoRT thinking program in

higher education?

34.In my opinion, the thinking method can be used to work on the attainment targets of

skills in:

a. learning to know

b. learning to deliver

c. learning to learn

d. learning to communicate

e. learning to reflect on the process of learning

f. learning to reflect on the future



125

5. Interviews with parents, students, and educators (After CoRT)

A. Parents’ Interview Questions:

Table 5. Parents’ Interview Questions (After CoRT)

B. Educators’ Interview Questions:

Question Yes No

1. Do you see that your students use CoRT (1) thinking tools?

If yes, can you give an example:

2. Have you witnessed changes in your students’ thinking behavior?

If so, can you describe the changes?

Table 6. Educators’ Interview Questions (After CoRT)

C. Students’ Interview Questions:

Question Yes No

1. Do you use CoRT (1) thinking tools?

If yes, how and where do you use them?

Could you give an example?

Table 7. Students’ Interview Questions (After CoRT), continued

If no, why?

2. Have you felt any changes in the way you think and behave?

If yes, provide an example.

Table 7. Students’ Interview Questions (After CoRT)

Question Yes No

1. Do you see that your child uses CoRT (1) thinking tools?


2. Have you witnessed changes in your child thinking behavior?



126

6. Observations Scheme Sheet (During CoRT)

The researcher accompanied with a co-educator conducted structured observations in

each class every 10 to 15 days starting from the 13th of October 2014 until the end of January

2015 in the intention of observing the degree of frequency CoRT tools were used by students

and reflecting on the tools that were most utilized. Thus, an observation scheme sheet was an

adequate means for that purpose.

Observation Scheme Sheet (the number of times CoRT (1) thinking tools were used)

Wee

k

Dat

e

Experimental Group

CoRT tools Frequency

CoRT Skill Being Observed

Observer

Grade 7A

Grade 8A

Which tool?

2

4

6

8

12

14

Table 8. CoRT (1) Thinking tools Usage Frequency

PMI

CAF

APC

C&S

Rules

FIP

Planning

DM

OPV

AGO


127

At the University Level

Before CoRT Skills Infusion

Student’s Age: ----------------------------------

Student’s Major: --------------------------------

I. Please, check () the right answer.

Student’s Gender: Male ------------ Female ------------

As a student at LIU and in the ENGL201 course, I agree to participate as a subject in the

research study about the effectiveness of a thinking skills program, CoRT1, on my attitude

and critical and creative problem solving skills, and thus, I will transparently answer this

questionnaire.

Yes:--------------------

No: --------------------

If no, why?

Students’ Signature: -----------------------------------------


128


Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.


Thinking Status

1 2 3 4 5



2. I find it easy to consider all factors when thinking through situations

and outcomes.


4. When I think of a word, I know well that I can visualize it in my mind

clearly.

5. When I think of a word, I know well that I can visualize it in my mind,

but it fades away quickly.

6. When I think of a word, I know well that I cannot see it in my mind

ever.

7. I am able to apply a range of strategies to solve problems.

8. I find it easy to get my assignments done on time.

9. I always have an unambiguous idea of what I am doing in the coming

weeks and months.

10. When it is not what I want, I can adapt easily.

11. I find it easy to consider the short-term consequences of my decisions

and actions.

12. I find it easy to consider the long-term consequences of my decisions

and actions.

13. I can generate a great deal of alternative possible solutions when I

face a hard situation.

14. I am an organized person who successfully prioritizes what should be

done first.

15. I get easily distracted when revising.

16. I am good at adapting my communication style to match the differing

styles of those around me.

17. I often feel that my mind is cluttered and confused.

18. I am good at rising over whatever is going on around me.

19. I find it easy to remember dates and numbers.

20. I objectively evaluate new ideas whether they are self-originated or

not.

21.I organize all my revisions in a short time before the exams.

22. I find it difficult to find connections between two different pieces of

information.


129




analytically.


26. When planning an essay, I struggle to come up with as many ideas as

I would like.








Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT).

A. Please check the answer that best suits you, (yes or no)


Questions or Situations Yes No

1. Are you aware of CoRT (1) thinking tools?


3. Did you use CoRT (1) thinking skills during lessons or in other subjects/

courses?

4. Do you advocate teaching CoRT (1) thinking tools to other students?

5. After CoRT, I can think more flexibly and fluently.

6. Do you think that CoRT thinking tools have an impact on your thinking

behavior?

7. Did you explain the use of CoRT (1) thinking tools to any of your parents,

relatives, or friends?

8. Did you explain the use of CoRT (1) thinking tools to other teacher /

instructor?

Please check the answer that best suits you.


9. CoRT thinking tools have enhanced my skillful critical thinking ability. 1 2 3 4 5



12. After CoRT 10 thinking lessons, I can apply, explain, summarize,

connect, and analyze information better.

13. CoRT thinking tools helped me hypothesize, find more alternatives,

and make reasonable predictions based on given facts.


130

15. CoRT (1) thinking lessons are (You may fill in several answers.)

funny interesting easy to use

shallow hard to use effective

useful boring authentic (similar to real life)

practical difficult to understand transferrable (needed in real life)

16. Which of the tools do you mostly use at school/university during lessons?


PMI C&S

CAF OPV

APC Rules

AGO Planning

FIP Decision Making



Math Sciences

English Engineering

Arabic Finance

ICT Management

Social Studies Other(s)

--------------------------------------

18. After CoRT, my ability to observe, compare and contrast, categorize and organize information

has become

Outstanding Excellent Very good Good Fair


Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT), continued


l. At learning

m. When I have an argument

n. While making decisions

o. During team work

p. When I reflect on my attitude towards things

q. During conversations with my parents

r. During conversations with my friends

s. At work

t. When I want to manage my time

u. When I have to manage my anger

v. When I have to solve problems





131



way?

Yes Maybe

No Not certain

If your answer is (yes) or (maybe), answer question (21).

21. Describe how different your handling is


a. I watch longer.

b. I see from different perspectives.

c.I watch more accurately.

d. I consider long-term consequences.

e. I react more quietly and sensibly.

f. I postpone making quick decisions.

g. I can generate many possible solutions.

h. I have more understanding of the situation.

i. I think of all the factors before making my mind.

j. I look at things in a more positive way.

k. I believe that I have the potential to solve any problem.


Table 2. Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (After CoRT)


132

Appendix E

Statistical Data Result

1. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are used to describe the basic features of the data in a study. They

provide simple summaries about the sample and the measures. Together with simple graphics

analysis, they form the basis of virtually every quantitative analysis of data.

Descriptive Statistics are used to present quantitative descriptions in a manageable form. In a

research study we may have lots of measures. Or we may measure a large number of people on

any measure. Descriptive statistics help us to simplify large amounts of data in a sensible way.

Each descriptive statistic reduces lots of data into a simpler summary.

Definition of some statistical indicators:

- Mean: Is the average of a set of numbers.

- Std. Deviation: Is a measure of how spread out the data is.

- CV (Coefficient of variation): Is an indicator to measure the dispersion of the values of

each variable around the mean, if this value was close to 0.00% and less than 50.00%

we consider the dispersion low and if it was greater than 50.00% and close to 100.00%

we consider it high. (CV= Std. deviation/Mean).


133

Results at the School Level:

Table 1. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (Before CoRT)/ School Level


Thinking Status

Mean Std.Dev CV



2.28 0.85 37.32%

2. I find it easy to consider all factors when thinking through

situations and outcomes. 2.09 0.86 40.89%


1.94 0.72 36.93%

4. When I think of a word, I know well that I can visualize it in my

mind clearly. 2.16 1.17 54.12%


mind, but it fades away quickly. 3.75 1.27 33.87%

6. When I think of a word, I know well that I cannot see it in my

mind ever. 2.44 1.29 53.07%

7. I am able to apply a range of strategies to solve problems. 2.06

1.01 49.16%

8. I find it easy to get my assignments done on time. 2.19

1.06 48.49%

9. I always have an unambiguous idea of what I am doing in the

coming weeks and months. 1.94 0.80 41.33%

10. When it is not what I want, I can adapt easily. 2.72

1.28 46.93%

11. I find it easy to consider the short-term consequences of my

decisions and actions. 3.81 1.23 32.25%

12. I find it easy to consider the long-term consequences of my


13. I can generate a great deal of alternative possible solutions when

I face a hard situation. 2.47 1.19 48.24%

14. I am an organized person who successfully prioritizes what

should be done first. 2.22 1.24 55.77%

15. I get easily distracted when revising. 2.09

1.03 49.07%

16. I am good at adapting my communication style to match the

differing styles of those around me. 2.38 1.26 53.21%

17. I often feel that my mind is cluttered and confused. 2.09 1.03 49.07%

18. I am good at rising over whatever is going on around me. 2.47 0.98 39.83%

19. I find it easy to remember dates and numbers. 2.28

1.25 54.81%

20. I objectively evaluate new ideas whether they are self-originated

or not. 2.78 1.29 46.33%

21. I organize all my revisions in a short time before the exams. 2.19 1.23 56.21%


134


22. I find it difficult to find connections between two different

pieces of information. 2.34 1.23 52.66%


3.13 1.16 37.02%


analytically. 2.84 1.30 45.64%


2.53 1.16 45.97%

26. When planning an essay, I struggle to come up with as many

ideas as I would like.

2.16 0.99 45.79%


1.91 0.30 15.54%


2.41 0.71 29.59%



2.31 1.06 45.87%


2.88 1.36 47.37%


Mean= Average of responses/Likert scale

Reliability of the scales (Construct Validity of the Table 1.2)

Cronbach’s Alpha is a coefficient of reliability. It is commonly used as a measure of the internal

consistency or reliability of a psychometric test score for a sample of examinees. This indicator

should be greater than 0.7 to consider the internal consistency between items as strong; if the

indicator was weak we can also use the correlation test between each item and the average of

the items for each factor, if the degree of significance (Sig or P-value) was less than the error

ratio (α = 5%) we consider the correlation valid and we don’t delete any item.

Reliability Statistics

.921 30

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_%28statistics%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_%28student_assessment%29


135

The internal consistency between items is very strong. In other words, the construct validity of

test items is very high.

Score of Students’ Behavior Self-assessment

The score of Behavior self-assessment ranges between 30 and 150 and it’s considered positive

when it approaches to 150.

Mean 72.56

Std. Deviation 17.98

Minimum 42

Maximum 120

CV 24.77%

Mean % 48.38%

Mean % = Mean / Maximum value (150)

The score is below 50% The result of Behavior self-assessment is not good.

Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT), School Level

Questions or situations (Yes or No)

Questions/ Thinking Situations

Yes No

1. Are you aware of CoRT (1) Thinking tools?

100.00% 0.00%


81.25% 18.75%

3. Did you use CoRT (1) Thinking skills during lessons or in other

subjects? 78.13% 21.87%

4. Do you advocate teaching CoRT (1) Thinking Skills tools toother

students?

Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT),

School Level, continued

93.75% 6.25%

5. After CoRT (1), I can think more flexibly and fluently.

100.00% 0.00%

6. Do you think that CoRT (1) thinking tools have an impact on your

thinking behavior? 84.38% 15.62%


136

Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT), School Level,

continued.

7. Did you explain the use of CoRT (1) thinking tools to any of your

parents, friends, or relatives? 90.63% 9.37%

8. Did you explain the use of CoRT (1) thinking tools to other teacher/

instructor? 56.25% 43.75%

Best answers that suit the respondents


Mean Std.Dev CV

9. CoRT thinking tools have enhanced my skilful critical thinking

ability.

4.34 0.79 18.13%


4.22 0.55 13.10%


4.03 0.78 19.40%

12. After CoRT 10 thinking lessons, I can apply, explain,

summarize, connect, and analyse information better. 4.31 0.47 10.92%

13. CoRT thinking tools helped me hypothesize, find more

alternatives, and make reasonable predictions based on given facts. 4.06 0.88 21.60%



4.03 0.69 17.24%

15. CoRT (1) thinking lessons are (Multiple answers)


Interesting 32 100.00%

Transferrable 30 93.75%

Useful 29 90.63%

Easy to use 29 90.63%

Authentic 27 84.38%

Practical 25 78.13%

Effective 21 65.63%

Funny 4 12.50%

Hard to use 3 9.38%

Shallow 1 3.13%

Boring 1 3.13%

Difficult to understand 1 3.13%

For the questions with multiple answers the total of percentages is greater than 100.00%.


137

16. Which of the tools do you mostly use at school/university during lessons? (Multiple

answers)


PMI 31 96.88%

Decision Making 29 90.63%

CAF 28 87.50%

APC 28 87.50%

C&S 27 84.38%

Planning 23 71.88%

FIP 22 68.75%

OPV 19 59.38%

AGO 16 50.00%

Rules 15 46.88%

17. During which lessons do you mostly use CoRT (1) thinking tools? (Multiple answers)


information has become



138


While making decisions

32 100.00%

When I have to solve problems

31 96.88%

At learning

30 93.75%

When I want to manage my time

28 87.50%

When I have an argument

27 84.38%

When I reflect on my attitude towards things

27 84.38%

When I have to manage my anger

26 81.25%

During conversations with my parents

24 75.00%

During conversations with my friends

22 68.75%

During team work

19 59.38%

At work

1 3.13%


way?


139

21. Describe how different your handling is: (Only for respondents who answered Yes on

Q20)


I believe that I have the potential to solve any

problem.

31 96.88%

I postpone making quick decisions.

30 93.75%

I think of all the factors before making my mind.

29 90.63%

I see from different perspectives.

28 87.50%

I consider long-term consequences.

28 87.50%

I can generate many possible solutions.

28 87.50%

I watch longer.

27 84.38%

I watch more accurately.

27 84.38%

I have more understanding of the situation.

27 84.38%

I look at things in a more positive way.

26 81.25%

I react more quietly and sensibly.

25 78.13%


140

Reading Comprehension Pre and Post Test Scores

- Gender


Experimental

Male 18 56.25%

Female 14 43.75%

Total 32 100.00%

Control

Male 16 53.33%

Female 14 46.67%

Total 30 100.00%

- Result of the tests

Control Experimental

Mean Std.Dev CV Mean Std.Dev CV

Pretest 12.30 2.10 17.10% 12.09 1.89 15.63%

Comprehension quiz 1 12.20 1.99 16.31% 12.16 1.61 13.23%




Comprehension monthly test 1 12.40 1.89 15.21% 13.44 1.50 11.17%

Comprehension monthly test 2 12.53 1.80 14.32% 13.81 1.69 12.26%

Inferential statistics

In this section, we are looking to study the difference between both experimental and

control groups (Pre and Post).

Also we are looking to study the effect of gender on the results.

To study the difference between pretest and posttest we used the paired sample t-test (student),

it’s a parametric test used to compare two means of the same group and to study if the difference

is significant or not.

For the comparison between the experimental and control groups we used the t-test (student),

it’s a parametric test used to compare two means of different groups and to study if the

difference is significant or not.

Also to study if gender and learning style have an effect on the subscales we used the t-test


141

For the interpretation, we compare P-value with (error ratio = 5% i.e. 0.05).

If P-value > We consider the difference insignificant and vice Versa.

- Effect of gender

Male Female P-value

Control

Pretest 11.44 13.29 0.014

Comprehension quiz 1 11.38 13.14 0.012




Comprehension monthly test

1 11.75 13.14 0.041


2 11.81 13.36 0.016

Experimental

Pretest 11.89 12.36 0.496






1 13.28 13.64 0.504


2 13.61 14.07 0.455

- Comparison between experimental and control groups

Control Experimental P-value

Pretest 12.30 12.09 0.686





Comprehension monthly test 1 12.40 13.44 0.019

Comprehension monthly test 2 12.53 13.81 0.005

- Comparison between Pretest and Comprehension monthly tests 1 & 2

In this part we used the Repeated measures ANOVA, it’s a statistical test for the comparison

between more than 2 waves.


142

This table simply provides important descriptive statistics for this analysis as shown below:

- Descriptive statistics

Mean Std.

Deviation

Control

Pretest 12.30 2.10

Comprehension monthly test 1 12.40 1.89


Experimental

Pretest 12.09 1.89



- Mauchly's Test of Sphericity

Mauchly's Test of Sphericity is a formal way of testing the assumption of sphericity.

Mauchly's W Approx.

Chi-Square Sig.

Greenhouse-

Geisser

Huynh-

Feldt

Control 0.993 0.201 0.904 0.993 1.000

Experimental 0.877 3.946 0.139 0.890 0.941

For the control group Mauchly's Test of Sphericity indicated that the assumption of

sphericity had not been violated, χ2= 0.201, Sig = .904. (The variances of differences are not

statistically different).

For the experimental group Mauchly's Test of Sphericity indicated that the assumption of




143

- Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Table.

This table tells us if there was an overall significant difference between the means at the

different time points.

Type

III Sum

of

Squares

df Mean

Square F Sig.

Control

factor1

Sphericity Assumed 0.822 2.000 0.411 1.643 0.202

Greenhouse-Geisser 0.822 1.986 0.414 1.643 0.202

Huynh-Feldt 0.822 2.000 0.411 1.643 0.202

Lower-bound 0.822 1.000 0.822 1.643 0.210

Error(factor1)

Sphericity Assumed 14.511 58.000 0.250

Greenhouse-Geisser 14.511 57.588 0.252

Huynh-Feldt 14.511 58.000 0.250

Lower-bound 14.511 29.000 0.500

Experimental

factor1



Huynh-Feldt 52.271 1.882 27.781 103.019 0.000

Lower-bound 52.271 1.000 52.271 103.019 0.000

Error(factor1)



Huynh-Feldt 15.729 58.328 0.270

Lower-bound 15.729 31.000 0.507

For the control group: Since the values of Greenhouse-Geisser and Huynh-Feldt in the

second table are greater than 0.7, we have to use Huynh-Feldt correction, F is not significant

because its p value is 0.202 greater than the criterion of 0.05.

There are no significant differences between the means

For the experimental group: Since the values of Greenhouse-Geisser and Huynh-Feldt

in the second table are greater than 0.7, we have to use Huynh-Feldt correction, F is not

significant because its p value is 0.000 less than the criterion of 0.05.

There are significant differences between the means.


144

- Comparison between Comprehension quizzes 1,2,3 and 4

This table simply provides important descriptive statistics for this analysis as shown below:

- Descriptive statistics

Mean Std.

Deviation

Control

Comprehension quiz 1 12.20 1.99




Experimental





- Mauchly's Test of Sphericity

Mauchly's Test of Sphericity is a formal way of testing the assumption of sphericity.

Mauchly's W Approx.

Chi-Square Sig.

Greenhouse-

Geisser

Huynh-

Feldt

Control 0.988 0.340 0.997 0.992 1.000

Experimental 0.860 4.488 0.482 0.907 1.000


145

For the control group Mauchly's Test of Sphericity indicated that the assumption of



For the experimental group Mauchly's Test of Sphericity indicated that the assumption of



- Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Table

This table tells us if there was an overall significant difference between the means at the

different time points.

Type

III Sum

of

Squares

df Mean

Square F Sig.

Control

factor1



Huynh-Feldt 1.958 3.000 0.653 1.939 0.129

Lower-bound 1.958 1.000 1.958 1.939 0.174

Error(factor1)



Huynh-Feldt 29.292 87.000 0.337

Lower-bound 29.292 29.000 1.010

Experimental

factor1



Huynh-Feldt 56.344 3.000 18.781 47.008 0.000

Lower-bound 56.344 1.000 56.344 47.008 0.000

Error(factor1)



Huynh-Feldt 37.156 93.000 0.400

Lower-bound 37.156 31.000 1.199

For the control group: Since the values of Greenhouse-Geisser and Huynh-Feldt in the

second table are greater than 0.7, we have to use Huynh-Feldt correction, F is not significant

because its p value is 0.129 greater than the criterion of 0.05.

There are no significant differences between the means.


146

For the experimental group: Since the values of Greenhouse-Geisser and Huynh-Feldt

in the second table are greater than 0.7, we have to use Huynh-Feldt correction, F is not

significant because its p value is 0.000 less than the criterion of 0.05.

There are significant differences between the means.


147

Educators’ Self-assessment Checklist (Before CoRT)

A. Please check the answer that best matches with your behavior as an educator.

0=never; 1=rarely; 2=sometimes; 3=often; 4= usually 5= always

Educators’ Class Attitude

Mean Std.Dev CV

1. I call students by their names.

4.83 0.39 8.05%

2. I use different interactive teaching strategies.

2.42 0.90 37.26%

3. I use a variety of visual aids during the teaching process.

3.92 1.24 31.66%

4. I manage my class by objectives.

3.58 0.90 25.13%

5. I use diagnostic assessment prior to every instructional unit.

2.67 0.89 33.29%

6. I do formal assessments because they show students’

understanding of the subject matter.

4.50 1.17 25.95%

7. I elicit real life examples from students to clarify concepts,

theories, or rules.

2.83 1.47 51.77%

8. I move around students to strengthen the physical contact with

them during class discussion or group work.

3.58 1.24 34.61%

9. After asking a question, I wait for a while before calling a

student to answer.

2.25 1.29 57.25%

10. I enter the class either before students or with them.

3.58 0.79 22.13%

11. I have no problem if students change their seating according to

their preferences.

2.33 2.10 90.15%

12. I prefer using the green pen in test or assignment correction.

1.50 1.17 77.85%

13. I believe that some noisy classes are healthy classes.

1.42 0.79 55.97%

14. In my class, all students should abide by the class rules.

4.17 0.83 20.04%

15. I organize individual meetings with students to follow up their

achievement.

1.42 0.51 36.35%

16. I encourage students to ask questions, which I answer clearly

and explicitly.

3.83 1.40 36.61%

17. I treat my students impartially.

4.08 0.79 19.42%


148

Educators’ Self-assessment Checklist (Before CoRT), continued.

18. I empathize with students and ask about the reason of absences

in a positive manner.

1.33 0.65 48.85%

19. I distribute questions among students randomly to ensure that

they are fairly treated.

2.58 1.31 50.76%

20. Most class activities are group work.

2.17 1.11 51.44%

21. I share with students their outdoor activities and field trips.

2.58 1.38 53.38%

22. I evaluate students’ achievement or behaviour in public and in

front of their friends.

0.58 0.51 88.27%

23. I allow students to express their opinions about assignments,

quizzes, and exams openly.

0.92 0.67 72.93%

24. I raise stimulating and challenging questions.

3.08 0.79 25.72%

25. I motivate students and well respond to their different abilities

and preferences.

3.42 1.31 38.38%

26. I demonstrate and accept a sense of humor in my class.

2.25 1.14 50.59%

27. I relate subject content and skill to real life examples.

2.92 1.56 53.63%

28. I focus on enhancing the learners’ creative problem solving

skills.

3.42 1.08 31.72%

29. I help students enhance their critical thinking skills.

4.08 0.79 19.42%

30. I help students empower their creative capacity.

2.00 0.74 36.93%

31. I urge students to respect diverse perspectives in class and real

life situations.

3.67 1.30 35.53%

32. I help in extending my students’ problem solving skills.

3.83 0.83 21.78%

33. My students appreciate intellectual activities.

3.42 1.31 38.38%

34. My teaching strategies help in stimulating independent

thinking through refined learning.

2.67 0.89 33.29%


149

Table 3. Results of Educators’ Responses (After CoRT)

1. Were you present in the workshop introducing CoRT (1) thinking skills in October?

All educators answered, “Yes.”

In the workshop, the information presented was (Multiple answers)


Clear 12 100.00%

Easy to understand 12 100.00%


Important 10 83.33%

Creative 9 75.00%

Valuable 7 58.33%

Not useful 1 8.33%

Difficult 0 0.00%

Not adequately clear 0 0.00%

I noticed my students using CoRT (1) thinking tools in my class.


150

Could you describe the situation? (Multiple answers)


Problem Solving 8 100.00%

Debating 8 100.00%


Analytical Thinking 6 75.00%

Making Conclusions 6 75.00%

Planning 5 62.50%

Making Inferences 5 62.50%

OTHER 3 37.50%

Did you implement any of CoRT (1) thinking tools with your students?

Specify the thinking tools that were applicable in your subject matter. (Multiple

answers)

CoRT Thinking Skills Frequency Percentage


Consider All Factors 10 83.33%

Consequences and Sequels 10 83.33%


151

CoRT Thinking Skills, continued.

Alternatives, Possibilities, Choices 9 75.00%

Plus, Minus, Interesting 8 66.67%

First Important Priorities 8 66.67%

Planning 8 66.67%

Rules 7 58.33%

Aims, Goals, Objectives 7 58.33%

Others’ Points of Views 7 58.33%

Did students discuss with you the tools as their teacher?

Did you notice a change in your students thinking behavior?


152

Did your students start to understand and appreciate others points of views?

Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, are they planning their

work better?

Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, are they responding to

complex situations with less impulsivity?


153

Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they reflect on their

behavior?

Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, are they able to underpin

their statements with more arguments?

Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they look after the

consequences?


154

Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they generate more

alternative solutions to problems?

Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they select the best

solution based on their AGO and FIP.

Did you see situations outside the class where students used CoRT (1) thinking tools?


155

Specify the non-educational context(s) where students used CoRT (1) thinking tools.

(Multiple answers)

In your opinion, were CoRT (1) thinking tools effective to broaden students’ skilful

thinking?

With CoRT(1) thinking tools, students are more productive if they work


156

I believe that CoRT (1) thinking tools help students enhance their high order cognitive

skills.

- Question 22 to Question 32

Table 4. Educators’ Responses After CoRT, continued Yes No Maybe

22. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking tools help students extend their

high order cognitive skills. 75.00% 0.00% 25.00%

23. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking tools help students empower

their high order cognitive skills. 58.33% 0.00% 41.67%


authentic learning. 58.33% 8.33% 33.34%


effective learning.

66.67% 8.33% 25.00%

26. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking lessons are tools towards more

transferable learning outcomes.

50.00% 16.67% 33.33%

27. CoRT (1) thinking lessons enhance students’ flexible and fluent

thinking. 58.33% 0.00% 41.67%


50.00% 0.00% 50.00%


41.67% 16.66% 41.67%

30. CoRT (1) thinking lessons alleviate students’ confidence in

generating new ideas to solve problems or make decisions.

66.67% 0.00% 33.33%

31. CoRT thinking program helps in transforming the spontaneous

thinking process to skillful responsive and responsible thinking

potential.

58.33% 0.00% 41.67%

32. Do you advocate the integration of CoRT thinking program in

the Lebanese curriculum?

66.67% 8.33% 25.00%


157

Table 4. Educators’ Responses after CoRT, continued.

33. In my opinion, the thinking method can be used to work on the attainment targets of skills

in:

Skills Frequency Percentage

Learning to learn 12 100.00%

Learning to communicate 11 91.67%

Learning to reflect on the future 10 83.33%

Learning to know 9 75.00%

Learning to deliver 9 75.00%

Learning to reflect on the process of learning 8 66.67%


158

Interviewee Responses (After CoRT)

5. Parents’ Responses: Sample= 5 parents

Question Yes No

1. Do you see that your child uses CoRT (1) thinking tools? 05 00


Parent 1: In many situations, when we have an argument, my 8th grade son starts to look

more at possibilities saying, “Let’s think like CoRT.”

Parent 2: Yes, my daughter is different in talking about problems that occur with her at

school especially with her best friends; she now accepts other points of views and that she

is not always right.

Parent 3: My daughter listens better in arguments now, and she thinks more of the

advantages and disadvantages, finds more alternatives, and considers the long-term

consequences.

Parent 4: My son used to be upset whenever his team loses in a football match. Now he

tells me, “Dad, we lost because ...; next time, we should ...”

Parent 5: My son now uses CoRT to find many solutions to problems and to accept other

people’s opinions especially with his elder brother.

2. Have you witnessed changes in your child thinking behavior?

05 00


Parent 1: When I help him with his homework, I notice that he is trying CoRT tools while

thinking of an answer to a hard question.

Parent 2: My daughter is more quiet and reasonable now when she is upset. Before she

used to throw her books or leave the sitting room angrily. Now, she argues and listens to

different opinions.

Parent 3: My daughter says that she should think of the consequences first before making

any decision when I ask her to decide about something.

Parent 4: My son discusses more than before the causes of any bad situation. In addition,

he used to hesitate about doing his assignments on time, but now he says, “I’d better do it

now before it’s late.”

Parent 5: He used to fight a lot with his brother or even call him names; now he accepts his

brother’s point of view about many things, and he tries to befriend him.

Table 5. Parents’ Interview Questions (After CoRT)


159

6. Educators’ Responses: Sample= 5 educators

Question

Yes No

1. Do you see that your students use CoRT (1) thinking tools?

05 00


Educator 1: In many situations, students talked about thinking. They discussed the steps to

generate solutions to problems. They mentioned PMI, APC, and OPV.

Educator 2: During group work, they use CoRT tools when they disagree about what to do,

how to do it, and who should do it.

Educator 3: In the English class, especially in reading comprehension, they use a lot of

PMI, CAF, OPV, and C&S.

Educator 4: In social studies, some students criticized some rules and decisions saying that

those who were responsible did not know about CoRT tools; otherwise, they could have

made better decisions or put better rules.

Educator 5: In the science class, they say, “Let’s CAF.”

2. Have you witnessed changes in your students’ thinking behavior?

05 00


Educator 1: The most common change is that students become less impulsive.

Educator 2: They take more time to think.

Educator 3: They listen more and analyse better, and I see that they become more

responsible.

Educator 4: They make fewer complaints about assignment loads, and there is less trouble

in class.

Educator 5: Their analysis and making connections have improved; they concentrate more

in class. I feel they are thinking.

Table 6. Educators’ Interview Questions (After CoRT)


160

7. Students’ Responses: Sample=6 students

Question

Yes No

1. Do you use CoRT (1) thinking tools?

06 00

If yes, how and where do you use them?

Student 1: I watch more quietly and carefully. I also consider more factors of a given

situation at home and school.

Student 2: I listen more and put myself in others’ place at school.

Student 3: I plan better. I no more put off my homework.

Student 4: I make fewer problems with my friends in the playground because I accept them

more.

Student 5: I enjoy studying more because I apply CoRT thinking tools on all sorts of

information.

Student 6: Sometimes, I use them when I want to buy clothes. I Think PMI, CAF, and APC

before MD.

Could you give an example?

Student 1: When I watch movies

Student 2: When I argue with my best friend

Student 3: I used to postpone English assignments to copy them the next day from my

friends, but now I accomplish them at home and enjoy that.

Student 4: Before I used to quarrel on silly things with my friends, but now I feel that I

should not fight. Instead, I think of a solution if something bothers me to keep my

friendships.

Student 5: In physics and geometry, I consider more factors.

Student 6: I used to insist on buying anything that becomes a fashion, but now, when I go

out with my sister to buy clothes, I think before I decide to buy it and I do not make quick

decisions.

If no, why?

2. Have you felt any changes in the way you think and behave?

06 00

If yes, provide an example.


161

Table 7. Students’ Interviewee Responses

Student 1: yes, I become more intelligent; I watch detective movies and predict the

criminal.

Student 2: I accept other people’s points of view even if they contradict mine. I start to

respect different opinions and not make fun of them.

Student 3: I know that there is time for everything. I organized my daily activities and have

more time to study, play, and go out with friends.

Student 4: I have a big mind now. I think wiser and behave calmer.

Student 5: I see things better from different sides.

Student 6: I feel I am intelligent and more sensible. I Think before I decide on anything

even about my diet.

Table 7. Students’ Interview Questions (After CoRT)

At the University Level:

Table 1. Results of Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (Before CoRT)

University


Thinking status Mean Std.Dev CV


situation. I also think of what seems interesting to me. 3.19 1.28 40.09%

2. I find it easy to consider all factors when thinking through

situations and outcomes. 2.84 1.17 41.37%


3.33 1.08 32.63%


mind clearly. 3.28 1.12 34.15%


mind, but it fades away quickly. 3.12 1.16 37.19%

6. When I think of a word, I know well that I cannot see it in my

mind ever. 3.14 1.36 43.17%

7. I am able to apply a range of strategies to solve problems. 3.30 1.23 37.11%

8. I find it easy to get my assignments done on time. 2.81 1.18 41.94%

9. I always have an unambiguous idea of what I am doing in the

coming weeks and months. 2.86 1.10 38.58%

10. When it is not what I want, I can adapt easily. 2.70 1.35 50.21%

11. I find it easy to consider the short-term consequences of my


12. I find it easy to consider the long-term consequences of my



162

Table 1. Results of Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (Before CoRT)

University, continued.

13. I can generate a great deal of alternative possible solutions

when I face a hard situation. 3.02 1.20 39.85%

14. I am an organized person who successfully prioritizes what

should be done first. 3.00 1.29 43.03%

15. I get easily distracted when revising. 2.28 1.05 46.24%

16. I am good at adapting my communication style to match the

differing styles of those around me. 3.16 1.27 40.19%

17. I often feel that my mind is cluttered and confused. 2.53 0.91 35.86%

18. I am good at rising over whatever is going on around me. 3.56 0.98 27.63%

19. I find it easy to remember dates and numbers. 3.07 1.10 35.82%

20. I objectively evaluate new ideas whether they are self-

originated or not. 3.47 1.01 29.10%

21. I organize all my revisions in a short time before the exams. 2.70 1.10 40.88%

22. I find it difficult to find connections between two different

pieces of information. 3.23 1.15 35.62%

23. I respect, value, and trust people around me. 2.63 1.11 42.36%


analytically. 3.09 1.09 35.14%

25. I always consider other people’s points of view. 3.00 1.27 42.41%

26. When planning an essay, I struggle to come up with as many

ideas as I would like.

2.74 1.14 41.39%

27. I know about CoRT thinking tools. 1.91 1.04 54.66%

28. I think flexibly and fluently. 3.00 1.33 44.25%



3.16 0.92 29.22%

30. I can hardly break down complex thoughts or situations. 2.70 0.99 36.66%

Table 1.1. University Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (Before

CoRT)


163

Reliability of the Scales

The internal consistency between items is very strong.

Score of Students’ Behavior Self-assessment

The score of Behavior self-assessment ranges between 30 and 150 and it’s considered positive

when it approaches to 150.

Mean 88.63

Std. Deviation 13.79

Minimum 53.00

Maximum 114.00

CV 15.56%

Mean % 59.09%

Mean % = Mean / Maximum value (150)

The score is above 50% the result of Behavior self-assessment is somewhat acceptable.

Table 2. Results of Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT),

University Level,

Questions or situations (Yes or No)

Questions/ Thinking Situations

Yes No

1. Are you aware of CoRT (1) Thinking tools?

95.35% 4.65%


90.70% 9.30%

3. Did you use CoRT (1) Thinking skills during lessons or in other

subjects? 74.42% 25.58%

4. Do you advocate teaching CoRT (1) Thinking Skills tools to other

students?

93.00% 7.00%

5. After CoRT (1), I can think more flexibly and fluently.

88.37% 11.63%

Reliability Statistics

.821 30

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items


164

Table 2. Results of Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT),

University Level, continued.

6. Do you think that CoRT (1) thinking tools have an impact on your

thinking behavior?

88.37% 11.63%

7. Did you explain the use of CoRT (1) thinking tools to any of your

parents, friends, or relatives?

72.09% 27.91%

8. Did you explain the use of CoRT (1) thinking tools to other

instructor? 46.51% 53.49%

Best answers that suit the respondents


Reflection on CoRT Thinking Tools Mean Std.Dev CV

9. CoRT thinking tools have enhanced my skilful critical thinking

ability. 4.07 0.67 16.44%


3.93 0.63 16.09%


4.02 0.74 18.38%

12. After CoRT 10 thinking lessons, I can apply, explain,

summarize, connect, and analyse information better. 4.07 0.74 18.10%

13. CoRT thinking tools helped me hypothesize, find more

alternatives, and make reasonable predictions based on given facts. 3.86 0.71 18.39%


independent thinker. 3.93 0.63 16.09%

15. CoRT (1) thinking lessons are (Multiple answers)


Practical 39 90.70%


Useful 37 86.05%

Easy to use 37 86.05%

Authentic 37 86.05%

Transferrable 35 81.40%

Effective 33 76.74%

Hard to use 4 9.30%

Boring 3 6.98%

Difficult to understand 3 6.98%

Funny 0 0.00%

Shallow 0 0.00%


165

16. Which of the tools do you mostly use at school/university during lessons? (Multiple

answers)

Thinking Skills Frequency Percentage

Plus, Minus, Interesting 31 72.09%

Others’ Points of View 31 72.09%

Consider All Factors 30 69.77%

Alternatives, Possibilities, Choices 30 69.77%


Aims, Goals, Objectives 28 65.12%

First Important Priorities 28 65.12%

Consequences and Sequels 28 65.12%

Planning 28 65.12%

Rules 22 51.16%

17. During which lessons do you mostly use CoRT (1) thinking tools? (Multiple answers)


information has become


166


Real Life Situations Frequency Percentage

At work 38 88.37%

When I have to solve problems 38 88.37%

When I have to manage my anger 37 86.05%

At learning 34 79.07%

When I reflect on my attitude

towards things 33 76.74%

During team work 32 74.42%

When I have an argument 31 72.09%

During conversations with my friends 31 72.09%

While making decisions 30 69.77%

When I want to manage my time 28 65.12%

During conversations with my

parents 27 62.79%


way?

21. Describe how different your handling is: (Only for respondents who answered Yes on

Q20)

Thinking Behavior Frequency Percentage

I watch longer. 37 90.24%

I react more quietly and sensibly. 37 90.24%

I watch more accurately. 36 87.80%

I can generate many possible solutions. 33 80.49%

I believe that I have the potential to solve any problem. 32 78.05%

I see from different perspectives. 31 75.61%

I think of all the factors before making my mind. 31 75.61%

I have more understanding of the situation. 29 70.73%

I postpone making quick decisions. 28 68.29%

I look at things in a more positive way. 28 68.29%

Documents

Thesis_published CORT Critical Thinking 4hardcover