Thesis_published CORT Critical Thinking 4hardcover
-
Upload
continual-learning -
Category
Documents
-
view
385 -
download
9
Transcript of 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
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
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
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
(Before and After CoRT)
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 40. Enhancement in Students’ Ability to observe and analyse information
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).
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 2
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.
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 3
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,
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 4
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,
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 5
(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.
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 6
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
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 7
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
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 8
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.
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 9
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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
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)
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
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.
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
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)
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
57
18. After CoRT, my ability to observe, compare and contrast, categorize and organize
information has become.
Figure 6. Enhancement in Students’ Ability to observe and analyse information
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Frequency Percentage
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
24. I believe that CoRT (1)
thinking lessons are a step
towards more effective learning.
25. I believe that CoRT (1)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
74
At the University Level
Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT)
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
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
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
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
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
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
77
18. After CoRT, my ability to observe, compare and contrast, categorize and organize
information has become.
Figure 40. Enhancement in Students’ Ability to observe and analyse information
19. In what situations do you find CoRT (1) thinking tools useful?
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
Frequency Percentage
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
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
21. Describe how different your handling is: (Only for respondents who answered
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
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
79
21. Describe how different your handling is: (Only for respondents who answered
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
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
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
H03: After teaching CoRT (1), students’ attitudes will barely demonstrate a thinking behavior
since CoRT thinking tools are inapplicable in non-educational contexts.
HA3: After teaching CoRT (1), students’ attitudes will demonstrate a thinking behavior
through applying CoRT thinking tools in non-educational contexts.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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
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;
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.
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.
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
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;
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.
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
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
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
(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 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%
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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
92
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.
The 1st alternative hypothesis was statistically significant at a P-value=0.000. That is, HA1
was accepted.
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.
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.
H03: After teaching CoRT (1), students’ attitudes will barely demonstrate a thinking behavior
since CoRT thinking tools are inapplicable in non-educational contexts.
HA3: After teaching CoRT (1), students’ attitudes will demonstrate a thinking behavior
through applying CoRT thinking tools in non-educational contexts.
The third alternative hypothesis was statistically significant at a P-value=0.000. That is, HA3
was accepted.
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.
At the university level, HA4 was statistically significant at a 0.000 <P-value< 0.004. That is,
HA4 was accepted.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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
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 …
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
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....
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
(1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neutral; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree)
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.
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
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 1. Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (before CoRT)
Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT).
A. Please check the answer that best suits you, (yes or no)
Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT)
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.
(1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neutral; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree)
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.
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
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
17. During which lessons do you mostly use CoRT (1) thinking tools?
(You may fill in several answers.)
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
19. In what situations do you find CoRT (1) thinking tools useful?
Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT), continued
(You may fill in several answers.)
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.
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
119
Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT), continued.
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
(You may fill in several answers.)
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.
Thank you for adequately filling this questionnaire.
Table 2. Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (After CoRT)
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
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.
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
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.
Thank you for adequately filling this questionnaire.
Table 3. Educators’ Self-assessment Class Behavior: Empowering the learners’ potentials
of skilful thinking (Before CoRT)
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
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
(You may fill in several answers.)
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.
(You may fill in several answers.)
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?
11. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, are they
responding to complex situations with less impulsivity?
12. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they
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?
14. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they
look after the consequences?
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
123
Table 4. Educators’ Questionnaire (After CoRT), continued.
15. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they
generate more alternative solutions to problems?
16. Now that your students have taken CoRT (1) thinking tools, can they
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
high order cognitive skills.
23. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking tools help students empower their
high order cognitive skills.
24. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking lessons are a step towards more
authentic learning.
25. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking lessons are a step towards more
effective learning.
26. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking lessons are tools towards more
transferable learning outcomes.
27. CoRT (1) thinking lessons enhance students’ flexible thinking.
28. CoRT (1) thinking lessons enhance students’ flexible thinking.
29. CoRT (1) thinking lessons enhance students’ fluent thinking.
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?
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
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
Thank you for adequately filling this questionnaire.
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
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?
If yes, can you give an example:
2. Have you witnessed changes in your child thinking behavior?
If so, can you describe the changes?
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
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
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
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: -----------------------------------------
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
128
Table 1. Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (before CoRT)
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements.
(1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neutral; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree)
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.
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
129
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 1. Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (before CoRT)
Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT).
A. Please check the answer that best suits you, (yes or no)
Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT)
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?
Please check the answer that best suits you.
(1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neutral; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree)
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.
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
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?
(You may fill in several answers.)
PMI C&S
CAF OPV
APC Rules
AGO Planning
FIP Decision Making
17. During which lessons do you mostly use CoRT (1) thinking tools?
(You may fill in several answers.)
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
19. In what situations do you find CoRT (1) thinking tools useful?
Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT), continued
(You may fill in several answers.)
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
Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT), continued.
14. With CoRT thinking lessons, I believe I am a more effective
independent thinker.
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
131
Table 2. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (After CoRT), continued.
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
(You may fill in several answers.)
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.
Thank you for adequately filling this questionnaire.
Table 2. Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (After CoRT)
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
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).
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
133
Results at the School Level:
Table 1. Students’ Behavior Self-assessment Checklist (Before CoRT)/ School Level
1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neutral; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
Thinking Status
Mean Std.Dev CV
1. I automatically think of the pros and cons regarding any real-life
situation. I also think of what seems interesting to me.
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%
3. I set clear outcomes and goals for my home and school life.
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%
5. When I think of a word, I know well that I can visualize it in my
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
decisions and actions. 1.72 0.46 26.58%
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%
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
134
Table 1. Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (before CoRT), continued.
22. I find it difficult to find connections between two different
pieces of information. 2.34 1.23 52.66%
23. I respect, value, and trust people around me.
3.13 1.16 37.02%
24. I have a good range of questioning techniques to help me think
analytically. 2.84 1.30 45.64%
25. I always consider other people’s points of view.
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%
27. I know about CoRT thinking tools.
1.91 0.30 15.54%
28. I think flexibly and fluently.
2.41 0.71 29.59%
29. My ability to observe, compare, contrast, categorize, relate, and
organize information is very good.
2.31 1.06 45.87%
30. I can hardly break down complex thoughts or situations.
2.88 1.36 47.37%
Table 1. Students’ Self-assessment Thinking Behavior Checklist (before CoRT)
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
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
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%
2. Did you use CoRT (1) thinking skills in any real life situation?
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%
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
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
1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neutral; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
Mean Std.Dev CV
9. CoRT thinking tools have enhanced my skilful critical thinking
ability.
4.34 0.79 18.13%
10. CoRT thinking tools have extended my problem solving skills.
4.22 0.55 13.10%
11. CoRT thinking tools helped me enhance my attitude.
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%
14. With CoRT thinking lessons, I believe I am a more effective
independent thinker.
4.03 0.69 17.24%
15. CoRT (1) thinking lessons are (Multiple answers)
Frequency Percentage
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%.
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
137
16. Which of the tools do you mostly use at school/university during lessons? (Multiple
answers)
Frequency Percentage
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)
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?
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
138
Frequency Percentage
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%
20. Now that you have learnt CoRT (1) thinking skills, can you handle problems in a different
way?
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
139
21. Describe how different your handling is: (Only for respondents who answered Yes on
Q20)
Frequency Percentage
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%
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
140
Reading Comprehension Pre and Post Test Scores
- Gender
Frequency Percentage
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 quiz 2 12.47 1.78 14.25% 12.47 1.57 12.55%
Comprehension quiz 3 12.50 1.80 14.36% 13.41 1.54 11.50%
Comprehension quiz 4 12.27 1.64 13.36% 13.78 1.56 11.32%
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
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
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 quiz 2 11.88 13.14 0.049
Comprehension quiz 3 11.56 13.57 0.001
Comprehension quiz 4 11.50 13.14 0.004
Comprehension monthly test
1 11.75 13.14 0.041
Comprehension monthly test
2 11.81 13.36 0.016
Experimental
Pretest 11.89 12.36 0.496
Comprehension quiz 1 11.78 12.64 0.133
Comprehension quiz 2 12.17 12.86 0.221
Comprehension quiz 3 13.06 13.86 0.147
Comprehension quiz 4 13.50 14.14 0.254
Comprehension monthly test
1 13.28 13.64 0.504
Comprehension monthly test
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 quiz 1 12.20 12.16 0.924
Comprehension quiz 2 12.47 12.47 0.996
Comprehension quiz 3 12.50 13.41 0.037
Comprehension quiz 4 12.27 13.78 0.000
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.
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
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
Comprehension monthly test 2 12.53 1.80
Experimental
Pretest 12.09 1.89
Comprehension monthly test 1 13.44 1.50
Comprehension monthly test 2 13.81 1.69
- 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
sphericity had not been violated, χ2= 3.946, Sig = .139. (The variances of differences are not
statistically different).
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
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
Sphericity Assumed 52.271 2.000 26.135 103.019 0.000
Greenhouse-Geisser 52.271 1.781 29.356 103.019 0.000
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)
Sphericity Assumed 15.729 62.000 0.254
Greenhouse-Geisser 15.729 55.198 0.285
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.
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
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
Comprehension quiz 2 12.47 1.78
Comprehension quiz 3 12.50 1.80
Comprehension quiz 4 12.27 1.64
Experimental
Comprehension quiz 1 12.16 1.61
Comprehension quiz 2 12.47 1.57
Comprehension quiz 3 13.41 1.54
Comprehension quiz 4 13.78 1.56
- 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
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
145
For the control group Mauchly's Test of Sphericity indicated that the assumption of
sphericity had not been violated, χ2= 0.340, Sig = .997. (The variances of differences are not
statistically different).
For the experimental group Mauchly's Test of Sphericity indicated that the assumption of
sphericity had not been violated, χ2= 4.488, Sig = .482. (The variances of differences are not
statistically different).
- 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 1.958 3.000 0.653 1.939 0.129
Greenhouse-Geisser 1.958 2.976 0.658 1.939 0.130
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)
Sphericity Assumed 29.292 87.000 0.337
Greenhouse-Geisser 29.292 86.296 0.339
Huynh-Feldt 29.292 87.000 0.337
Lower-bound 29.292 29.000 1.010
Experimental
factor1
Sphericity Assumed 56.344 3.000 18.781 47.008 0.000
Greenhouse-Geisser 56.344 2.722 20.700 47.008 0.000
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)
Sphericity Assumed 37.156 93.000 0.400
Greenhouse-Geisser 37.156 84.379 0.440
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.
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
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.
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
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%
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
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%
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
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)
Frequency Percentage
Clear 12 100.00%
Easy to understand 12 100.00%
Interesting 11 91.67%
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.
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
150
Could you describe the situation? (Multiple answers)
Frequency Percentage
Problem Solving 8 100.00%
Debating 8 100.00%
Decision Making 7 87.50%
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
Decision Making 11 91.67%
Consider All Factors 10 83.33%
Consequences and Sequels 10 83.33%
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
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?
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
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?
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
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?
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
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?
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
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
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
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%
24. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking lessons are a step towards more
authentic learning. 58.33% 8.33% 33.34%
25. I believe that CoRT (1) thinking lessons are a step towards more
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%
28. CoRT (1) thinking lessons enhance students’ flexible thinking.
50.00% 0.00% 50.00%
29. CoRT (1) thinking lessons enhance students’ fluent thinking.
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%
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
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%
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
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
If yes, can you give an example:
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
If so, can you describe the changes?
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)
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
159
6. Educators’ Responses: Sample= 5 educators
Question
Yes No
1. Do you see that your students use CoRT (1) thinking tools?
05 00
If yes, can you give an example:
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
If so, can you describe the changes?
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)
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
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.
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
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
1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neutral; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
Thinking status Mean Std.Dev CV
1. I automatically think of the pros and cons regarding any real-life
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. I set clear outcomes and goals for my home and school life.
3.33 1.08 32.63%
4. When I think of a word, I know well that I can visualize it in my
mind clearly. 3.28 1.12 34.15%
5. When I think of a word, I know well that I can visualize it in my
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
decisions and actions. 3.37 1.00 29.67%
12. I find it easy to consider the long-term consequences of my
decisions and actions. 2.44 1.12 45.83%
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
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%
24. I have a good range of questioning techniques to help me think
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%
29. My ability to observe, compare, contrast, categorize, relate, and
organize information is very good.
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)
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
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%
2. Did you use CoRT (1) thinking skills in any real life situation?
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
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
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
1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= neutral; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
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%
10. CoRT thinking tools have extended my problem solving skills.
3.93 0.63 16.09%
11. CoRT thinking tools helped me enhance my attitude.
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%
14. With CoRT thinking lessons, I believe I am a more effective
independent thinker. 3.93 0.63 16.09%
15. CoRT (1) thinking lessons are (Multiple answers)
Frequency Percentage
Practical 39 90.70%
Interesting 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%
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
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%
Decision Making 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)
18. After CoRT, my ability to observe, compare and contrast, categorize and organize
information has become
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
166
19. In what situations do you find CoRT (1) thinking tools useful?
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%
20. Now that you have learnt CoRT (1) thinking skills, can you handle problems in a different
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%