Teaching and Assessing Higher Order Thinking Skills for K-12 Teachers DAY ONE: August 23, 2012

A bat and ball cost a dollar and ten cents. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

“Perhaps we’re not nearly as rational as we like to believe.” – Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Laureate and professor at Princeton.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06/daniel-kahneman-bias studies.html#ixzz23oCNiUCO

 Fewer than one quarter of more than 400 employers surveyed reported that new employees with 4-year college degrees have “excellent” basic knowledge and applied skills. Among those who employ young people right out of high school, nearly 50% said their overall preparations were “deficient.” – Wagner, The Global Achievement Gap, 2008

 Of 300 college instructors who taught first-year students:  70% say students do not comprehend complex reading materials;  66% say students cannot think analytically;  62% say students write poorly;  55% say students can’t apply what they’ve learned to solve problems.

– Achieve, Inc., Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work?, 2005

These benchmarks represent the median level of achievement required for students to have a 50% chance of obtaining a B or higher or about a 75% chance of obtaining a C or higher in corresponding credit-bearing first-year college courses (according to a sample of 98 institutions and 90,000 students).

A meta-analysis of 29 studies of “thinking-skills interventions,” programs which require learners to plan, describe, and evaluate their own thinking and learning, found the following effect sizes:    0.62 (50 th  73 rd percentile, +23) on cognitive outcomes (e.g. verbal and nonverbal reasoning tests); 0.62 on achievement of curricular outcomes (e.g. reading, math, science); 1.44 (+43 percentile gain!) on affective outcomes (e.g. attitudes and motivation) Higgins, et. al. (2005)

 Definition / Standards – “What should our students know and be able to do?”  Assessment – “How will we know whether our students have learned these skills?”  Teaching Strategies – “How do we most effectively help students learn these skills?”

Some Initial Questions: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Can we agree on a common, concise definition?

Do Higher Order Thinking Skills Standards exist? Give an example or two.

Are Higher Order Thinking Skills/Standards generic, domain-specific, or both?

Are Higher Order Thinking Skills teachable, or a product of innate, “crystallized” intelligence?

Are there “Lower Order Thinking Skills?” What role, if any, do they play in education?

Higher Order Thinking Skills

High Impact Instruction Transfer to Other Subjects Problem Solving College Readiness

Higher Order Thinking Skills

Use of Logic Creativity Critical Thinking

1.

2.

3.

4.

John Dewey, How We Think, 1933 Jean Piaget, The Construction of Reality in the Child, 1954 Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of

Educational Objectives: the Classification

of Educational Goals, 1956 Robert Marzano, Dimensions of Thinking, 1988

Thinking is a productive process: Reflection  Inquiry  Critical Thought  Conclusions that can be substantiated Thinking must be evoked by “problems and questions” for which there is “some perplexity, confusion or doubt.”

1.

2.

3.

4.

Sensorimotor: Birth  Preoperational: age 2 age 2  age 7 Concrete Operational: age 7  Formal Operational: age 11  age 11 age 16 Operational Thinking: Logical and systematic manipulation of symbols related to abstract concepts, scientific reasoning, and hypothesis testing.

These skills are the foundation for problem solving, self reflection, and critical reasoning.

Cognitive Taxonomy: 1. Knowledge – memory, facts, basic concepts 2. Comprehension – describing main ideas, interpreting, translating 3. Application – use knowledge in new situations

Higher Order Thinking Skills

4. Analysis – infer motives, causes, find evidence 5. Synthesis – compile information in a different way 6. Evaluation – make judgments, defend opinions

Five Dimensions of Thinking: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Fostering positive attitudes and perceptions about learning Acquiring and integrating procedural knowledge Extending and refining knowledge through thinking Using knowledge in systems analysis, and authentic tasks Developing habits of mind to organize new information, think and learn, seeking accuracy, persisting when answers are not apparent, and avoiding impulsiveness

Small Groups (cross content, cross grade level):  You’ll be provided several sample sets of academic standards (not all of which are “higher-order”), e.g. ACT, NAEP, CCSS, State of Michigan, etc.

 Cross-reference these standards to identify several

“common themes” of higher-order thinking.

 Think of these as “exit outcomes.”  Think of these as “generic” (i.e. cross-curricular).

Students should be able to evaluate historical claims critically in light of the evidence. They should be able to write well-reasoned arguments on complex historical topics and draw upon a wide range of sources to inform their conclusions.

From NAEP U.S. History Achievement Level Details Note the NOUNS, VERBS and important DESCRIPTORS

8. Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence. - From Common Core State Standards, Anchor Standards for Reading

Practice 7: Engaging in Argument from Evidence

 Construct a scientific argument showing how the  data support the claim.

Identify possible weaknesses in scientific arguments, and discuss them using reasoning and evidence.

From Next Generation Science & Engineering Practices, -

National Research Council

Students should be able to evaluate arguments, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of claims in light of the evidence and reasoning used to support them. Students should also be able to construct valid arguments, and support them with evidence.

 Your “classroom” now has 24,000 students!

 “Everyone speaks once before anyone speaks twice.”  “Be nice, play fair!”  How do we handle personal biases, issues, etc.

The challenge of defining higher order thinking skills has been referred to as a “conceptual swamp” (Lewis and Smith, 1993) for which there is “no well-established taxonomy” (Haladyna, 1997).

The most effective definitions involve:

1.

2.

3.

Critical Thinking – “the disposition to provide evidence in support of one’s claims, conclusions or decisions, to request such evidence from others, and to change one’s views based on evidence.” (adapted from Cotton, 1997); and Analytic Reasoning – “analyzing and interpreting information accurately, evaluating the credibility of evidence, and using that evidence logically, identifying logical flaws, invalid assumptions, and conflicting information.” (adapted from Chun, 2008); Problem-solving – “the non-automatic strategizing required for reaching a goal, drawing a conclusion, or proposing a course of action.” (adapted from Nitko and Brookhart, 2007)

“Higher order thinking skills include critical, logical, reflective, meta-cognitive, and creative processes, which are activated when individuals encounter unfamiliar problems, questions or dilemmas. Successfully applied, they result in valid explanations, decisions, performances, and products. They facilitate student persistence, self-monitoring, and open-ended, flexible attitudes.” -adapted from King, Goodson and Rohani, 1998

“Higher order thinking occurs when a person takes new information and information stored in memory and interrelates and/or rearranges and extends this information to achieve a purpose or find possible answers in perplexing situations.” -Lewis and Smith, 1993

Generic vs. Domain-specific A considerable amount of research indicates that cognitive (higher order) skills are context bound (Perkins and Salomon, 1989). There are skills such as inductive reasoning that apply to all subject matter contents (Norris, 1989).

“A higher-order skills examination should be composed of both interdisciplinary and subject specific items.” (Paul and Nosich, 1992)

Common Generic Theme: Investigation / Research Research: Students should be able to engage in active inquiry about subject matter and research questions. The student utilizes appropriate references to support a line of reasoning. The student identifies and evaluates data, material, and sources for quality of content, validity, credibility, and relevance. The student compares and contrasts sources and findings and generates summaries and explanations. - from Conley’s Key Cognitive Strategies Investigation: What are the defining characteristics (definitive)? Why/how did this happen (historical)? What would/would have happen/ed if (projective)? from 14 Complex Reasoning Processes (Marzano, et. al. 1992)

Common Theme: Investigation / Research Mathematics: Students should be able to use appropriate tools when solving a mathematical problem (e.g. pencil and paper, concrete models, a ruler, protractor, graphing calculator, spreadsheet, statistical package, or geometry software). They should analyze graphs, and detect errors by strategically using estimation. They should identify relevant mathematical resources, and use them to solve problems, and deepen their understanding of concepts.

- adapted from CCSS Mathematics Practices #8

Common Theme: Investigation / Research Reading: Students should be able to access and retrieve information from one or more sources (e.g. written text, tables, lists, etc.) to locate and retrieve distinct details or relevant facts. Students should determine the central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development, summarizing the key supporting details and ideas. They should analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge .

- adapted from PISA Framework, and CCSS Anchor Standards

Common Theme: Investigation / Research Science: Students should be able to design and conduct scientific investigations using appropriate tools and techniques (e.g., selecting an instrument that measures the desired quantity – e.g. length, volume, weight, time interval, temperature - with the appropriate level of precision). They should be able to draw conclusions from scientific data presented in charts or tables. - adapted from Michigan Science HSCEs

Session 2: Online  Generic HOTS Standards Templates posted   Comment and suggest refinements (“What will this look like in our classrooms?”) Domain-specific HOTS Standards posted   Comment and suggest revisions and edits (“What will this look like in my classroom?”) Identify and post your topic(s) for HOTS aligned, performance-based project(s)

Session 3: Face-to-face Sept. 27 th 4:30-7:30 pm   “Prerequisites” to HOTS Developmental Progression of HOTS     Elementary Middle School High School Instructional Strategies    Critical Thinking Analytic Reasoning Problem-Solving