The first Nutshell I wrote for ISU in 2002 (NN v10 n5 - http://www.isu.edu/ctl/nutshells/nutshell10-5.html), presented varied models of adult thinking. The foundational model is that of William Perry, who identified nine stages of adult thinkers. You can learn the characteristics of each stage quickly at http://www.isu.edu/ctl/nutshells/index.html, in the Nutshells written in 2000. Because Perry did his pioneering work with students at Harvard who were primarily white males, others suspected that his model would not be representative of other students. However, the table in that first ISU Nutshell revealed that subsequent workers, even those who hoped to create their own new descriptive framework, inevitably produced a model that revealed developmental stages in the same sequence and of similar character to those deduced by Perry. The most thorough study included a variety of students from every conceivable kind of institution with results described in the book, Developing Reflective Judgment by King and Kitchener (1994). It represents decades of work, and remains the best book resource. No subsequent study has had comparable depth. Of importance here is that their first six levels, those that apply most to undergraduate adult learners, are congruent with the first six levels of Perry.

Many faculty are familiar with Bloom's 1956 cognitive taxonomy. We provided a table in the last Nutshell that summarized this scheme. It has a similar sequence to that of the Perry model, but it is usually employed as a teacher-centered tool through which the teacher plans a lesson or formulates a question characteristic of a particular Bloom level. The problem is that one can pose high-level challenges as a teacher but get low-level responses from a learner. Students can do synthesis and evaluation well, in which case they think in Perry stages of 5 and 6, or they can do it poorly and operate between Perry stages 2 and 4. In 2000, David Krathwohl (the researcher noted as the primary developer of the taxonomy of the affective domain in the last NN issue), completed a book with coworkers describing a revised Bloom taxonomy. One access to the revised taxonomy is the link, http://www.kurwongbss.qld.edu.au/thinking/Bloom/blooms.htm. An important refinement is the addition of "creativity" as the highest level.

The attribute of all of the stages, perhaps with the exception of "creativity" in the revised Bloom scheme, is that they are hierarchical; one must pass through lower levels before one can obtain higher-level proficiency. It is not at all clear where/if "creativity" fits in a hierarchy of reasoning. This is perhaps one reason that the later Bloom scheme has not quickly replaced the original version. Certainly, we need more work on the nature of creativity to better understand it and where/it it fits into a scheme of developmental reasoning.

Dee Fink (2003, Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses) takes a unique approach. His scheme, accessible through the Idea Papers at http://www.idea.ksu.edu/resources/Papers.html, paper number 42), unlike those of Bloom, Perry, etc., is not hierarchical. Although it doesn't map well onto the research discussed above, it is certainly useful for course design and is a legitimate view of students' thinking. A problem with our focusing only on course design is that single courses seem unable to advance high-level thinking a great deal. For physiological reasons, it takes a longer time and several courses (a curriculum) designed to produce such thinking as an outcome.

Two individuals, Cindy Lynch and Susan Wolcott, extended the Reflective Judgment model and presented their version in a form more easily taught to faculty, as "Steps to Better Thinking." A summary exists at http://www.idea.ksu.edu/resources/Papers.html as paper number 37. Cindy Lynch died in 2002 in a tragic automobile accident, but Susan Wolcott continues to provide training workshops, which garner extraordinarily high ratings of satisfaction from attendants.

What's in this for us? First, if there is a best outcome that justifies the effort of obtaining a college degree, it is empowerment of a graduate to think at higher levels. Unfortunately, institutions vary considerably in their success in providing such empowerment. Most high school graduates enter college at a Perry level 3.7, and graduate at a level 4; they advance in four years only about 1/3 of a unit on a nine-point scale. However, curricula designed to promote better thinking advance students at several times that average. There are two keys to succeeding with such curricula. One is to clearly understand the level at which most of our students are now operating. The second is to design experiences that will first meet them where they are, then challenge them at just beyond that level.

Now, for the great news! You are invited to ISU's annual February faculty development event.

Building and Assessing Students’ Critical Thinking Skills
Dr. Susan Wolcott
February 3, 2006,Friday, Red Lion Inn by I-15 Pocatello Creek Road Exit

Continental Breakfast starting 8:30, noon lunch, finish about 3:00-3:30 p.m.

Professors in all disciplines agree that critical thinking is an important educational outcome. However, professors often struggle to understand the mental processes that underlie skill development and to design coursework that efficiently fosters improved student performance. This interactive workshop will explore innovative and practical ways to enhance students' critical thinking skills.

Participants will first consider different ways to define critical thinking and identify the skills they would like students to develop. Next, they will discover how and why an important student characteristic—cognitive development—affects student critical thinking performance. They will learn about common patterns in student thinking and how each pattern influences the way students respond to open-ended learning tasks.

Participants will then learn how to design assignments and other coursework to help “build” student competencies, beginning with less complex skills and moving gradually toward skills that are more complex. After reviewing examples of several assignments to learn how the requirements can be broken down into a series of steps that provide appropriate challenges and support, participants will practice revising and designing assignments that are more effective. Participants will also discuss how to conduct classroom discussions and organize in-class group activities to enhance student development.

Finally, participants will practice assessing student critical thinking performance, using a rubric designed for the classroom. They will use the assessment results to identify the “next steps” in student skill development.

Although the focus will be primarily on educational activities for individual classrooms, the workshop will also assist administrators and others in addressing program or curriculum-wide development of critical thinking skills.

Early Registrants Receive King, P. M., and Kitchener, K. S., 1994, Developing Reflective Judgment: San Francisco, Jossey - Bass, 323 p.

To register, email to nuhfed@isu.edu and give your ISU mail box number