The Impact of Directed Viewing-Thinking Activity On Students’ Critical Thinking: Part I
梁境逸 張榮森
Chin Ee NEO Wing Sum CHEUNG
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University
Background: The importance of critical thinking has long been recognized. In recognition of its importance, the Prime Minister of Singapore in 1997 brought up the notion of “Thinking Schools, Learning Nations”. Since its inception, the Ministry of Education has developed thinking packages for schools. However, students often fail to use the thinking skills they are taught. This study investigated the impact of directed viewing – thinking activity on students’ critical thinking. Aims: To investigate if students’ critical thinking skills improved after attending the series of DVTA lessons and find out students’ perceptions of the DVTA lessons.
Sample: Students participating in the study were Secondary 3 students taking Higher Chinese from one of the researcher’s class. All 18 students were present throughout the six lessons. These students were all females between 14 to 15 years of age, coming from a traditional English school. Method: Pre and post argumentative essay tests were administered to the whole class to test for the difference in the students’ critical thinking skills before and after the students had attended the DVTA lessons. The argumentative essays are judged for two different types of critical thinking skills: ability to evaluate the alternatives and the ability to defend the conclusion on a scale of 1-5. The score represents the level of critical thinking skills the students have displayed in their essays. A questionnaire was also used to find out what the students perceived they have learnt from the DVTA lessons.
Results: Based on the given conditions, the study tends to agree that students perceive DVTA lessons very positively, and DVTA has a positive impact on the students’ critical thinking skills. Conclusion: Although we may not be able to conclude for sure that DVTA has impacted positively on the students’ critical thinking skills but the findings may be useful to Chinese teachers who are interested in integrating thinking skills in their lessons.
“劇情導向－思考活動”與學生的批判性思維摘要 背景：培養學生的批判性思維不被重視，故此新加坡總理于 1997 年提出了“全民思考＂的 方案，教育部隨之推出培養學生的思維能力的教育配套。但遺憾的是，很多學生仍無法應 用學校所教的思維技能。本文嘗試探討“劇情導向－思考活動＂對學生的批判性思維的影 響。 目的：探討“劇情導向－思考活動＂是否有助於培養學生的批判性思維及瞭解學生對“劇 情導向－思考活動＂的看法。 調查對象：參與研究的是 18名中三高級華文班的女學生。這些學生的年齡都介於14至 15 歲之間。 調查方法：通過分析學生參加 DVTA之前與之後分別完成的議論文，來斷定學生的思維技 巧是否有所變化。同時也通過問卷調查收集學生的看法。 調查結果：問卷調查顯示學生對“劇情導向－思考活動＂深感興趣，資料也顯示，“劇情 導向－思考活動＂對學生的批判性思維能力能起積極作用。 總結：雖然我們無法從這次的研究中肯定“劇情導向－思考活動＂對學生批判性思維能力 的正面作用，但這次的研究結果是樂觀的，可供教師參考，盼能有助於將批判性思維融入 華文教學。
Introduction
Developing critical thinking has become one of the main aims of our education agenda in the last decade. However many publications have shown that students are unable to answer higher-level questions (Marzano, Brandt, Hughes, Jones, Presseisen, Rankin & Suhor 1988).
Hence, the aims of the study are to explore the potential of using the directed viewing - thinking activity (DVTA) approach based on a video show to enhance students’ critical thinking skills in a Chinese lesson and to find out students’ attitude towards the DVTA approach.
The following questions are investigated in the study:
1. Have the students’ critical thinking skills improved after attending the series of DVTA lessons?
2. What do students think they have learnt from the DVTA lessons?
Defining critical thinking
There are many definitions for critical thinking. For example, according to Smith (1992), he claims that McPeck has defined critical thinking as a disposition rather than a skill. On the other hand, Siegel and Carey (1989) claim that some researchers have defined critical thinking as a skill or a set of discrete skills. The existence of different definitions shows that there is no universal agreement on what constitutes critical thinking. However, a definition is needed to provide a common ground for discussion. For the purpose of this study, Ennis’ definition would be used.
Critical thinking is defined as “reasonable and reflective thinking that is focused upon deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1992; Ennis & Norris, 1990, Norris & Ennis, 1989, p.3). According to Norris and Ennis (1989), there are three main characteristics of what constitute their definition of critical thinking. Firstly, critical thinking must rely on good reasons in reaching a conclusion. Secondly, critical thinking requires one to examine the reasonableness of their thoughts and others’ thoughts in the process of deciding what to believe or do. Thirdly, critical thinking is focused on the process of deciding what to believe or do. Ennis uses this term ‘critical thinking’ and the term ‘higher-order thinking’ interchangeably.
Ennis’ definition of critical thinking has been selected for this study. This is because according to Facione, Facione and Giancarlo (1997, p.4), the experts tend to agree that critical thinking is “a decision about what to do or to believe”, and Ennis’ definition of critical thinking coincides with what the experts agree with. On top of this, Ennis’ definition incorporates both thinking skills and dispositions (Norris & Ennis, 1989). According to various researchers, for example, Halpern (1996); Norris and Ennis (1989); Smith (1992); Tishman, Perkins and Jay (1995) and Swartz and Parks (1994), to think critically involves far more than a set of skills. It also requires the dispositions to think clearly. Apart from these, the definition used here also suggests that critical thinking is reflective. According to Siegel and Carey (1989), being reflective is an important aspect of critical thinking.
Hence, in this study, critical thinking occurs only when individuals possess critical thinking skills and dispositions (Halpern, 1996; Norris & Ennis, 1989; Swartz & Parks, 1994). However, due to the limit in length, this part of the paper will only focus on critical thinking skills. The next section attempts to identify critical thinking skills according to the definition of critical thinking used in the study.
Critical thinking skills address the cognitive aspect of thinking. In this study, critical thinking skills refer to the strategies that can help students to decide what to believe or do. According to Chaffee (1998), in order to make intelligent decisions, one need to explore situations from many perspectives, develop sound reasons to support one’s point of view and be aware of one’s own biases.
According to the researchers (Halpern, 1997; Siegel & Carey, 1989), critical thinking is a continuous and integrated process. Critical thinking skills should therefore not be divided into discrete skills. However, in this paper, we find it necessary to do so for the purpose of facilitating a more thorough discussion. Hence, from the literature reviewed, the study has attempted to identify three skills that can be helpful in deciding what to believe or do as ‘generating alternatives,’ ‘evaluating the consequences of alternatives,’ and ‘defending the conclusion’.
Generating alternatives
To make a decision, there must be alternatives. As Halpern (1996, p.312) has claimed, if there is “no alternative, there is no decision”. Hence, the first skill to learn is to generate alternatives.
Brainstorming is a method for generating alternatives (Chaffee, 1998; Swartz & Parks, 1994). Brainstorming can be done alone or in a group. No judgments are passed as alternatives are generated so that people will not be discouraged from offering suggestions. Creative ideas are more likely to surface in the process of brainstorming for more alternatives and through constructive interplay of various minds (Chaffee, 1998).
A person skilled in generating alternatives would be able to use his/her creative talents to generate a range of alternatives including inventive and unique alternatives while a less skilled person would stop at obvious alternatives (Chaffee, 1998; Tishman, Perkins & Jay, 1995).
Evaluating alternatives
A conclusion reached without the consideration of a variety of alternatives may not be the best option (Dewey, 1997). Thus, the acceptance of the inferred alternative is usually suspended until further evaluation. This is because alternatives that seem reasonable at first sight are often found to be unfit when the consequences are traced out. This ability to view situations from others’ perspectives rather than one’s own is one of the “hallmarks of critical thinkers” (Chaffee, 1998, p. 262) or according to Dewey (1997), it is the essence of critical thinking.
Evaluating the alternatives is not only helpful for anticipating the future, it is also necessary for evaluating the present (Chaffee, 1998). In order to evaluate the consequences of the alternatives, prediction is necessary. “Consequences” refer to what is likely to happen if an alternative is adopted. Hence, predicting the
consequences would help us think carefully about the pros and cons of adopting a particular alternative and how likely it is to happen (Chaffee, 1998; Swartz & Parks, 1994, Swartz & Perkins, 1990).
Apart from that, evaluating alternatives should also include the consideration of evidence that is not in favour of the alternatives (Groarke et al., 1996; Halpern, 1996). According to Halpern (1996, 1997), a common fallacy of thinking is that we tend to ignore the evidence that goes against the alternative we are proposing. Groarke and his colleagues (1996) suggest that if there is evidence against the alternative we are proposing, and if we cannot counter the arguments, then the alternative should not be considered. Thus, a well-evaluated alternative should include the presentation of
the pros and cons of the alternatives as well as the consideration of any disconfirming evidence for the alternatives.
Defending the conclusion
To reach a well-defended conclusion that is not obvious from the information we have is the ultimate purpose of reasoning (Chaffee, 1998). In other words, we make decisions through the reasoning process.
According to Chaffee (1998), there are two main criteria for evaluating the reasoning process. The first criterion is to determine the accuracy of the reasons. Each reason is based on evidence that comes from either a primary or secondary source. The accuracy of the reason would then be used to determine the credibility of the source of information (Chaffee, 1998; Groarke et al., 1996; Swartz & Parks, 1994). Chaffee (1998, p.50) has suggested some questions for considering the accuracy of evidence:
• What is the source and foundation of the evidence? • Are they reliable?
• Can the evidences be interpreted differently?
• Were distortions or mistakes in perception possible?
The second criterion is to determine the extent that the reasons support the conclusion (Chaffee, 1998; Groarke et al., 1996). The reasons should support the conclusion so that it follows logically from the reasons.
Directed Viewing-Thinking Activity (DVTA)
DVTA borrows directed reading-thinking activity (DRTA1) as a model to facilitate communication and learning through viewing activities (Minor & Cafone, 1977). In this study, DVTA is carried out using a video show. The DVTA process consists of ‘pre-viewing,’ ‘viewing,’ and ‘post-viewing’ activities (Minor & Cafone, 1977).
The pre-viewing stage
The pre-viewing activities call for speculative thinking. It would involve the teacher in the role of the agitator, asking the viewers to predict what the show is about (Hoskisson, 1973; Minor & Cafone, 1977; Stauffer, 1969, 1971; Stieglitz & Oehlkers, 1989) based on the title of the show. The teacher starts the discussion by asking: “What do you think will happen in the story?” (Dixon & Nessel, 1992; Haggard, 1988; Hoskisson, 1973; Minor & Cafone, 1977). A question of this type will elicit a wide range of predictions about the show (Minor & Cafone, 1977). The students would be encouraged to contribute freely while the teacher makes no judgment. Structuring such diversities enhances the decisions that are made and also stretches students’ capacity for flexibility and empathy (Costa, 1999). As students voice their different opinions, they become aware of discrepancies between theirs and others’ interpretation of the same information. As a result, every student will have the chance to consider the story from different angles (Haggard, 1988; Spiegel, 1981), and inevitably become curious about what actually happens in the story. They would
1
The DRTA developed in 1969 by Russell G. Stauffer, involves a three-step process towards greater reading comprehension. It provides a “scaffold of how experienced readers ask questions of a text and predict what will happen next” (Boyle & Peregoy, 1990, p.197).
continue with the story, seeking supporting evidence for their predictions, and thus establish the purpose for viewing (Dixon & Nessel, 1992; Minor & Cafone, 1977). The viewing stage
At the ‘viewing’ stage, the students would have to look for evidence that will help them evaluate their predictions (Dixon & Nessel, 1992; Kuhrt & Farris, 1990; Nessel 1987). The teacher assists the students by asking some follow-up questions: “Which of these ideas do you think would be the most-likely to occur?” and “Why do you think that idea is a good one?” (Hoskisson, 1973, p.160). The class would be able to refute or support the predictions based on the progress of the episode. When more information is presented, the teacher will stop the show and ask: “Does anyone want to change their mind about what they thought would be in the show?”; “Why do you want to change?”; and “What did you see that made you think your predictions are still feasible or no longer feasible?” (Minor & Cafone, 1977, pp.19-20). Students must be allowed to change a prediction whenever they find new evidence as the directed-thinking activity is designed to encourage flexible directed-thinking (Richek, 1987; Stauffer, 1971). Through the questions, the students are prompted to evaluate and judge their original ideas about the storyline of the show. This activity is intended to involve the student in varying levels of thinking, and as an active participant in a decision-making situation created by the teacher (Minor & Cafone, 1977).
The post-viewing stage
After viewing, the students participate in activities that are tied to the teacher’s purpose in showing the video (Minor & Cafone, 1977). In this study, the post-viewing activities are tied to the students’ ability to justify predictions. Here, the students are asked to rethink predictions by citing evidence from the episode to defend their judgement (Dixon & Nessel, 1992; Nessel, 1987). The students are not evaluated on how true their predictions are but rather on their reasoning ability to support their decisions (Kuhrt & Farris, 1990). To round up the discussion about the show, the teacher will ask: “Were you right about what you said?” (Stauffer & Cramer, 1971, p.46); “What do you think about your original ideas?” (Dixon & Nessel, 1992, p.28); “Where in the story do you get the information to support that idea?”; and “How does that information support your conclusion?” (Hoskisson, 1973). The questions help to build up “metacognitive awareness” (Dixon & Nessel, 1992, p.16). Teachers should remain neutral throughout the discussion. The “feedback on the correctness of predictions comes from the viewers in their use of the show content to defend or restate their positions” (Minor & Cafone, 1977, p.20). The students should also realize that although their predictions may not be the same as the show, their predictions could have justified as long as they are able to defend their predictions with good reasons (Dixon & Nessel, 1992; Minor & Cafone, 1977). Alternatively, teachers may help the students discover those clues which may have misled them or which they have missed (Stauffer & Cramer, 1971).
After the students have discussed their predictions in the light of the evidence, they begin the cycle: predict, view, and rethink again (Dixon & Nessel, 1992).
DVTA and critical thinking
DVTA provides a scaffold for improving critical thinking skills. This is because DVTA uses a set of divergent and convergent questions to help scaffold students’ thinking (Boyle & Peregoy, 1990; Hoskisson, 1973; Van & William, 1992) as discussed in the section above.
This set of questions the DVTA approach uses helps to facilitate the process of teaching critical thinking skills which are generating options, evaluating options, and defending the conclusion (refer to Table 1).
Table 1
Questions used in DVTA that facilitate the teaching of critical thinking skills
Critical thinking skills Questions used in DVTA
Generating alternatives What do you think will happen in the show?
Evaluating alternatives Which of the ideas do you think will be the likely to occur in the show?
Why do you think so?
Defending the conclusion Where in the story did you get information to support that idea?
How does that information support your conclusion? In addition, the principles that the DVTA approach uses have been tested using reading materials, and consequently, have been determined to be able to improve critical thinking (Haggard 1988; Stauffer, 1969; Stauffer, 1971; Stieglitzer & Oehlkers, 1989). In the study by Stieglitzer and Oehlkers (1989), teachers believe that the directed thinking activities based on reading materials (DRTA) are able to foster students’ critical thinking. Barron’s study indicates that DRTA has increased the subjects’ higher-order thinking skills (Barron, 1990) while Petre’s study claims that DRTA allows readers to do more critical thinking (Petre, 1971).
Various researchers (Hsu, Huang & Chen, 2000; Renn, 1999; Stauffer, 1969) have also agreed that DRTA is able to foster critical thinking. According to Hsu et al., (2000), DRTA is commonly used during English lessons to teach critical thinking and according to Renn (1999), this approach is frequently identified as an exemplary instructional activity for developing critical thinking skills. In fact, Stauffer (1969), the developer of the Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA), has claimed that the directed-thinking activities are intended to develop students’ abilities to suspend judgements and make decisions based on the information presented.
Since the activities for the DVTA and DRTA approach are the same and the skills that DRTA uses could also be developed through viewing activities (Dixon & Nessel, 1992), DVTA should be able to improve critical thinking.
Evaluating critical thinking
There are various commercially available critical thinking tests for measuring critical thinking skills. However, there are limitations about these tests (Ennis, 1989; Ennis, 1992; Norris & Ennis, 1989).
Firstly, not many of these published tests have higher order thinking (critical thinking) as their explicit and principle concern (Ennis, 1992). Ennis (1992) noted that there are only ten commercially available critical thinking tests that are written in English language. They are:
• Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA) • Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X (CCTT, Level X) • Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z (CCTT, Level Z)
• Ross Test of Higher Cognitive Processes (Ross test) • New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills (New Jersey)
• Judgement: Deductive Logic and Assumption Recognition (Judgement) • Test of Enquiry Skills (Enquiry Skills)
• The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (Ennis-Weir) • Test of Inference Ability in Reading Comprehension (Inference) • California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)
Secondly, most of these tests are in multiple-choice format. According to Ennis (1989), these tests usually do not provide information on the students’ thinking process, which according to our definition is of prime importance.
Thirdly, these multiple-choice tests are not revised regularly (Ennis, 1992) and may not be updated for use. For example, according to McCrink (1998), the 1980 version of the Watson-Glaser thinking appraisal did not take into account current issues thus the connection between the context of the question and the students’ life experiences may not be strong.
The fourth problem lies in the possible differences between the background of the test author and the test taker. Thus students who have not scored well may not be due to low ability in critical thinking (Ennis, 1992).
Fifthly, the tests are recommended for a wide range of students. For example the Ross test and the Cornell Critical Thinking test (Level X) are recommended for students from grade 4-14. Hence, “there are likely to be problems suiting the interests, reading levels, and thinking ability of everyone in the range” (Norris & Ennis, 1989).
Sixthly, language and critical thinking skills are closely related (Halpern, 1997). Hence, the validity of these commercially available tests that are not written in Chinese may be questionable for use in the context of a Chinese lesson.
Ennis suggests that the evaluator constructs their own test when the
commercially available tests could not meet the objectives of the lessons (Norris & Ennis, 1989; Ennis & Norris, 1990; Ennis, 1992). Hence, the use of a constructed-response test is chosen for the purpose of this study. The constructed-constructed-response test is a more open-ended approach, and it would include the use of an argumentative essay. In fact, Ennis (1992) suggests that essay testing is generally a good way to assess higher-order thinking (critical thinking).
Methodology
Research designThe research design of this exploratory study is quasi-experimental since the participants could not be randomly selected. The sample consists of 18 female
Chinese students from one of the researcher’s class. Pre and post argumentative essay tests with no control group were administered to the whole class to test for the
difference in the students’ critical thinking skills before and after the students had attended the DVTA lessons. The argumentative essays are judged for two different types of critical thinking skills: ability to evaluate the alternatives and the ability to defend the conclusion on a scale of 1-5. The score represents the level of critical thinking skills the students have displayed in their essays.
A questionnaire was also used to find out what the students perceived they have learnt from the DVTA lessons.
Students participating in the study were Secondary 3 students taking Higher Chinese from one of the researcher’s class. All 18 students were present throughout the six lessons. These students were all females between 14 to 15 years of age, coming from a traditional English school.
Instruments
Argumentative essay
An argumentative essay was used to measure the quality of the students’ critical thinking skill before and after the DVTA activity. The argumentative essay was chosen because it provides better face validity as compared to the commercially available critical thinking tests. In an argumentative essay, some statement is made about what to believe or do and reasons are used to defend the statement (Norris and Ennis, 1989; Groarke et al., 1996). This coincides with the definition of critical thinking used in this study which emphasizes the process of deciding upon what to believe or do. As compared to the multiple choice format, the open-ended approach allows the students to write freely on what they believe and why, showing their critical thinking skills.
Hence, each student was asked to write an argumentative essay on the same topic before and after the DVTA activity. In order to evaluate the test, a rubric was necessary. As discussed in the earlier section on critical thinking skills, this study attempts to look at two types of critical thinking skills. Data on students’ ability to generate alternatives could not be collected because this step (to produce a range of options) is done before the essay is written as the writing of an argumentative essay only requires the student to pick out the most important alternatives to be reflected. Each type of critical thinking skill is categorized into five different levels. The descriptions for the various levels are modified from the ‘holistic scoring guide’ developed by Facione and Facione (1996). This rubric (refer to table 2) may not be comprehensive enough to reflect students’ critical thinking skill in general. It was constructed only to reflect the situation of the students under study.
Table 2
Indicators Signifying the Different Levels of Critical Thinking Skills
Criteria Level Indicators
5 Evaluates major alternative points of view, identifies salient arguments
4 Evaluates obvious alternative points of view, identifies relevant arguments
3 Evaluates alternative points of views, fails to identify relevant arguments
2 Superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view, fails to identify strong, relevant arguments
Judge whether alternative positions are fairly portrayed and evaluated
1 Ignores alternative points of view, fails to identify strong, relevant arguments Judge whether the
5 Accurately interprets evidence, explains reasons and draw judicious conclusion
4 Accurately interprets evidence, explains reasons and draw non-fallacious conclusion 3 Accurately interprets evidence, seldom explain
reasons, conclusions are weak
2 Misinterprets evidence, seldom explains reasons and draws fallacious conclusion conclusion is well
defended
1 Offers biased interpretations of evidence, argues using irrelevant reasons
Hence, each essay has a total score which indicates the quality of critical thinking skill. It was calculated by adding two sub-scores: the ability to evaluate alternatives and the ability to defend their conclusion. A Wilcoxon Matched-Ranks test was used to analyse the total score and the sub-scores.
The inter-rater reliability for scoring the argumentative essays is reflected using the Pearson correlation coefficient. For a more reliable grading, the two evaluators, both experienced teachers who are informed of the purpose of study, are required to go through the criterion and grade five different scripts picked randomly to familiarize themselves with the rubric.
According to Norris and Ennis (1989), the critical thinking tests generally have lower estimated reliabilities and therefore reliabilities within the range of 0.65 - 0.75 should be adequate. For our argumentative essay test, the inter-rater reliability for the ability to evaluate alternative is 0.68 while for the ability to defend conclusion the coefficient is 0.67.
Questionnaire
A questionnaire was administered at the end of the study triangulated by a few entries from the students’ journals to find out students’ reaction towards DVTA. The questionnaire (refer to Appendix A) consists of closed questions that attempt to find out what the students have learnt from the lessons and their attitude towards the DVTA approach. Students were given some choices to indicate if they have learnt the particular item during the lesson and whether the DVTA approach has been successful in teaching critical thinking skills and the Chinese language. The total number of students who have ticked the particular choices will be tabulated and presented. Journals
Apart from the questionnaires, the students were also given another channel to provide feedback. They were encouraged to reflect their feelings about the lessons in their journals throughout the process. Hence, this became another source of data that the researcher could use to triangulate the data collected from the questionnaire. Limitations
This research is rather limited in scope due to its limited sample size and its use of a convenience sample. The results of the study pertain to the population described and any inference drawn could be limited in its applicability. It cannot be assured that the class is representative of any other classroom that may be different from the one in this study.
Secondly, another limitation of this study is students’ language ability. It is difficult to assess an individual’s thinking if he is unable to express it in language (De Bono, 1991) especially in an argumentative essay test. Inability to express would not mean that the person lacks critical thinking skills.
Thirdly, the researcher-constructed rubric for evaluating the levels of critical thinking skills is another limitation. Though a 5-level rubric is constructed based on literature review to reflect the situation of the students’ critical thinking skills, it may not be comprehensive enough to reflect their critical thinking skills in general.
Results and Discussion
The first question: Does DVTA have any impact on the critical thinking skills of the Secondary Three Higher Chinese students?
A Wilcoxon Matched-Ranks test was also used to analyse the total score (i.e. pre total score vs. post total score). The results showed a significant increase in their critical thinking skills (p=0.046 with the ranks for increases totalling 12 and the ranks for decreases totalling 4, two-tailed). Hence, we proceed to use Wilcoxon Matched-Ranks test to analyse the sub-scores (i.e. ability to defend the conclusion and ability to evaluate alternatives). Though there was no significant difference in their ability to defend the conclusion (p=0.068 with the ranks for increases totalling 8 and the ranks for decreases totalling 2, two-tailed), and their ability to evaluate alternatives
(p=0.096 with the ranks for increases totalling 9 and the ranks for decreases totalling 4, two-tailed), it seems they did improve in those two areas.
The statistics show that the approach has a positive impact on the majority of the students. It could be inferred that DVTA helped the majority of the students to improve their thinking skills. It could also be argued that the improvement could be due to familiarity of the content since the same topic for the argumentative essay was used for the pre- and post-test.
For those students who have attended the lessons but have not shown improvement in their score some possible reasons are:
• Students lack motivation to do the same essay again
• Students may be too tied up with other homework and are not able to spend time on the post-test.
• According to Swartz and Perkins (1990, pp.10), “teaching thinking is a less reliable enterprise than teaching content in a subject area”. This implies that sometimes, the effort to teach thinking might not seem to accomplish as much as we hope to.
• Limitation of time could also be a factor. As the instruction was carried out over a period of six weeks, there may be insufficient time for internalization and transfer. As a student had said in her journal “I think it (six lessons) is not enough to change the way I do things. What are a few weeks versus a lifetime of habit?” • Students lack motivation to do better during the post-test especially when the pre-
and post-test is the same question.
The second question: How do students feel about the DVTA approach?
This question attempts to find out what else have the students learnt from the lessons (other than an improvement in critical thinking skills), how they perceived DVTA as an approach to teach Chinese and how they perceived DVTA as an approach to teach thinking skills.
The video selected for the DVTA process was “The Dynasty of Yong Zheng” 《雍正王朝》. This video was selected because all the students had yet to see it—the
crucial condition for DVTA to be successful. Apart from that, it was also highly recommended in “Huawen Laoshi2” 《華文老師》 for its content.
As seen in Table 4, almost the whole class has benefited from the lessons in some ways. All the students who participated in the study found that they had learnt some Chinese history from the lessons. Second to the list is the skill of making good predictions. Also, students further developed communication and comparing,
contrasting skills.
Table 5 shows that the students think that DVTA is a good approach for teaching the Chinese language. As seen from the table, all the students have indicated that DVTA makes Chinese lessons interesting. This was also seen in their journals as shown in the excerpts below:
DVTA is much more interesting than the typical lesson that makes us sit in class and listen to the teacher. The DVTA approach facilitates the learning of the Chinese language.
I find the lessons very interesting. I get to voice my opinions in class and I also get to interact with my group members…… I have enjoyed the lessons and now I have a better understanding of the history of the dynasty portrayed in the show. It’s a good idea to have lessons in this way.
I think this is a perfect way to stimulate one’s interest in Chinese… … it’s a good way to learn about the history and culture. I certainly look forward to having this type of lessons in future.
Table 4
A summary of items the students improved in through the DVTA lessons:
Items that students learn from the DVTA lessons N==18 % of students New Vocabulary
History of China Chinese culture Values
Communication skills
Comparing and Contrasting skills Making good predictions
Observation skills Reasoning skills Decision-making skills Generating ideas 13 18 14 7 6 6 17 14 15 12 13 72% 100% 77% 39% 33% 33% 94% 77% 83% 67% 72% Table 5
Students’ reactions and responses to using DVTA as an instructional approach to teach Chinese
Items No
2
A periodical published by Ministry of Education (Singapore), Curriculum Planning and Development Division.
It makes Chinese lessons interesting It instils my love for Chinese
It makes me look forward to Chinese lessons It is an effective way to learn Chinese
18 13 18 14 Table 6 shows that students feel that DVTA teaches them critical thinking skills. They feel that DVTA makes them comfortable making predictions, generating ideas, and substantiating their predictions.
Table 6
Using DVTA as an instructional approach to teach critical thinking
Items No
It helps me feel comfortable making predictions It helps me feel comfortable generating ideas
It helps me feel comfortable substantiating my predictions
12 9 8
The following could be some reasons why students reacted positively towards DVTA lessons:
• The fact that television programs other than the educational videos have always been appealing to most people.
• Students were very curious when they were first exposed to the DVTA approach and hence were very motivated to attend the lessons.
• DVTA allows students to think, ask questions or voice out their opinions. Such an environment probably makes learning more interesting.
• The approach is able to satisfy the students’ need to talk with their friends. The group discussion could have motivated students as interpersonal intelligence is a motivator for many of students as it helps them stay focused and increase their perseverance (Ogle, 1999).
• DVTA allows students to learn through discussions and self-exploration. This manner of learning is definitely much more interesting.
Implications of the Study
There are several implications that can be drawn from this study.
One is that the DVTA approach could be an approach to help individuals make decisions. As students internalize the steps of DVTA, their mindsets could also be modified, and they would learn to be more systematic in making decisions. This could be transferred to real life where the individual would be more aware of the steps to go through in order to make a good decision.
Secondly, the study implies that Chinese lessons could be interesting. Hence, Chinese teachers should explore and try new approaches to motivate their students to learn the Chinese language. One of the challenges that Chinese teachers in Singapore face is that more and more students are coming from English-speaking families and
are finding Chinese a difficult subject to study. This study shows that DVTA could be an alternative approach for Chinese teachers to use. DVTA shows the potential to develop students’ critical thinking, allows students to practice their language skills (listening and speaking), and most importantly, students think very positively about the approach.
Thirdly, the study implies that Chinese teachers who are interested to use DVTA should be trained. When teachers shift from a teacher-controlled lesson to a student-centered lesson, they may still be doing all the talking (Blachowicz, 1983). Hence, it may be necessary for teachers to be trained before using DVTA in class. Apart from that, teachers should also be trained to know what types of questions to ask in a DVTA lesson in order to stimulate the students’ thinking.
Fourthly, DVTA may be an appropriate approach to use in teaching other subjects such as History or Literature. The convergent questions used in the approach encourage students to think, make predictions and evaluate their tentative solutions. According to Kuhrt and Farris (1990), knowledge will be acquired when students elaborate, question and use.
Fifthly, television programmes may have a positive influence on the students’ critical thinking if students use the programmes as a way to stimulate their thinking process. In so doing, their thinking skills may be sharpened.
Conclusion
This study explores the impact DVTA has on students’ critical thinking, and their feelings towards the lessons. Based on the given conditions, the study tends to agree that students perceive DVTA lessons very positively, and DVTA has a positive impact on the students’ critical thinking skills.
Although we may not be able to conclude for sure that DVTA has impacted positively on the students’ critical thinking skills, it has shown signs that it is worthwhile to carry out experimental studies to find out if DVTA has an impact on students’ critical thinking.
References
Barron, C (1990). The impact of the directed reading-thinking activity in critical thinking skills in third grade students. Marycrest College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352640)
Blachowicz, C. (1983). Showing teachers how to develop students’ predictive reading. Reading Teacher, 36(7), 680-84. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ276105)
Boyle, O.F. & Peregoy, S. F. (1990). Literacy scaffolds: Strategies for first- and second-language readers and writers. Reading Teacher, 44(3), 194-200. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ416386)
Chaffee, J. (1998). The thinker’s way: 8 steps to a richer life. USA: Little, Brown & Company. Costa, A.L. (1999). Changing curriculum means changing your mind. In A.L. Costa(Ed.),
Teaching for intelligence II: A collection of articles (pp. 25-36). Illinois: Arlington Heights. De Bono, E. (1991). Teaching thinking. UK: penguin Group.
Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. NY: Dover Publication.
Dixon, C.N. & Nessel, D.D. (1992). Meaning making: Directed reading & thinking activities for 2nd language students. USA: Englewoods Cliffs.
Ennis, R.H. & Norris, S.P. (1990). Critical thinking assessment: Status, issues, needs. In S. Legg & J. Algina (Eds.), Cognitive assessment of language and math outcomes (pp.1-43). USA: Ablex Publishing.
Ennis, R.H. (1992). Assessing higher-order thinking for accountability. In J.W. Keefe & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Teaching for thinking (pp.73-91). Reston, VA.: NASSP.
Facione, P. A.& Facione, N.C. (1996). Holistic critical thinking scoring rubric. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.calpress.com
Facione, P. A., Facione, N.C. & Giancarlo, C.A.F. (1997). The motivation to think in working and learning. Pre-publication draft. Forthcoming chapter in the New Directions for Higher Education Series, Defining Expectations for student learning, E. Jones (Ed.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pub 1997. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://www.calpress.com Groarke, et al. (1996). Good reasoning matters! A constructive approach to critical thinking.
Canada: Oxford University Press.
Haggard, M. R. (1988). Developing critical thinking with the Directed Reading-Thinking Activity.
Reading Teacher, 41(6), 526-33. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ367179) Halpern, D.F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (3rd ed.) USA:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Halpern, D.F. (1997). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A brief edition of thought and knowledge. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoskisson, K. (1973). “False” Questions and “Right” Answers. Reading Teacher, 27(2), 159-62. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. EJ085864)
Hsu J., Huang Y.W & ChenV. (2000). “提升學生多元化思考: IT 和 DRTA 的結合＂ [Promoting thinking: the marriage of IT and DRTA]. In C. L. Chua (Ed.), Creative thinking and information technology,(pp. 88-95). Singapore: SNP publishing.
Kuhrt, B. L. & Farris, P.J. (1990). Empowering students through reading, writing and reasoning.
Journal of Reading, 33(6), 436-41. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ405088) Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R.S., Hughes, C.S., Jones, B.F., Presseisen, B.Z., Rankin, S.C. & Suhor, C.
(1988). Dimensions of thinking. USA: ASCD.
McCrink, C.L. (1998). The role of innovative methodology and learning styles on critical thinking.
[Doctoral dissertation] Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/gateway
Minor, B. J. & Cafone, H. (1977). Reading techniques make media meaningful. Audiovisual Instruction; 22(10), 19-20,45. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ172249) Nessel, D. (1987). The New Face of Comprehension Instruction: A Closer Look at Questions.
Reading Teacher; v40,n7, pp.604-06 Mar 1987. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ348994)
Norris, S. P. & Ennis, R.H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. USA: Critical thinking press and software.
Ogle, D. (1999). Multiple intelligence and reading instruction. In A.L. Costa (Ed.), Teaching for intelligence II: A collection of articles (pp.115-129). Illinois: Arlington Heights.
Petre, R.M.(1971). Quantity, quality, and variety of pupil responses during an open-communication structured group directed-thinking activity and a closed open-communication structured group directed reading activity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED071053)
Renn, E.C. (1999). The effects of the directed reading thinking activity in second grade reading comprehension. (UMI No. 1395108)
Richek, M.A. (1987). DRTA:5 Variations that facilitate independence in reading narratives.
Journal of Reading, 30(7), pp.632-36. Apr 1987. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ350561)
Siegel, M. & Carey, R.F. (1989). Critical thinking: A semiotic perspective. ERIC Clearinghouse on reading and communication skills. National Council of Teachers of English. Illinois. Smith, F. (1992). To think in language, learning and education. UK: Routledge.
Spiegel, D.L. (1981). Six alternatives to the directed reading activity. Reading Teacher, 34(8), 914-20. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ245508)
Stauffer, R.G. & Cramer, R.(1971). Teaching critical reading at the primary level. (2nd printing) Reading Aids Series.
Stauffer, R.G. (1969). Directing the reading-thinking process. USA: Harper & Row.
Stauffer, R.G. (1971). Slave, puppet or teacher? Reading Teacher, 25(1), 24-29, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ045096)
Stieglitz, E.L. & Oehlkers, W.J. (1989). Improving teacher discourse in a reading lesson. Reading Teacher, 42(6), 374-79, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ383723)
Swartz, R.J. & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing the teaching of critical and creative thinking into content instruction. USA: Critical Thinking Press & Software.
Swartz, R.J. & Perkins, D.N. (1990). Teaching thinking: Issues and approaches. USA: Critical Thinking Press and Software.
Tishman, S., Perkins, D.N. & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom: Learning and teaching in a culture of thinking. USA: Allyn & Bacon.
Van, J & William, J. (1992). The role of questioning in developing reading comprehension in the social studies. Journal of Reading, 26(3), 214-16. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ271132)
Authors: Neo Chin Ee
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University CHEUNG Wing Sum (LST)
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University e-mail: [email protected]
