NNOVATION ABSTRACTS

VOLUME X, NUMBER 30

a ahO) a tema ead e mem hee. Cer Tir eres ERY
alWexe Mr @leN Or WHO

Teaching Thinking Across the Curriculum:
A Cooperative Learning Approach

Background

Our society is shifting from an industrial economy
of goods producers to a service-oriented economy of
information handlers. With these facts in mind,
Community College of Aurora’s Integrated Thinking
Skills Project Team prepared to implement a non-tradi-
tional program through a cooperative learning ap-
proach.

Purpose: Where Are We Going?

Defining where we were going was the source of
lively debate. Although the terms “thinking skills” and
“critical thinking” had been liberally sprinkled on our
training sessions, we soon discovered that no two
people in the room had the same—or even similar—
definitions. We were attempting to develop and
implement a thinking skills program with vastly
different ideas about what that meant.

Hours and a great deal of heated discussion later,
we arrived at a working definition; this gave focus to
our efforts. Next came the establishment of project
goals and objectives. Once this was accomplished, the
group looked at potential pitfalls that might impede
our progress. We then brainstormed ways to avoid po-
tential stumbling blocks like “moving too fast,” “giving
in to carly failures,” and “taking the short view.”

Planning: Do We Have A Road Map?

Now we needed to develop a road map to make
certain we stayed on course. The team began by ex-
ploring each member's underlying assumptions about
thinking and teaching. Can thinking skills be taught?
Do students—and teachers—want to think? If thinking
can be taught, can it be taught in any course?

Our answers to these questions helped us formulate
a contract, of sorts. The list of underlying assumptions
we generated (with a reasonable project timetable)
formed a mutual belicf system about our task and, in
large part, helped us begin our journey from the same
place.

Methods: How Will We Get There?

At this point, team members were ready to begin

exploring the various curricular and instructional

methods that would “get us there.” These discussions
centered around five key elements: content objectives,
thinking skills objectives, evaluative criteria, instruc-
tional materials, and classroom activities.

Faculty members sorted out content objectives for
their courses, then decided which thinking skills might
help students master these objectives. Next, team
members identified appropriate materials—including
textbooks, supplementary materials, handouts, over-
head transparencies. Finally, from a list of teacher- and
student-centered instructional methods, team members
chose effective teaching strategies.

Using this curriculum model, project participants
now had a set of tools to get to the desired location:
teaching students content and how to learn it, through
direct thinking skills instruction.

Evaluation: How Will We Know We've Arrived?

The evaluation task was the most difficult, by far. In
addition to the evaluation of specific content/reason-
ing objectives, the team decided on several other ways
to assess whether students had profited by thinking
skills instruction. These included pre- and post-in-
struction surveys and writing samples, student/faculty
evaluations of instruction, student interviews, and
faculty progress reports.

A Final Word

Cooperative decision-making around these topics
prepared faculty members to design courses that
integrate content with thinking skills instruction. This
approach helped project participants cultivate the
“change mentality” necessary for an interdisciplinary
thinking skills program.

Cynthia A. Barnes, Director, Integrated Thinking Skills
Project

For further information, contact the author at Commu-
nity College of Aurora, 791 Chambers Road, Aurora,
CO 80011.

 

ger

f)}
lo

  

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (NISOD)
Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin
EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712