1

4. Action Research Results

4.1 Teachers' Questionnaire

Table 3 represents the teachers' responses in the questionnaire. It describes the impact that the classroom teachers reported on their pupils, on themselves, and on transfer of the skills to new situations.

IMPACT ON PUPILS

Sample comments

The teachers reported that thinking helps the children to think before speaking or taking action. (T1,T6)

Thinking skills helps the children to think before they talk or do something. It helps them choose the best way for doing things later on in life.(T1)

They came up with alternatives, they felt free to speak without fear of correction. (T3)

Gave the children time to think in 'alternative' ways.(T3)

They enjoyed the sessions because of the fun items, drawing, and the fact that they had no exam. (T3,T4, T5,T6,T8,T10, T11,) .

The group who were with the other teacher always recounted what a lovely enjoyable time they had had, what a fantastic subject they had discussed. They also showed me, enthusiastically, their drawings of the subject they had just discussed.(T4)

The sessions have helped pupils to calm down and stop fidgeting. (T10).

Some children seemed to have calmed down.

They were very troublesome and fidgety during the first term. (T10)

IMPACT ON TEACHERS

Some teachers attended the sessions. T1, T2, T8.

As I always attended the sessions, I knew exactly what children did (in my group because the children in my class were divided into two groups).(T1)

Some teachers mentioned that they learned a lot . T2, T4.

Personally, I have learnt a lot -.(T2)

The teachers reported that they had positive impressions on the whole programme. (T1-T9, T11).

Personally, I have learnt a lot - .(T2), Interesting. (T5), Positive impression. (T6), .Very positive indeed. . (T8)

The teachers spoke of the T.S. lessons as a gainful, enjoyable and a positive experience. (T4,-T9).

I regarded these sessions as time -fulfilling - each lesson, each thinking tool was a treasure to be discovered.(T4)

TRANSFER

Teachers have learned to deal with situations and topics in class. They can see that the thinking skills can become part of their lessons.(T1-T6).

This new topic has become part of the lessons - it has integrated very well.(T2)

Table 3: Teachers' questionnaire responses.

4.1.1 Impact on teachers: General impressions

One of the major concerns of all involved in the T.S.P. was whether T.S. would be taught by the regular class teachers, both while the programme was still in progress, and, more importantly, after it came to its conclusion. With this in mind class teachers were invited to attend the T.S. sessions. However they could not be coerced and while some immediately found an excuse to leave the class, others attended with varying regularity. It was noted that teachers of the Year 1 to Year 3 classes were much more receptive to this new subject and had a higher level of attendance in the T.S. sessions than the Year 4, 5 and 6 teachers.

This is probably due to the fact that the former are less tied down to the formal and traditional curriculum as pupils at this age are not assessed formally by summative and selective examinations. This is confirmed by the comments of a Year 6 teacher who expressed her initial concern that the T.S. sessions would encroach further into the already limited time she had to cover the syllabus for that year:

My first impression was that I would have less hours available for teaching a year 6 class which after all is not an �A' stream class. After all, the syllabus has to be finished by mid-January �. It would have been better if children had these lessons after their Junior Lyceum exams. (T10)

The Year 1 to Year 3 teachers did not voice any concern about the added load on the curriculum. They were much more concerned with whether the subject was suitable for their pupils, either due to their young age or else due to the demands it makes on pupils:

At first I was concerned as in my class I had many children who were still very young and the topic was new �.I am still not sure if the children have understood (being still young) how important these lessons are.(T2)

They enjoyed it even though it was at times too intensive for the slower pupils. (T3)

One must add that it was noted that the interest of those teachers who attended the classes increased further, showing that the classes left a generally good impression on the teachers. The teachers who attended the sessions gave very positive feedback such as :

I regarded these sessions as time-fulfilling - each lesson, each thinking tool was a treasure to be discovered. (T4)

These sessions were very interesting. I found them excellently prepared and delivered. The pupils enjoyed them and looked forward to them. (T8)

However, although this kind of impact is indeed encouraging, the T.S. teachers were looking for an impression which would be not only more lasting but also more productive. In particular, the T.S. teachers' main interest, as regards to the class teachers, was whether exposure to the T.S. sessions would lead to changed practise within the �normal' classroom context, i.e. whether there would be transfer from the T.S. class to the traditional classroom environment.

4.1.2 Tangible Impacts

The teachers' responses as regards to the tangible impact on their pedagogical methods and classroom practise are varied. Again the teachers of the younger classes showed more willingness to change their classroom practise to accommodate and integrate what they saw in the T.S. sessions

Personally, I have learnt a lot - especially how to tackle a new topic or situation. (T2)

They have given me some interesting ideas about handling group work and letting children talk and express their opinion freely without being afraid of doing a mistake. (T3)

They have made me realise that before starting a new activity, a new project, or a new undertaking I must apply the Thinking tools we discussed. (T4)

I enjoyed them when I attended and the lessons gave me ideas to integrate in class. (T5)

None of the teachers from the Year 4 to Year 6 classes remarked on any change or impact on their classroom practise. There are some instances where teachers mention the use of the T.S. in class. However, this seems to be incidental and left to the initiative of the pupils rather than being a concerted effort to instil these thinking habits in the children:

The children never asked me to use thinking tools for problem solving. (T1)

The children never asked me to use the thinking tools in class. (T2)

I have to say that, no, they did not ask me to use these tools to solve problems in class or to generate ideas. (T4)

One teacher, when asked whether he used the T.S. in his classroom, replied in the negative, but then commented:

It [T.S.] have certainly helped them in their compositions.(T8)

This attitude of leaving it up to the children whether to use the T.S. learned in the classroom or not is also borne out by the comment of a Year 5 teacher:

I can't really tell if the skills taught are being used in classroom work. (T9)

In similar vein a response from a Year 6 teacher seems to imply that getting the children to use the T.S. is an unnecessary effort and expected the children, after so little exposure, to use them naturally:

You have to keep reminding them and help them again if you want them to use them. They never mentioned them either in composition or whenever some necessity arose. (T11)

The amount of transfer that the pupils made from the T.S. sessions to their normal class and also outside the school has therefore to be judged with this apparent lack of interest on the part of some of the teachers. In the words of one of the teachers:

I think that now it is up to us teachers to use the methods. (T2)

4.1.3 Impact on Pupils

The main concern of the T.S. team in the case of the pupils was to what extent would the T.S. be applied outside the T.S. class, i.e. the level of transfer from the T.S. sessions to their regular class and to contexts outside school, be it the home, places of recreation, religious classes etc. Evidence of this was collected from the questionnaires of the classroom teachers and of the pupils themselves.

The general impression that one gets from teachers' questionnaire responses is that they thought that the children were as yet too immature to apply what they learned in the T.S. classes to other contexts:

I am still not sure if the children have understood (being still young) how important these lessons are.(T2)

I think that these sessions are very useful and that they will help the children later - but now they are still young to understand.(T2)

I think the children were too young to apply the idea out of a PSE class (5-6 year olds).(T3)

I think that perhaps they are still a bit young for this. (T8)

as regards to the children they have to be kept reminded of them every time they need to use them.(T11)

This certainly seems to be the case with the Year 1 classes where both teachers gave similar comments as to the level of understanding of the children within the T.S. sessions, which certainly does not augur well for the bigger leap of application outside the classroom:

The children never asked me to use thinking tools for problem solving. Being young, I think that Year 1 pupils were more interested in drawing at conclusion of lesson. (T1)

When I asked the children what they do and why they think they are attending these sessions, they replied "We go there to learn how to draw". I think that these sessions are very useful and that they will help the children later - but now they are still young to understand. (T2)

There are indeed very few instances recorded by the regular class teachers as regards transfer to their classes. Two instances were recorded, the first being an instance of the children using the T.S. learned unconsciously, while the second was a direct demand of the pupils from their teacher to use the T.S. in a classroom discussion:

They have helped the students and myself to think more before acting. It has certainly helped them in their compositions. (T8)

Yes they did. The children were asked to think well before. e.g. buying presents for Christmas. The needs of a person (like a grandmother) would vary from those of mother. Along with the needs one can consider likes, age etc. Thus when buying presents these factors were taught to be kept in mind. (T6)

Besides these two comments, the teachers seem to be of the opinion that, though the children did learn these new skills and enjoyed this new experience, for one reason or another they did not make the next step and apply the T.S. outside the T.S. class:

They enjoyed the sessions but did not apply what they heard to actual instances.(T10)

However, the teacher's responses indicated possible changes in the behaviour of some of the children:

They learnt to talk more in turns. (T3)

Some children seemed to have calmed down. They were very troublesome and fidgety during the first term. (T10)

4.2 Pupil Questionnaires

4.2.1 Transfer

The older pupils themselves reported use of the T.S. in other situations in class, in school and at home (see Table 4).

Transfer to Class

One pupil mentioned that the T.S. classes helped her to build on the ideas of others. There were 28 pupils who mentioned that they used the T.S. in creative writing, while one pupil said that she used the tools during maths. Two pupils mentioned that the T.S. helped them to model their behaviour in class. The tools mentioned were APC (Alternatives, Possibilities, Choices), FIP (First Important Priorities) and CAF (Consider All Factors).

Place

Use of Thinking Skills

No. of Pupils

In Class

Creative-writing

Maths

Modeling of Behaviour

In School

To decide what games to play during break

Stop fighting other pupils

At Home

To decide what games to play

To do Homework

Religious Association

Discussion

Table 4: Transfer of Thinking Skills outside the T.S. sessions

Transfer to School

Six pupils mentioned they used a CAF to decide what to play during the lunch break. Another two pupils decided to use the T.S. to stop the children fighting in their class.

Transfer to Home

Five pupils claimed that they used the T.S. in their HW. As regards games, seven pupils said that they used the T.S. to decide what games to play.

Other Instances of Transfer

One pupil reported that she used the T.S. at a meeting in a religious association.

The younger pupils came up with the following responses:

Transfer to class

There was only one instance reported where the T.S. had been used in class, namely the FIP and CAF had been used when studying the Maths tables and when preparing for outings, compositions and for the Carnival competition.

Transfer to home

Again, only one class mentioned that the CAF tool had been used at home when the pupils had to tell their mothers what they needed for an outing. Here, most classes also mentioned that they had learnt to talk and to write. A full transcript of the pupils' responses can be seen in the Appendix II.

Through the same questionnaire, the children's feedback (Years 4-6) about the whole T.S.P. was also sought. This was done through a P.M.I. (see Table 5).

PLUS

Pupil Responses

No. of pupils

The Project

Crafts

Thinking games/Puzzles

Role-play

Drawing

Group-work

MINUS

Talking Object

Teacher will change

Nothing was bad

INTERESTING

More crafts

More time and more lessons

More games

Learning other tools

Nothing should change

Table 5: Pupils' questionnaire responses (Year 4 - Year 6) using the PMI

From their responses it seems that the end of course project and the creative exercises within it left the biggest and most positive impression. The project, which was meant to provide a unifying theme for the use of all the tools learned, as well as a showcase for the work which had been carried out, had what one could call a side-effect (the fun element of creating models, drawings, collages etc) which overshadowed the desired one, i.e. that the children realise that the thinking tools can be used in practical situations relevant to their lives. The 'craft' element of the project left such a big impression that several pupils also recommended 'more crafts' under the 'Interesting' part of this exercise.

Drawing, which was used as an alternative medium of communication and record keeping in some of the lessons, figures highly among the responses. The remaining plusses are related to the methodology, the role-play, the thinking games and puzzles and the use of group-work.

As regards the minus element of this exercise, the pupils seemed to be less forthright as would be expected and the most common complaint was aimed at one thing which could not take much offence, namely, the soft-toy or �talking-object' which was used to facilitate turn-taking and to moderate the discussion during lessons. The 'Interesting' part of this exercise turned out to be a list of 'mores'.

The younger pupils had similar responses for the overall T.S. P. (see Table 6).

PLUS

Pupil Responses

The Project

Crafts

Talking Object

Special Book

Drawing

Thinking and Talking

MINUS

Splitting of Classes

INTERESTING

More Drawing

More time for project work

Table 6: Pupils' questionnaire responses (Year 1- Year 3)

When asked what they enjoyed during these lessons all classes reported that they enjoyed drawing at the closure of each lesson and also mentioned the Special Book, the journal used for the T.S. sessions. All classes also mentioned that they enjoyed thinking and talking. Unlike the older pupils, all the younger classes said that they loved the talking object. All classes also mentioned that they enjoyed working on the project and, like the older classes, the pupils put more emphasis on the content rather than on the thinking processes involved.

With regards to what they did not like, one thing worthy of mention was that they did not like the fact that the classes were split, especially when on certain particular days there was high absenteeism and the T.S. class was made up of few pupils.

When asked what could be interesting, most of the classes mentioned that they would like to have more drawing and more time dedicated to project work.

4.2.2 Observed impact on pupil learning processes

Triangulation of the above data was sought through the use of another data collecting instrument, namely, video recordings of a class problem-solving activity. As mentioned above, the same problem was given to three class groups from the school who had a minimum of 12 T.S. lessons (Experimental groups E2, E4 and E6) and to three class groups from a new school (Control groups C2, C4 and C6). All sessions were video recorded. Complete transcripts of the recordings are to be found in Appendix I.

The responses of the pupils during the video sessions were analysed and assessed according to different characteristics of thinking and modes of interaction of the pupils with the problem set. Particular note was taken of the level of pupil interaction, breadth of thinking, resourcefulness, originality, autonomy in thinking and metacognitive talk.

4.2.3 Pupil Interaction

This is a measure of general pupil participation or the lack of it, referring to both pupil-pupil and pupil-teacher interaction. It includes the pupils' way of relating with the teacher, that is taking into consideration how the pupils interact, whether they wait for the teacher to call out their names, whether they come up with responses on their own or after the teacher asks a question. This measure also considers the way pupils respond to the responses of their peers, whether they listen to each other, or if they build on each other's responses.

It was generally noted that the pupils in all the experimental groups were much more verbal, with lengthy contributions when interacting with the teacher as opposed to the prevalent one word responses from the control group. The pupils in the experimental groups also tended to initiate interaction themselves rather than waiting for questions or prompts from the respective teachers. The methodology used during the T.S. sessions, as aptly stated by one of the teachers, has evidently left a substantial change in the quantity and also the kind of pupil-teacher interaction:

Children enjoyed the sessions, because they were given the chance to express their thoughts freely. They have given me some interesting ideas about handling group-work and letting children talk and express their opinion freely without being afraid of doing a mistake. (T3)

Knowing that their opinions were not only sought but also valued by the T.S. teachers, the children in the experimental groups were much more forthright in expressing their opinions and more confident in elaborating and elucidating their thoughts.

As opposed to the constant barrage of ideas from the experimental groups, the interaction of the control groups was characterised by long pauses and instances of hesitation. The control groups were hardly ever spontaneous and, whereas the experimental groups were constantly lifting their hands to voice their opinions, in the control groups the teacher had to call out their names each time to ask and prompt the pupils into speaking. Their ideas were often not very clear and the T.S. teachers often had to verbally interpret their brief responses. The pupils in these groups repeated each other's responses very often showing both a lack of original ideas and also weaker listening skills. Pupils in the experimental groups, on the other hand, not only did not repeat the ideas of others but often built on them (the index number refers to the time of the video in minutes and seconds):

02.10 Dominic: Eh, il-grieden jaghmillhom, eeh..

02.14 Pupil: Gobna.

02.16 Dominic: Eh, gobna hdejn il-bieb u johorgu. (E2)

05.36: Dominic: Kif qal Bjorn taghmel flixkun gol-ilma, taghlqu hekk u ddahhlu got-toqba u mbaghad jaqa' l-ilma got-toqba u jmutu.

05.45 Teacher: Eh. Tgharriqhom, qed tghid inti.

05.50 Dominic: Eh!

05.51 Teacher: Ghidli Josmar.

05.52 Josmar: Kif qal Bjorn. Ikun hemm flixkun. X'hin ikun hiereg il-barra biex jiekol il- gobon jibqa' diehel gol-flixkun u mbaghad jaghlqu bit-tapp. (E2)

05.57.01 Michael: Il-borom tqabbad in-nar imma ma taghmilhomx ezatt fuqu, taghmel iz-zkuk...

-0.56.53 Jurgen: Taghmel bhal gradilja.

-0.56.52 Michael: Imbaghad taghmel xi huta go fiha.

-0.56.48 Tasmin: U taghmel xi hxejjex.

-0.56.43 Micheal: Imbaghad biex tahsilha tmur gol-....

-0.56.42 Gerline: Gor-river, gox-xmara.

-0.56.38 Michael: U ma tissaddadx. (E6)

At other times, the pupils in the experimental groups criticised constructively, often providing solutions or alternatives not considered by the pupil/s with the original idea:

01.22 Shanice: Eqq, ikollu jixtri ohra mbaghad.

01.25 Teacher: Jixtri ohra. U l-flus minn fejn se jgibhom?

01.29 Shanice: Jissellifhom mill-bank.

01.33 Teacher: Jista' jkun li biex xtara l-ewwel wahda diga ssellef. Il-bank mhux ser jerga' jsellfu.

01.40 Josmar: Forsi jkollu hafna flus il- bank. (E2)

-27.03 Teacher Il-lampa hija l-aktar haga importanti ghalik?

-26.58 Shaun Inkella bil-lejl ma tkunx tista tara.

-26.54 Ivor Kamp.

-26.50 Paul Fejn norqdu.

-26.30 Paul Imma fil-kamp ma jkollokx plakka.

-26.22 Stephen Imma l-lampa bil-pitrolju. (E4)

Teacher Ghaliex hadtu l-hwejjeg zejda, Paul?

-16.32 Paul Biex ma nkunux mahmugin.

-16.18 Stephen Tista tahsilhom gol-bahar.

-15.54 Amy Taghmel iz-zkuk u tista tonxorhom. (E4)

-13.02 Teacher Intom ma hadtux kamp. X' ser taghmlu issa mela?

-12.48 Sabrina Norqdu taht xi sigra.

-12.40 Stephen Jidhol l-ilma.

-12.30 Amy Taghmel iz-zkuk, taghmel iz-zkuk madwarhom u taghmel il-kutri fuqhom. (E4)

-5.40 Teacher Sabrina, Amy u Elaine, kien hemm xi haga li intom ma hadtuhiex u intom hadtuha. Ivor u Paul hadtu torc. Biex jahdem it-torc taghkom Ivor?

-5.23 Ivor Bil-batteries.

-5.21 Elaine U jekk jispiccawlek?

-5.17 Ivor Bl-automatic. (E4)

-4.13 Teacher Il-lampa taghkom, Shaun u Stephen, biex kienet ser tahdem?

-4.24 Stephen Bil-pitrolju.

-4.18 Shaun Bl-ilma bahar.

-3.42 Sabrina Tqabbad in-nar.

-3.36 Paul Imma jekk jigi r-rih?

-3.30 Sabrina Indawwru. (E4)

-1.12.49 Teacher X'nistghu nghidu li ser ikun hemm zgur ikel?

-1.12.47 Tasmin Ikun hemm il-hut ser.

-1.12.35 Lee Imma ma hadtux qasba. (E6)

-1.01.30 Teacher U fejn kontu ser torqdu?

-1.01.27 Jessica Ghandna l-kutra.

-1.01.25 Michael U jekk taghmel ix-xita?

-1.01.21 Tasmin Nidhlu fil-ghar, nidhlu fl-gherien.

-1.01.18 Michael U jekk ma jkunx hemm gherien?

-1.01.16 Tasmin Inhaffru fil-blat. (E6)

-0.51.43 Teacher Il-habel ghaliex hadtuh Gerline?

-0.51.42 Gerline Biex jew nistadu biha, naghmlu bicca zokk u norbtuh maghha.

-0.51.37 Tasmin U l-bait minn fejn ser iggibha? Id-dud nbiex tistad ghall-hut. (E6)

1.05.29 Teacher Intom Annmarie, kieku kellkom tergghu taghzlu, il-board game tohduha?

-1.05.27 Annmarie: Iva.

-1.05.28 Tasmin: Imbaghad biex tibnu d-dar x'taghmlu mbaghad? (E6)

In contrast to the above instances of pupil-pupil interaction, there were only two such instances one in the control groups:

05.19 Mel Tista' barra titfghalhom il-gobon il- grieden u jmorru barra.

05.25 Teacher imorru l-barra. Il-gobon titfghu barra.

05.28 Clayton Iktar jigu. (C2)

21.45 Juan Hemm ix-xmajjar minn fejn tista' tixrob u hut.

22.00 Joseph U biex ser taqbadhom u biex ser issajjarhom? (C6)

4.2.4 Breadth/Narrowness

This measure takes into consideration the breadth (or lack of � i.e., narrowness) of the pupils' responses or choices. Breadth is a measure of the ability of the pupils to come up with suitable responses, choices or solutions to the problem set or any questions put by the teacher due to a careful consideration of all the factors inherent to the problem.

In general it was noted that Year 4, 5 and 6 pupils in the E group selected more objects which could be used in the long-term and for a variety of purposes rather than objects of limited use both practical and temporal:

Choices of E4 groups

lamp clothes clothes

tent toys drink

clothes blankets lamp

torch brush tent

toys plates blankets

Choices of (C4) groups

Food blankets drink drink food

Clothes toys books food drink

Blanket drink toys toys

Money food food blankets

Drink clothes blankets clothes

Choices of E6 groups

knife mallet clothes

soap map bronze pots

clothes food hammer

blankets board game rope

map clothes tinned food

Choices of (C6) groups

Family photos toys tent

mobile phone clothes board game

video game food and drink neon tube

clothes mobile phone blankets

tent tent sunblock

It is immediately evident that the E4 group put the problem of shelter high in their priorities while the C4 group were more concerned about means of sustenance, choosing to take the quickly perishable goods of food and drink and failing to consider that a desert island could still provide them with fish and water to say the least. When the teacher asked what sort of food they were going to take the responses showed little consideration of how long this food would last, both due to it being quickly consumed and also due to the fact that there would be no means of stopping the particular edible items they thought of taking from rotting:

2.00 Teacher Kulhadd haseb li jiehu l-ikel. Ghaliex

hadna l-ikel Michelle?

2.27 Michelle Ghax jaqbadna l-guh.

2.30 Teacher X'kontu tiehdu ikel?

2.34 Edmea Ravjul.

2.45 Stephen P. Pizza (C4)

When the teacher asked if the pupils thought that they could find something to eat and drink on the island the responses obtained are in sharp contrast:

4.24 Teacher Meta jispicca l-ikel nistghu insibu xi haga ohra x' nieklu?

4.30 Melissa Frott.

4.43 Christian Patata maxx.

5.40 Michelle Lumi.

5.45 Michelle Amy qed tghidli wirdien.

6.20 Stephen P. Tigiega.

6 .30 Noreen Iljun.

6.35 Edmea Lifa.

6.50 Stephen Sriep.

6.55 Michelle Nannakola.

7.05 Stephen Grieden.

7.15 Justin Qattus.

7.20 Ismael Papri. (C4)

-26.15 Teacher Ejjew naraw naqra min haseb fl-ikel. Tajjeb �

Sabrina, Amy u Elaine ma hadux ikel maghhom. Shaun u Stephen hadu xorb biss u Ivor u Paul la hadu xorb u l-anqas hadu ikel.. Sabrina x' ser taghmlu ghall-ikel?

-25.45 Sabrina Forsi jew frott jew forsi naqbdu l-hut.

-23.45 Teacher X'tahseb li nistghu insibu izjed x' nieklu?

-23.34 Elaine Il-haxix.

-23.15 Shaun Fjuri, ikunu qarsin.

-22.50 Amy Mushrooms.

-22.20 Elaine Fniek.

-21.50 Elaine Hniezer.

-21.45 Teacher Iva, xi hniezer slavag. (E4)

Comparing the choices of the E6 and C6 groups one sees that the experimental groups all took some tools with them and other useful things such as bronze pots and rope. Although the E groups took no tents as opposed to the C groups they had the tools and material such as rope to make a more permanent shelter. The E groups were more specific in their choices showing a broader consideration of factors pertaining to the problem. For instance they took bronze pots since bronze does not rust and tinned food because it is edible for a longer period of time. They also made less trivial choices such as toys and games.

The younger pupils in the E group also had more ideas which showed a broader consideration of the different factors pertaining to the problem.

02.06 Dominic: Id-dubbien joqtolhom b'dik, qish...

02.08 Teacher: Swatter jghidulha.

02.10 Dominic: Eh, il-grieden jaghmillhom, eeh..

02.14 Pupil: Gobna.

02.16 Dominic: Eh, gobna hdejn il-bieb u johorgu.(E2)

05.36: Dominic: Kif qal Bjorn taghmel flixkun gol-ilma, taghlqu hekk u ddahhlu got-toqba u mbaghad jaqa' l-ilma got-toqba u jmutu.

05.45 Teacher: Eh. Tgharriqhom, qed tghid inti.

05.50 Dominic: Eh!

05.51 Teacher: Ghidli Josmar.

05.52 Josmar Kif qal Bjorn. Ikun hemm flixkun. X'hin ikun hiereg il-barra biex jiekol il-gobon jibqa' diehel gol-flixkun u mbaghad jaghlqu bit-tapp.(E2)

07.46 Josmar: Jew inkella, kif ikun ser johrog il-gurdien ikun hemm il-qattus u jidhol hekk u jghidlu Yummy u jkissirlu snienu.(E2)

09.42 Luke 1: Iggib brimba u toqghod tiekolhom.(E2)

The responses of the C groups on the other hand are very narrow in their vision and grasp of the problem and often required the intervention of the teacher to clarify and fill in the frequent silences:

00.28 Clayton: Joqtolhom

00.29 Teacher: Joqtolhom tghid inti, joqtolhom. Kieth. Ma jimpurtax fil-kaz ippassja ghal ta' hdejk. Ehe Adrian x' jaghmel kieku?� Jekk m'ghandniex ideat f' mohhna nippassjaw. Mel.

01.19 Teacher: Mela, jkahhal il-hajt biex jaghlaq t-toqob. X'izjed. Julienne�. X'jista jaghmel, x' nistghu naghmlu? Mela se joqtolhom, se juza l-isprej, se jkahhal il-hajt. X' izjed? Mela jekk m'ghandniex idea m' ghandekx ghalfejn tghidli inti. Nistghu nippassjawha.

09.04 Julienne: Il-grieden jieklu l-gobon u jmorru.

09.07 Teacher: Jieklu l-gobon u jmorru. Mela allura jaghtihom hafna gobon u jmorru. (C2)

4.2.5 Resourcefulness

Resourcefulness is here defined as the pupils' ability to overcome obstacles by finding alternative solutions to the problem set and giving reasons for their choices.

The Year 1, 2 and 3 pupils in the E group again fared much better finding solutions, which, considering their young age, show an exceptional depth of thought:

01.22 Shanice: Eqq, ikollu jixtri ohra mbaghad.

01.25 Teacher: Jixtri ohra. U l-flus minn fejn se jgibhom?

01.29 Shanice: Jissellifhom mill-bank.

01.33 Teacher: Jista' jkun li biex xtara l-ewwel wahda diga ssellef. Il-bank mhux ser jerga' jsellfu.

01.40 Josmar: Forsi jkollu hafna flus il-bank.

Teacher: U l-flus minn fejn se jgibhom?(E2)

02.06 Dominic: Id-dubbien joqtolhom b'dik, qish...

02.08 Teacher: Squatter jghidulha.

02.10 Dominic: Eh, il-grieden jaghmillhom, eeh..

02.14 Pupil: Gobna.

02.16 Dominic: Eh, gobna hdejn il-bieb u johorgu..(E2)

08.37 Shanice: Jista' jixtri qattus halli meta johrog ihallih hemm u jiekolhom..(E2)

10.55 Luke 2: God-dustbin.

10.57 Teacher: imma god-dustbin malajr jintela daqs kemm hemm.

11.03 Luke 2: Tqeghdhom go flixkun wiehed wiehed.

11.07 Teacher: Imma l-fliexken imbaghad fejn ser tarmihom?

11.14 Luke 2: Imbaghad jigi taz-zibel u jehodhom.(E2)

13.39 Bjorn: Jekk jigu hafna dud ingibu ghasfur.(E2)

As regards to the older pupils, the solutions found are comparable when assessed for this particular characteristic of thought. Both the E and C groups found adequate and similar solutions to the problems of shelter:

-13.02 Teacher Intom ma hadtux kamp. X' ser taghmlu issa mela?

-12.48 Sabrina Norqdu that xi sigra.

-12.40 Stephen Jidhol l-ilma.

-12.30 Amy Taghmel iz-zkuk, taghmel iz-zkuk madwarhom u taghmel il-kutri fuqhom. (E4)

15.00 Teacher Stephen u Stephen intom ma hadtux kutri, x' ser taghmlu minhabba l-ksieh?

15.15 Amy Jitghattew bil- weraq.

15.40 Ismael Naghmlu qisu dar.

15.41 Justin Kamp.

15.45 Teacher Minn xiex naghmluh?

15.48 Stephen P. Injam.

15.49 Stephen Gebel.

15.50 Amy Kutri.

15.52 Stephen P. Zkuk. (C4)

-1.01.32 Teacher Intom kontu qed tahsbu li tibnu xi kabina?

-1.01.31 Jessica Le.

-1.01.30 Teacher U fejn kontu ser torqdu?

-1.01.27 Jessica Ghandna l-kutra.

-1.01.25 Michael U jekk taghmel ix-xita?

-1.01.21 Tasmin Nidhlu fil-ghar, nidhlu fl-gherien.

-1.01.18 Michael U jekk ma jkunx hemm gherien?

-1.01.16 Tasmin Inhaffru fil-blat. (E6)

26.30 Juan Tibni bl-injam.

26.55 Jessica Tibni dar.

27.31 Joseph Hbula.

27.35 Teacher Ghaliex il-hbula?

27.37 Joseph Biex norbtu z-zkuk flimkien.

27.38 Teacher X'izjed?

27.50 Dorian Tiben. (C6)

Food and drink:

-25.45 Sabrina Forsi jew frott jew forsi nawbdu l-hut.

-25.39 Teacher Kif ser naqbdu l-hut?

-25.35 Paul Bil-qasba.

-25.32 Teacher U mall-qasba xi jkollok bzonn?

-25.28 Shaun Sunnara u habel ��.u hobz.

-25.15 Teacher Il-qasba minn xiex ser ingibuha?

-25.13 Paul Mill-hanut.

-25.08 Shaun Miz-zkuk tas-sigar.

-25.02 Teacher Flok ix-xlief x'nistghu nuzaw?

-24.55 Ivor Haxix.

-24.53 Teacher Tajjeb, forsi mill haxix inkunu nistghu naghmlu habel. Issa forsi s-sunnara hija naqra ta' problema.

-24.45 Sabrina Flok tagmel sunnara tista' taghmel qasba, ikollha il-ponta u meta tigi xi huta toqtolha hekk (indicates action of spearing fish). (E4)

-23.45 Teacher X'tahseb li nistghu insibu izjed x' nieklu?

-23.34 Elaine Il-haxix.

-23.15 Shaun Fjuri, ikunu qarsin.

-22.50 Amy Mushrooms.

-22.20 Elaine Fniek.

-21.50 Elaine Hniezer.

-21.45 Teacher Iva, xi hniezer slavag. (C4)

-1.13.12 Teacher: Il-grupp ta' Annmarie ghazlu l-ikel, il-grupp ta'

Michael ghazlu wkoll waqt li l-grupp tieghek Tasmin ma hadtux ikel. Ghidli inti issa Jessica ghaliex ma hadtux ikel?

-1.13.09 Jessica: Jien nahseb ikun hemm frott bhal banana jew nistghu l-annimali hux?

-1.12.49 Teacher: X'nistghu nghidu li ser ikun hemm zgur ikel?

-1.12.47 Tasmin: Ikun hemm il-hut ser. (E6)

20.40 Teacher: Issa jista' jkun li forsi fuq din il-gzira stajna nsibu xi haga x'nieklu u nixorbu?

21.00 Thomas: Forsi xi sigra mimlija frott.

21.05 Kimberley: Hekk xi hawh.

21.45 Juan: Hemm ix-xmajjar minn fejn tista' tixrob u hut. (C6)

22.27 Thomas: Sir fuq ikel u xorb ...Taqbad iz-zkuk, imbaghad taqbghad huta, toqtolha, mbghad issib habel ikun haxix idawwar mal-huta, u ssajjara. (C6)

-20.15Teacher Shaun u Stephen hadu x-xorb. L-ohrajn li ma hadux xorb, x' ser jaghmlu?

-20.10 Amy Mill-bahar.

-20.09 Teacher Meta nibilghu l-ilma bahar jogghobnma ahna?

-20.06 Ivor Innehhulu l-melh.

-20.05 Paul Kif tista tnehhilu l-melh?

-20.00 Shaun Mis-sigar.

-19.55 Teacher X'jista jkollhom is-sigar?

-19.41 Ivor Laring.

-19.15 Amy Coconuts.

-19.10 Sabrina Mix-xmara.

-29.03 Amy Jekk ikun hemm xi muntanja tixrob minnha.

-19.00 Teacher Iva, forsi jkun hemm xi nixxiegha. Jekk ma jkunx hemm xmajjar jew ghadajjar, l-ilma minn fejn jigi?

-18.46 Sabrina Mix-xita.

-18.40 Teacher Fiex nistghu nilqghuh l-ilma.?

-17.50 Amy Gol-qoxra tal-coconut. (E4)

8.28 Teacher Justin x'tip ta' xorb kont ser tiehu mieghek?

8.45 Melissa Ilma.

8.55 Teacher Tahsbu li fuq il-gzira kontu ssibu ilma?

9.00 Justin Mill-bahar.

9.15 Justin Ikun hemm is-sigar tal-coconut ikollhom l-ilma.

9.53 Teacher Jista jkum hemm ilma fuq il-gzira.

9.54 Amy Xi xmara.

10.05 Stephen P. Mis-sema.

10.20 Stephen P. Ikollok tazza u taghmilha ma l-art.

10.22 Teacher Hadd m' ghandu tazza. X' nistghu nuzaw?

10.35 Stephen P. Idejna.

10.50 Noreen Hofra.

11.00 Edmea Dik tal-coconut. (C4)

Clothing:

Teacher Ghaliex hadtu l-hwejjeg zejda, Paul?

-16.32 Paul Biex ma nkunux mahmugin.

-16.18 Stephen Tista tahsilhom gol-bahar.

-15.54 Amy Taghmel iz-zkuk u tista tonxorhom. (E4)

11.44 Teacher Kulhadd haseb fil-hwejjeg barra Justin, Christian u Melissa.

12.25 Justin Inqattghu xi annimali. (C4)

And heat:

-8.45 Teacher X'tistghu taghmlu li m'ghandhomx gvieret?

-8.43 Ivor Ingibu hijter li tahdem bla gass, b' xejn.

-8.16 Ivor Bin-nar.

-8.08 Ivor Naghmlu gebla ma gebla.

-7.40 Stephen Biz-zkuk u n-nar. (E4)

-12.00 Teacher Biex ser naqtghuhom iz-zkuk?

-11.42 Stephen Bic-�chaser'.

-11.14 Sabrina Taghmel zokk u taghmel xi gebla bil-ponta maghha u toqghod issammar.

-10.53 Sabrina Mannara. (E4)

2.50 Teacher Kif ser insajjru?

3.05 Justin Bl-injam.

3.15 Stephen Thokk l-injam flimkien. (C4)

-1.09.35 Teacher Tajjeb qed tahseb kif ser tahrab. Paul semma s-sulfarini. Kien hawn xi hadd li ghazel sulfarini? Issa n-nar kif ser naghmluh?

-1.09.20 Lee Bix-xemx.

-1.09.17 Tasmin Taqbad gebla u gebla ...(indicates action of striking stones together).

-1.09.05 Michael Biz-zkuk u r-ramel.

-1.08.50 Michael Joqghod sejjer hekk. (indicates action of twisting stick between his palms). (E6)

23.00 Jessica Ghan nar kelli xi haga f'mohhi. Ikun hemm iz-zkuk u tixghelhom

23.11 Teacher U kif tixghelhom?

23.18: Ikun hemm il-gebel u taghmel hekk (indicates action of striking stones together). (C6)

The E6 group had one idea which is not refelected in the C6 group:

-1.02.40 Lee: Stajna niehdu zerriegha biex nizirghu u jkollna x'nieklu.(E6)

However, the C6 group thought of an unusual type of entertainment:

25.11 Teacher: U biex tiehu gost x'tista' taghmel?

25.15: Jessica: Toqghod tghum.

25.35: Thomas: Ikun hemm it-tajn u toqghod tizzerzaq fuqu. (C6)

4.2.6 Originality

Originality has been defined in terms of measures indicating statistical infrequency, that is, those responses considered to be a rare occurrence either in the comparison of a given response of a subject to all of his or her previous responses, or in comparison of that given response to all responses from different subjects.

One must add that this is a measure of creativity rather than practicality and the responses judged as original are often not only impractical but bordering on the fantastic. Although one is bound to question the use of such ideas one must point out that rather than focusing on the actual content of these ideas the focus here is on their presence or absence. In fact it is argued here that the presence of original or fantastic ideas shows disinhibition in thought which is indicative of an environment which promotes creativity and leaps of the imagination.

History teaches us that without these wild departures from current or 'normal' thought or ideas the human race would have remained deprived of many of its discoveries and inventions.

The evidence from the video recordings shows that there is an abundance of such original thought in the younger E groups while there is practically none in the corresponding C groups:

02.43 Jessica: jew inkella tmur go dar li tkun isbah, hekk, tal-helu.(E2)

07.02 Jessica: Jew inkella taqbad u tmur fuq il-vapur. Taqbad il-grieden u twaddabhom gol-ilma.(E2)

11.39 Josmar: Jew inkella jaqbad l-ixkupa u l-insetti jqeghdhom fit-toqba tal-gurdien u mbaghad jaghlaqhom.(E2)

12.44 Josmar: jew inkella jtajjar ghafur, jaqbad l-insetti u joqghod jiekolhom.(E2)

13.43 Luke 1: jew inkella jkun il-maltemp u tahraqhom.(xi sajjetta)(E2)

16.15 Luke 2: Nistghu ingibu sellum, naqtghu l-wajers tad-dawl u jiehdu xokk.(E2)

16.38 Luke 1: Jew inkella taqbad gurdien, titfghu fuq il-pixxina u toqghod tghollih mas-sema.(E2)

17.19 Josmar: Taghmillu gobna, jkun hemm xibka. Mbaghad tinzel ix-xibka u taqbdu u mbaghad jarmih go skip. (E2)

17.40 Lydon: Jew inkella nisthu ingibu serp halli johodlu d-demm lil gurdien.(E2)

19.30 Luke 1: Tpoggihom quddiem ix-xemx u jsiru faham. (E2)

19.42 Jessica: Jew inkella imorru t-tigri.(E2)

09.39 Shannon: Jaraw bil-kamera, jidhlu dawk bis-sikkina jigu bil-mod ma jaghmlux hoss, ituhom daqqa u jmutu.(C2)

From this sharp contrast in originality between the younger groups one would expect a corresponding difference between the older E and C groups since the thinking skills teachers used the same methodology and pedagogical practise aimed at fostering a creative environment both with the younger and the older pupils. However this is not the case. Both the older E and C groups, although abounding in practical ideas as testified by their resourcefulness, show a marked reticence in departing from the ordinary or conservative. In fact the only idea which exhibits a glimmer of originality comes from a Year 4 child in the C group:

20.30 Teacher Naghtu kaz ma tkunx taf tahrab wahdek, x'tista' taghmel biex xi hadd isibek?

20.40 Christian Nistennew tal-linja u naghmlulha hekk. (makes a signal with his hand). (C4)

This isolated instance from one of the youngest children in a Year 4 class seems to reinforce the suspicion that the traditional pedagogical methods prevalent in our schools tend to stifle children's imagination to such an extent that measures to counteract this deficiency are useless when they come late in the child's school educational experience. This problem was commented upon by one of the teachers of a year 5 E group:

Unfortunately the imagination of young children is often suffocated at school thus through the thinking skills lessons this problem is being addressed. (T8)

4.2.7 Autonomy

Researchers constantly have found that creative people have a strong drive for independence of thought and action. In particular, they seem to want very strongly to make their own decisions about what they do. Chambers found that the creative scientist:

is not the type of person who waits for someone else to tell him what to do, but rather thinks things through and then takes action on his own with little regard to convention or current fashion.

With particular reference to children Fisher comments that

Children are autonomous to the extent that their thinking and actions are truly their own�Children show independence in judgment by

taking responsibility for their thoughts and actions. Evidence of this might be seen in the capacity to sustain an argument and to self-correct, to show resilience in reasoning in the face of opposition and the openness to admit mistakes.

In particular the T.S. team sought instances where pupils made contributions without prompting from the teacher and sometimes even against the train of thought of the teacher. Instances where pupils took the teacher's role were put in this category:

03.06 Josmar: Jew inkella naqbdu sprej attapposta u nitfghulhom u jibdew imutu.

03.14 Dominic: imbaghad kif ha jaqbduhom? (E2)

07.46 Josmar: Jew inkella, kif ikun ser johrog il-gurdien ikun hemm il-qattus u jidhol hekk u jghidlu Yummy u jkissirlu snienu. (E2)

-24.53 Teacher Tajjeb, forsi mill haxix inkunu nistghu naghmlu habel. Issa forsi s-sunnara hija naqra ta' problema.

-24.45 Sabrina Flok taghmel sunnara tista' taghmel qasba, ikollha il-ponta u meta tigi xi huta toqtolha hekk (indicates action of spearing fish). (E4)

-16.35 Teacher Ghaliex hadtu l-hwejjeg zejda, Paul?

-16.32 Paul Biex ma nkunux mahmugin.

-16.18 Stephen Tista tahsilhom gol-bahar.

-15.54 Amy Taghmel iz-zkuk u tista tonxorhom. (E4)

-4.13 Teacher Il-lampa taghkom, Shaun u Stephen, biex kienet ser tahdem?

-4.24 Stephen Bil-pitrolju.

-4.18 Shaun Bl-ilma bahar.

-3.42 Sabrina Tqabbad in-nar.

-3.36 Paul Imma jekk jigi r-rih?

-3.30 Sabrina Indawwru. (E4)

-1.09.55 Paul Ikollok sulfarina u x'jismu, twaddabha mal-haxix u jibda jitla u jarawh. (While the rest of the class is talking about food) (E6)

13.27 Teacher Kieku niehdu sikkina flok l-ikel jew flok ix-xorb biex inkunu nistghu noqtlu l-annimali u s-sikkina tibqa' ghandna ghal dejjem jekk ma nkissruhiex mhux bhall-ikel u x-xorb, kilnihom u xrobnihom u spiccaw.

14.07 Amy Jew inkella sir, meta tiehu x-xorb ikunu gol-flixkun, meta jkun ix-xita jidhol go fih. (C4)

Again it is obvious that instances of such thought is markedly more present in the E groups. The child centered pedagogy followed in the T.S. sessions again shows its fruits and children are more confident in taking the teacher's role and sometimes even in finding solutions which the teacher was nowhere close to.

4.2.8 Metacognitive talk

Being conscious of our own thinking and problem solving while thinking is known as metacognition. It is a uniquely human ability occurring in the neocortex of the brain.

Good problem solvers plan a course of action before they begin a task, monitor themselves while executing that plan, back up or adjust the plan consciously, and evaluate themselves upon completion. Metacognition in the classroom might be characterised by having discussions with pupils about what is going on in their heads while they are thinking; comparing different pupils' approaches to problem solving and decision making; identifying what is known, what needs to be known and how to produce that knowledge; or having pupils think aloud while solving problems.

Aiming at improving and increasing the meta-cognitive thought of pupils is of particular importance because

If we can bring the process of thinking and learning to a conscious level, and help students to become more reflective, then we can help them to gain control or mastery over the organization of their learning.

Evidence of this level of thinking are not at all common in the data collected, however the three instances quoted below all come from the E groups, indicating that the T.S. sessions lead some of the children to this highest mode of thought.

15.20 Dominic: Il-allu x'idea taghni dik ic-chart.(E2).

10.05 Teacher: Luke 2 inti ghadek ma ghidtli xejn.

10.15 Luke 2: Qed jahseb.

10.18 Teacher: X' qed jaghmel?

10.22 Luke 2: Dak qed jahseb.(E2)

-0.56.25 Jurgen: Jien gietni ideja ohra fuq il-borom tar-ramm. (E6)

Moreover, meta-cognitive talk is the only evidence of meta-cognition considered here because it is obviously the most apparent. However, the generally better quality of thought of the E groups surely also bears evidence of this highest level of thought.

You are here

1