Developing Thinking Skills - Case Study Example

Developing Thinking Skills In Children with Special Educational Needs: A Case Study on Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment Programme Thinking skillsIn recent years, there has been a paradigm shift in primary school education with increasing focus on development of thinking skills, rather than knowledge acquisition. Many schools are either implementing or testing programs to develop thinking skills at an early age. Ongoing research also focuses on the acquisition of thinking skills for overall development in children. In her work From Thinking Skills To Thinking Classrooms, McGuinness (1999) outlines many advantages of improving thinking skills of students in the classroom: Developing thinking skills aids in improving knowledge. Instead of passively attempting to acquire knowledge, students become active creators and interpreters of knowledge. Thinking skills help in development of active cognitive processes for better learning skills. When learners go beyond ingesting the given information to processing and reflecting on it, they tend to develop problem-solving skills. As learners are encouraged to put forth their views and arguments on acquired knowledge, they develop better communication skills. A well-developed thinking skills program helps in eliminating many of the misconceptions that students bring into the classrooms. Better thinking skills help learners in acquiring specific skills and strategies. Programs to developing thinking skills in the classroom also improve teacher development and thinking, which would contribute to the progress of the entire school. Research exists to support these advantages. Oxford-based SAPERE, which conducted the Philosophy for Children™ programme in schools of Clackmannanshire, reported (Topping 2005) an average 6-point increase in cognitive abilities among all students; increased level of classroom participation; increased display of reasoning skills among students; and increase in communication skills. Two years after the programme, the students still showed signs of retaining the acquired cognitive abilities. Thinking Skills for children with special educational needs Learning difficulties is one of the most common causes of special educational need (SEN) in children. Research into the origins of learning difficulties shows that these factors are hereditary, but the environment determines their effect; therefore, nature and nurture determine the overall developmental curve of a child (Goswami, 2008). In children with learning difficulties, their brains have lower efficiency for some learning processes and their thinking skills are not as efficient as in their peers. The later a learning difficulty is identified, the more adverse its effects are on the childs emotional as well as academic development. Supportive family environment and coordination between teachers and parents often help in identification of learning difficulties. These learning difficulties are classified based on SEN and remedial programmes are conducted. Among students with SENs, a thinking skills program should aim at enabling such children to take control of their learning in order to prepare them better for the world outside (Fisher 1992, cited in Head & ONeill 1999). In children with behavioural problems, which are common among those with learning difficulties, there is also a need to make them take responsibility for their own behaviour (Ashman and Conway 1993, cited in Head & ONeill 1999). Overall, in children with SEN, there is a requirement for a programme that would moderate their SEN, make them independent learners, improve communication skills, equip them with life skills, and enable them to take responsibility for their behaviour McGuinness (1999) recommends implementation of thinking skill programs in schools for the benefit of more pupils. Many programmes are available that claim to do all these and more, but we shall focus on Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment (FIE) programme. Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment Intervention McGuinness (1999) describes Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment programme as "one of the best known general thinking skills programme world wide". This corrective programme, which was initially developed for adolescents with learning difficulties, finds many applications across all ages today. This programme not only focuses on improving learners skills in domains of their interest, but also trains teachers to support and better equip their pupils to face challenges (McGuinness 1999). The programmes emphasis on a balance between emotional and cognitive factors affecting behaviour makes it more suitable for learners with learning difficulties as well as behavioural problems (Feuerstein et al. 1980, as cited in Head & ONeill 1999). Apart from behaviour modification, language improvement, inherent motivation, and attitude changes are also prioritized (Schnitzer, Andries, & Lebeer 2007). Many educators also favour FIE approach because it helps develop pupils learning skills as well as problem solving skills (SkyLight 1997, cited in Head & ONeill 1999). In this method, teachers mediate in a flexible, individual pupil-oriented manner, constantly challenging pupils self-acceptance (Schnitzer, Andries, & Lebeer 2007). How does FIE work? The FIE programme is based on two principles: Feuerstein’s theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability and Mediated Learning Experience (Feuerstein 1980, as cited in Schnitzer, Andries, & Lebeer 2007). Ashman and Conway (1997, cited in Head & ONeill 1999) define structural cognitive modifiability as the belief that humans comprise a "dynamic and organic system" with capacities to change their cognitive functions and to meet lifes challenges. In this definition, the term "structural" implies permanence and the ability to transfer knowledge from one experience to other domains, while "organic" implies self-perpetuating changes. The principle of structural cognitive modifiability helps students in acquiring and maintaining learning skills, problem solving skills, and behavioural skills. In a mediated learning experience, another individual (an adult or a peer) steps between the pupil and external environment to regulate the class, number, and incidence of stimuli exposed to the child while assisting the child in interpreting the stimuli accurately to gain an understanding of the world (Ashman and Conway 1997, cited in Head & ONeill 1999). Here, the teacher encourages self-reflection and self-awareness by teaching how to face challenges, encouraging students to communicate, prompting them to set realistic goals, and by providing essential feedback (Fisher 1995, as cited in Head & ONeill 1999). Fourteen instruments are used to enhance pupils thinking, learning, and behavioural skills. Assessment of Thinking Skills In the FIE programme, a group of students are evaluated thoroughly on their SEN before participating in a series of well-planned and organized sessions. The pupils are assessed continuously and dynamically to record any changes in thinking, perception, learning, problem solving, attitude, and behaviour (Tzuriel & Shamir, 2007). This assessment represents the childs development and the effectiveness of the programme. Researchers use different parameters to assess thinking skills. Tzuriel & Shamir (2007) used three parameters to assess thinking skills in a peer-mediated FIE programme. The first, Cognitive Modifiability Battery is a dynamic assessment parameter consisting of seven subsets to test different areas of cognitive functioning, e.g., analogies. The second, Seriation thinking modifiability test analyzes changes in operations such as seriation, comparison, and quantitative relations. Finally, Thinking-in-Order is a Windows based multimedia program whose problems are based on tasks in the seriation thinking modifiability test. Other parameters that can be used to measure thinking skills include perception, hypothetical thinking, and imagination. In order to gain a better understanding of a child with SEN and the use of FIE programme, let us consider the case of a special. Case Study: The Benefits of FIE in Children with SEBD Background To study the usefulness of the FIE programme in developing thinking skills in children and modifying their SEN, we shall consider Head and ONeills (1999) experiment on introducing the FIE programme among students with social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties (SEBD). Kittoch School in South Lankarshire caters to students with SEBD. Children within this SEN group have an impaired ability to sense others moods, and to regulate their own emotions and behaviour (Goswami, 2008). They cannot adapt their social behaviour to the right context, which prevents them from making friends and participating in regular class activities. For many, these problems continue into adulthood. Such students often attend special schools. The Problem At Kittoch School, many strategies had been implemented to improve pupils academic development, while tackling their behavioural difficulties. In fact, the school takes pride in their commitment to staff development for effective teaching and learning. However, most of the strategies implemented appeared to show temporary, short-term benefits. Students had trouble in transferring their newly acquired skills to different situations. Therefore, the staff were looking for a program that would offer children long-term strategies and solutions to overcome their academic and behavioural problems. Thinking Skills Programme for Children with SEBD Traditional methods of moderating SEBD involve replacement of unacceptable behaviour with new ones without considering a childs thinking and reasoning abilities (Feuerstein et al. 1980, in Head & ONeil 1999). If their thinking skills were to be improved, the pupils would become independent learners, who could map out their own learning strategies. The pupils would be cognitive of the belief that they, and not a teacher, are responsible for their own behaviour. Behaviour modification then becomes an inherent process that would not require external regulation. After considering many thinking skills development programmes, the FIE intervention programme was chosen because it seeks to even the emotional and cognitive factors determining good behaviour and because it involves mediated learning (Feuerstein et al. 1980, in Head & ONeil 1999). The Programme Students were divided into two groups of six, a control group and the FIE group. Table 1 gives the profile of each student, before the programme. The course was scheduled for 20 weeks, with the students and the teacher meeting four times a week for 45 minutes. The forward plan for the programme contained a section on individual lesson plans with space for teachers evaluation of the programme. To track improvements in their cognitive functions, students were given a record to note their thoughts, feelings, and performance in each session (Head & ONeill 1999). Table 1: Student Profiles before FIE programme (Source: Head & ONeill 1999) Pupil Profile Matt Matt had made some progress in attitude and communications after joining the school. He loved group activities including adventure sports. Teachers found a lack of confidence and ability. Russell Russell was considered pleasant and caring, but immature and lacking academic ability. Donald Donald had a poor attitude towards school and work, with interest only in copying notes. He was either extremely immature and disruptive or lethargic. Stanley Stanley was a bright student, but prone to mood swings because of external problems. Geraldine Geraldine loved copying work, but refused, resisted, and disrupted any new activity that involved thinking. Stephanie Stephanie was interested in progress but lost interest soon and got side tracked by other pupils antics. The students were given a brief introduction of the method, its goals and benefits to increase their interest in the programme. The class worked on two instruments in the FIE: Organization of Dots and Orientation in Space (Feuerstein et al. 1980, in Head & ONeil 1999). Tracking progress To track progress, Head and ONeill used three methods: the mediating-teachers observations on each session, pre- and post-programme questionnaires regarding each pupil to be answered by all teachers, and a discussion with all the staff regarding each student. The mediating teacher observed tremendous improvement in students who attended the FIE programme, compared with those in the control group. While exam pressure made the control group people more troublesome, the FIE programme group showed an increased maturity. However, many students had trouble coping with this increased maturity, as they were not used to "thinking". Academically, the FIE-programme group outstripped the control group. The level of development in their thought process was reflected in the maturity with which they decided on their future career. All the participating pupils observed that they thought more and could see others point of view (Head & ONeil 1999). The pre- and post-programme questionnaires based on Feuersteins indicators of progress showed 8-15% decrease in cognitive deficiency in five students of the FIE group (Head & ONeil 1999). During the staff discussions, many interesting developments in the FIE group members came to light: increase in carefulness and precision in activities, increase in intrinsic motivation to perform better, increase in confidence, independent learning, desire for accuracy and precision, and better academic performance. Table 2 lists the benefits to individual students. Table 2. Benefits of the FIE programme to pupils (Source: Head & ONeil 1999) Student Progress noted Matt Although disruptive in the beginning, Matt soon became interested and participated eagerly. This reflected in increased thoughtfulness and ability to cope with new things. His ambition, industry, concern for future, and drive to succeed were surprisingly high. His academic performance was excellent, and he even joined a Construction module at college, which was impossible before the FIE. Russell Russells confidence and communication skills showed great improvement. His academic performance was better than predicted. His level of maturity was improved, and he started applying for jobs before leaving school. Stanley Although Stanleys mood swings continued to affect his performance, his performance in the school exams was good. Donald Donalds environment outside school was not good, and he could not gain much from the programme. However, his participation and contribution to some sessions showed signs of progress. He wrote only one exam, which he did well. Geraldine Geraldines disinterest in the FIE program was noticeable. During the sessions, she hated communication time and preferred work. Her grades were as expected, but work quality improved. She even showed interest in her future by obtaining a job in a fish-processing factory before finishing school. Stephanie Initially, Stephanie showed progress, but she missed the last few sessions because of some other involvement. She missed school and turned up for her exams unprepared, tired, and ill. Conclusions The study on the implementation of FIE Intervention in students with SEBD gave encouraging results overall - a decrease in impulsiveness, increase in maturity levels, independent learning, and better academic performance. Students who had no intuition of others psychological states, learnt to look at things from others point of view. The study proved that the programme prepares students better for the world outside school. Considering the progress made by students of this programme, it is safe to conclude that FIE program could transform the lives of children with SEBD, making them better and successful citizens, who are masters of their thoughts, actions, and their future. The program also makes better teachers, who can recognize their students needs and guide them in achieving dreams that are otherwise impossible. References Ashman, A. F. & Conway, R. N. F. (1993) Using Cognitive Methods in the Classroom. London: Routledge. Feuerstein, R. (1980) Instrumental enrichment: an intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, F. and Miller, R. (1980) Instrumental Enrichment. Baltimore, Md.: Baltimore University Press. Fisher, R. (1992) Teaching Children to Think. Hemel Hempsted: Simon and Schuster. Fisher, R. (1995) Teaching Children to Learn. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes. Goswami, U. (2008) Foresight Mental Capital and Wellbeing Project. Learning difficulties: Future challenges. London: The Government Office for Science. Head, G. & ONeill, W. (1999) Introducing Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment in a school for children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Support for Learning. 14(3). McGuinness, C. (1999) From Thinking Skills To Thinking Classrooms. Nottingham: DfEE Publications. Schnitzer, G., Andries, C., & Lebeer, J. (2007) Usefulness of cognitive intervention programmes for socio-emotional and behaviour problems in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 7(3) pp. 161–171. SkyLight (1997) Description of Instrumental Enrichment (online). SkyLight Publishing and Training Available from: http//www.cyberspace.com/-building/trm-feuerstein.html. Topping, K. (2005) Thinking skills project raises children’s IQ by 6.5 points (online). SAPERE >> Clackmannanshire Research Project. Retrieved April 12, 2009 from Tzuriel, D. & Shamir, A. (2007) The effects of Peer Mediation with Young Children (PMYC) on children’s cognitive modifiability. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 77 pp 143–165. Read More