GRAMEITS: A Tool to Measure CCTS & EQ in Classroom Instruction * Dr. A. Asgari


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

GRAMEITS: A Tool to Measure CCTS & EQ in Classroom Instruction * Dr. A. Asgari

  1. 1. GRAMEITS: A TOOL TO MEASURE CCTS & EQ IN CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION Azadeh Asgari (Corresponding author) C-3-22, Selatan Perdana, Taman Serdang perdana, Seri Kembangan Serdang, PO box 43300, Selangor, Malaysia Tel: 6-017-350-7194 E-mail: Azia.Asgari@gmail.comAbstract The aim of this paper is to fathom the Thinking Skills and Emotional Intelligenceframework and identify the effort of assessing CCTS and EQ during classroom instruction,by employing GRAMEITS as a tool offers a practical way of measuring classroom teaching.This is a great brainstorming activity for teachers to discuss with each other and theirstudents in order to obtain more ideas and feedback. Learning outcomes result from students’experiences with the curriculum content selected by developers and noted in their contentstatement. Learning outcomes are what result from a learning process. They are specificmeasurable achievements and are stated as achievements of the student.Keywords: Critical and creative thinking skills, Emotional Intelligence, GRAMEITSIntroduction At the heart of the Revised Curriculum lies an explicit emphasis on the developmentof pupils’ skills and capabilities for lifelong learning and for operating effectively in society.By engaging pupils in active learning contexts across all areas of the curriculum, yourteachers can develop pupils’ personal and interpersonal skills, capabilities and dispositions,and their ability to think both creatively and critically (Morrow,2004). A distinctive featureof the current framework is that it integrates a range of different types of thinking skills andlearning dispositions with collaborative learning (working with others) and independentlearning (self-management and taking responsibility). Most of our thinking is developedinformally as engage in both everyday and school activities (Richards, 2001). Developingthinking skills means designing learning so that pupils will think more skillfully than theywould otherwise do – to engage them in better quality thinking (Brackett & Salovey, 2004).Thus, thinking skills are tools that help pupils go beyond the mere acquisition of knowledgein order to deepen their understanding and apply ideas, generate new possibilities and makedecisions as well as to plan, monitor and evaluate their progress.
  2. 2. Critical Thinking Many researchers, including Facione, Simpson and Courtneay, Banning, Brookfield,Ornstein and Hunkins, Sternberg, Ennis, and Lipman, have defined critical thinking (CT).Researchers debate whether critical thinking can be learned or if it’s a developmental processregulated by motivations, dispositions, and personality traits. Despite differences of opinion,many researchers agree that critical thinking is "Purposeful, self-regulatory judgment whichresults in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of theevidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological or contextual considerations uponwhich judgment is based" (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner & Salovey, 2006). Critical thinking is a common "buzz phrase" in educational, psychological, andphilosophical, circles today. Much work has been completed in the name of critical thinkingin education to date that not only leaves one wondering how it is measured, but also leavesone groping for a cognizant definition of critical thinking . Part of this ambiguity lies in theexistence of multiple definitions for critical thinking (Crane, 1983). Critical thinking is also regarded as intellectually engaged, skillful, and responsiblethinking that facilitates good judgment because it requires the application of assumptions,knowledge, competence, and the ability to challenge one’s own thinking. Critical thinkingrequires the use of self-correction and monitoring to judge the rationality of thinking as wellas reflexivity. According to Banning, critical thinking involves scrutinizing, differentiating,and appraising information as well as reflecting on information to make judgments that willinform clinical decisions. Richards (2001) asserts that identifying and challengingassumptions and analyzing assumptions for validity are essential to critical thinking skills.He also suggested that because critical thinkers possess curiosity and skepticism, they aremore likely to be motivated to provide solutions that resolve contradictions.Creative Thinking Creativity applies both to the quality of particular outcomes and the thinking activitythat led to them. Thought is creative when it produces something that is both novel andinteresting or valuable, the birth of "imaginative new ideas" or "the imaginatively giftedrecombination of known elements into something new". The ideas need to be appropriate orrelevant in terms of an intended purpose (Brackett, et. al., 2006). Creativity involves thinking ‘outside the box’ in order to solve a problem, createsomething new, do something differently than it’s been done before. Simply thinkingcreatively will only get us so far. Creative thinking must be combined with critical thinkingto truly produce distinctive results (Print, 1988). 2
  3. 3. Creativity sparks the imagination to think in unique ways to do things, to solveproblems – even in interactions with others in non-conforming ways. Creativity andimagination allow us to fathom the concept of everything. Creative and critical thinking skills (CCTS) are considered essential for students(Crane, 1983). Crane (1983) expressed the importance of both of these skills when shewrote: “When reasoning fails, Imagination saves you! When Intuition fails, reason savesyou!”(p. 7). There has been an abundance of research on each construct but very littleexamining if they are related. Scriven (1979) stated: “Critical skills go hand in hand withcreative ones” (p. 37). Only by understanding if there is a relationship between these twoessential constructs will educators be able to enhance the capacity of their students to utilizeboth creative and critical thinking. It is essential to first define each of these constructs todetermine if indeed they are correlated.Emotional Intelligence This phrase, first used by Salvove and Mayar in 1990, (Morrow, 2004) refers to theinterpersonal relationship skills common in effective leaders. In Working with EmotionalIntelligence, Mayer & Salovey (1997) identifies five domains of emotional intelligence asself awareness, self regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills. Cherniss (1999, 2000),as well as Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee reference and cite a large body of research on theeffects of emotional intelligence on a leaders success. With the positive effects of emotional intelligence ingrained in the research record of anumber of fields, the key issue becomes using emotional intelligence as one criterion forhiring while imparting these skills in leaders that may be deficient. In either case effectivelibrary leaders using these competencies will be essential for the transition and growth of theprofession. Today, there are two general models of Emotional Intelligence (EQ) in the literature: askill-based model proposed originally by Mayer and Salovey (1997) and a variety of“mixed” approaches (Bar-On, 1997; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Schutte et al., 1998).According to Mayer and Salovey, EQ pertains to an individual’s capacity to reason aboutemotions and to process emotional information to enhance cognitive processes and regulatebehavior. For instance, Mayer et al., (2002) discuss the ability to manage one’s ownemotions (e.g., the ability to distract oneself temporarily from a difficult situation) as anelement of EQ. Mixed models, on the other hand, define and measure EQ as a set of perceivedabilities, skills, and personality traits. For instance, Bar-On (1997) model of EQ includes 3
  4. 4. one’s perception of his or her ability, ‘stress tolerance,’ and basic personality traits such as‘optimism.’ Because both perceived abilities and traits are in the conceptual framework,proponents of the mixed model approach have generally employed self-report measures asopposed to performance measures to assess EQ.GRAMEITS GRAMEITS was first introduced in a conference organized by the Baptist University,Hong Kong in May 2001 by Ghazali Mustapha and Rosli Talif. GRAMEITS was thenintroduced and presented as one of the key papers in a seminar on "Critical and Creativethinking Skills" organized by curriculum development center of ministry of education,Malaysia (CDC) in August 2001(Ghazali Mustapha, 2001). Since its introduction,GRAMEITS has been used as an instrument in post-grades researches on issues related toCCTS and EQ (e.g: Fazhuda, 2001; Norhayati, 2001; Alice, 2001; Ghazali, 2001).GRAMEITS as a tool for measuring CCTS and EQ have six item in which based on thedevelopers, "the descriptors used in the model can be catered for all responses (teachers andstudents) that take place in classroom teaching. The model can be employed by teachers,researchers and curriculum planner in the effort of assessing CCTS and EQ during classroominstruction. It has considered all the relevant concepts underpinning both CCTS and EQ.Details on GRAMEITS and its description are hereby discussed as follows:A. responses that inhibit thinking and EQ (refer to teachers responses that inhibit thinking and EQ)B. responses that limits students thinking (refers to teachers responses that limit students thinking)C. responses that encourage thinking and EQ (refers to teachers responses that encourage thinking and EQ)D. responses on thinking skills (COGAFF Taxonomy), (refers to assesses the questions and tasks used by the teacher during the classroom teaching)E. responses that encourage inculcation of EQ (deal with the notion of EQ which relates to concepts such as intrapersonal intelligence constituting self-awareness, the ability to manage emotions and the ability to motivate oneself)F. unrelated responses (refers to other responses that cannot be recognized anywhere in the descriptors such as speech mannerisms and classroom behavior management) (Ghazali, 2001). 4
  5. 5. Aims & Objectives The aim of this paper is to understand the Thinking Skills and Emotional Intelligenceframework; identify the effort of assessing CCTS and EQ during classroom instruction,GRAMEITS as a tool offers a practical way of measuring classroom teaching of both CCSTand EQ as a construct and entity in itself; and plan effectively for the development andprogression of Thinking Skills and Emotional Intelligence through the curriculum.Methodology and Procedure Classroom instructions were audio recorded, and later transcribed and contents wereanalyzed using GRAMEITS. The data gather from the observation and reviewing of therecorded lessons by the observers was tallied against each descriptor in GRAMEITS. Then,using frequency count, the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics in the form ofpercentage. The SPSS version 16 statistical program was carried out to determine the datafrequency of GRAMEITS. GRAMEITS is an attempt that suggests a practical way to measure both CCTS andEQ in classroom instruction using a single instrument. This paper highlights the frameworkof GRAMEITS and shares its practically and feasibility to measure EQ and CCTS inclassroom instruction.Results The result of this research based on the GRAMEITS described that the students interms of critical thinking, creative thinking abilities, and emotional intelligence in classroominstruction. All of the respondents in the sample were postgraduate student in faculty ofeducational studies at University Putra Malaysia. In terms of critical and creative thinking skills and emotional intelligence, percentilescores were calculated from the raw scores based upon the adult population in the oneclassroom. In terms of the CCTS and EQ, the GRAMEITS consists of six categories inwhich the frequency of each category are as follows: Table.1.Frequency & percentage of classroom questions and responses CATEGORIES of GRAMEITS f % A. RESPONSES THAT INHIBIT THINKING AND EQ 22 12.79 B. RESPONSES THAT LIMITS STUDENTS THINKING 24 14.95 C. RESPONSES THAT ENCOURAGE THINKING AND EQ 42 26.22 D. RESPONSES ON THINKING SKILLS (COGAFF Taxonomy) 13 8.17 E. RESPONSES THAT ENCOURAGE INCULCATION OF EQ 21 13.13 F. UNRELATED RESPONSES 38 23.71 TOTAL 160 100 5
  6. 6. Clearly, the percentile scores reflect a frequency of each item in GREAMIETS scale.With referring to above table, item C which refers to teachers responses that encouragethinking and EQ, has more frequent than others subcategories and whereas the rate ofapplying scale D that related to assesses the questions and tasks used by the teacher duringthe classroom teaching, is less when compared to the others items in this instrument. Although none of the analyses were statistically significant, responses that inhibitthinking and EQ accounted for 12.79% (f=22), 14.95% on responses that limits studentsthinking (f=24), 26.22% of the variance on responses that encourage thinking and EQ (f=42);8.17% on responses on thinking skills (COGAFF Taxonomy) (f=13); 13.13% on responsesthat encourage inculcation of EQ (f=21); and 23.71% on unrelated responses (f=38),respectively. When using GREAMIETS, individuals step back and reflect on the quality of thatthinking skill. Brackett & Salovey (2004) pointed out that critical and creative thinkingprocesses require active argumentation, initiative, reasoning, envisioning and analyzingcomplex alternatives, and making contingency-related value judgments. According to, on theother hand, Mayer and Salovey (2005), EQ pertains to an individual’s capacity to reasonabout emotions and to process emotional information to enhance cognitive processes andregulate behavior. Therefore, the following table was depicted the frequency, percentage of eachcategory and also percentage of overall; to find out students this skill along with how tomaster test taking, how to develop good study habits and more. The each item was toinvestigate the relationships between critical and creative thinking skill and emotionalintelligence. This result was based on 160 responses however an overall score of 160 is rare. 6
  7. 7. Table 4.1: Breakdown of analysis according to the categories of GRAMEITS % each % CATEGORIES of GRAMEITS f category overall A . RESPONSES THAT INHIBIT THINKING AND EQ 1. Responses that bring closure: i. Agrees with students idea 3 13.63 1.87 ii. Disagrees with students idea 1 4.54 0.62 iii. Doesnt give student a chance to think (no wait time) - - - iv. Tells student what teacher thinks 1 4.54 0.62 v. Talks too much / explains it her way 6 27.27 3.75 vi. Cuts students off 8 36.36 5 vii. Other closure responses 1 4.54 0.62 2. Responses that promote fear / anxiety i. Heckles / sarcastic / puts down idea 2 9.09 1.25 TOTAL of A 22 100 13.79 B. RESPONSES THAT LIMITS STUDENTS THINKING i. Looks for single correct answer 9 40.90 5.62 ii. Leads students to correct answer 4 16.66 2.5 iii. Tells students what to do 3 12.5 1.87 iv. Gives information 3 12.5 1.87 v. Gives answer 5 20.83 3.12 TOTAL of B 24 100 14.95 C. RESPONSES THAT ENCOURAGE THINKING AND EQ 1. Basic responses that encourage re-examination of idea: i. Saying the idea back to the student 1 2.38 0.62 ii. Paraphrasing 2 4.76 1.25 iii. Interpreting 5 11.90 3.12 iv. Asking for more information 3 7.14 1.87 v. Seeking clarification 6 14.28 3.75 2. Responses that call for analysis of an idea: i. Give me an example / reason 2 4.76 1.25 ii. What assumptions are being made? 3 7.14 1.87 iii. How does this compare with that? - - - iv. Can you prove that? - - - 3. Responses that challenge: i. How do you interpret that? 1 2.38 0.62 ii. What criteria are you using? - - - iii. What predictions can be made based on that event / situation 1 2.38 0.62 iv. How would you justify it? 2 4.76 1.25 v. What new ideas / plan can you develop? 3 7.14 1.87 4. Accept students idea non-judgmentally: i. I see - - - ii. Thank You 1 2.38 0.62 iii. Good 3 7.14 1.87 iv. Okay 9 21.42 5.62 TOTAL of C 42 100 26.22 7
  8. 8. % each % CATEGORIES of GRAMEITS f category overall D. RESPONSES ON THINKING SKILLS (COGAFF Taxonomy) i. Literal Domain - Low order thinking 1 7.69 0.625 ii. Comprehension Domain - Low order thinking 3 23.07 1.87 iii. Application Domain - transitory between low & higher order 1 7.69 0.625 iv. Analysis Domain - higher order 2 15.38 1.25 v. Synthesis Domain - higher order 4 30.76 2.5 vi. Evaluative Domain - higher order 1 7.69 0.625 vii. Affective Domain (EQ) - higher order 1 7.69 0.625 TOTAL of D 13 100 8.17 E. RESPONSES THAT ENCOURAGE INCULCATION OF EQ i. Creating self- awareness - - - ii. Ability to manage emotions 8 38.09 5 iii. Ability to motivate oneself 3 14.28 1.87 iv. Empathy 1 4.76 0.625 v. Ability to handle relationships 8 38.09 5 vi. Strong faith in religion 1 4.76 0.625 TOTAL of E 21 100 13.13 F. UNRELATED RESPONSES i. Classroom / behavior management responses 20 52.63 12.5 ii. Speech mannerisms 13 34.21 8.12 iii. Others 5 13.15 3.12 TOTAL of F 38 100 23.71 GRAND TOTAL (A - F) 160 - 100 The purpose of this paper are to: 1) increase awareness of how emotions affect theway students think and behave, and 2) develop a set of tools for manipulating theemotions of oneself and others in order to affect thinking, behavior, and especiallyperformance and effectiveness in different domains. This is a great brainstorming activity for teachers to discuss with each other and theirstudents in order to obtain more ideas and feedback. Once a list of potential emotion-generating strategies has been formulated, teachers should try incorporating them into theirdaily activities and again converse with others to find out what strategies have worked orfailed.Conclusion The term critical thinking is common in educational, psychological, and philosophicalcircles today. Employers, parents, administrators, and students themselves want critical 8
  9. 9. thinking skills developed in todays graduate. Developing critical thinking skills is not a newidea. Mayer, Salovey & Caruso (2004) stated that, "…it is assumed that development ofthought power is one of the major aims of education." Crane (1983) believed that educationalinstitutions were responsible for teaching students to go beyond the simple mental activitiesof recall and restatement of ideas and facts to the higher-level skills and habits involved incritical thinking. Bar-On, (1997) explored the importance of creativity in higher education when hewrote: The college experience should include an opportunity to discover one’s potential andachieve higher levels of creative expression. The extent to which this happens depends oncurriculum and the commitment of the faculty members to nurture this development bothinside and outside of the classroom. The learning environment as reflected by the classroomand campus setting, supportive extra-curricular and the advisor/student relationship allimpact the total educational mission of developing creativity. (p. 55) Brackett and Salovey (2004) asserted that although students complete basic coursesthey have only a superficial understanding of what they have learned. In fact, few studentsare taught the skills needed to examine principles, values and facts. This study was limited to the one postgraduate class that participated. The results fromthis study suggest that the two constructs (critical and creative thinking skills and emotionalintelligence) are closely connected. These researchers emphasize that much more researchneeds to be conducted with different age ranges, gender, and socio-economic background toconfirm the results of this study. This research should help to answer very importantquestions on how to enhance the capacity of students to critically and creatively think andemotional intelligence. The preliminary findings in this study suggest that educators mustprepare specific curriculum that stimulates creative and critical thinking and emotionalintelligence, separately. Next, students are asked to think about feeling a particular emotion and differentexperiences that elicit that emotion. A class discussion is initiated as students are asked toshare with the class or the experiences they wrote about and how they managed theiremotions. Alternatively, class discussions should emphasize as few or as many of thefollowing: what they were feeling, how they reacted, how long the feeling lasted, what orwho changed the feeling, how effective that was, and how they may have reacted differently. 9
  10. 10. REFERENCESBar-On, R. (1997). BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: A measure of emotional intelligence. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.Brackett, M. A., & Salovey, P. (2004). Measuring emotional intelligence as a mental ability with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. In. G. Geher (Ed.), Measurement of Emotional Intelligence (pp. 179-194). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). What is the best way to measure emotional intelligence? A case for performance measures. Manuscript submitted for publication.Crane, L.D. (1983). Unlocking the brain’s two powerful learning systems. Human Intelligence Newsletter, 4, (4), 7.Fazhuda Abd. Aziz (2002). Validation of GRAMEITS as a tool to measure CCTS and EQ. Unpublished Masters Thesis. UPM.Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence and happiness. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 815-824.Ghazali Mustapha. (2004). COGAFF Taxonomy: A tool to measure CCTS and EQ. Proceedings of MICELT Int. ConferenceMayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications. (pp. 3-34). New York: Basic Books.Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002a). The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), Version 2.0. Toronto, Canada: Multi Health Systems.Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002b). MSCEIT technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi Health Systems.Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-215.Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2005). The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test –Youth Version (MSCEIT-YV), Research Version 1.0. Toronto, Canada: Multi Health Systems. EI Classroom 17Morrow, K. (2004). Insights from the Common European Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10
  11. 11. Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277-293.Print, M. (1988). Curriculum Development and Design. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.Salovey, P., & Sluyter, D. J. (Eds.). (1997). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications. New York: Basic Books.Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Copper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.Scriven, M. (1976). Reasoning Measurement of Emotional Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. 11