PRODUCING THINKING STUDENTS THROUGH PROCESS Dr.

Ng Kee Chuan Sik Ruoh Yih Abstract This collaborative action research was a combined effort of a lecturer/teacher educator and a primary school science teacher to produce thinking students in a science class. 30 students from a year 4 class underwent a combination of strategies for social learning (cooperative learning), independent learning (project-based learning) and acquisition of technological literacy and competency in three action research cycles. Triangulation of data was carried out from multi-sources including reflections, simple questionnaires, observations, students work, lesson plans and video recordings. Qualitative methods of data analysis was undertaken to ascertain signs and proofs of progress in thinking abilities among the sample students. The shift from passive acquiesce to thoughtful learning happened through a slow process of empowering the students to carry out project-based learning in cooperative learning teams with opportunities for them to use ICT to acquire, process, apply and present solutions to real-life problems. Students grew in independence as teachers intentionally coached them to think and make their own decisions. They also grew in confidence as they completed their tasks in groups and presented their findings before a critical audience. 1. Introduction: Will We Change or Fossilise? The winds of change have arrived! As Malaysia moves into one of its most radical educational reform transiting from an exam-dominated orientation to one of more process and school-based orientation, teachers face their most challenging of times. Their adaptability to this change will challenge them from all fronts, none the least, in their teaching and learning strategy. This reform will impinge upon teachers at all levels to revamp the way they approach doing education, formally and informally. But will teachers in Malaysia change and transform their practices and approaches or will they fossilise into an outmoded relic? Students CAN think and work independently. The question is will we, as teachers, let them? All too common, teachers settle for the comfortable position as dispensers of knowledge, the source of answer for all queries, the determiner of direction of study, and the evaluator of all tasks. Very little thinking is required of our students as they slip comfortably into their spoon-fed mode in traditional classes where it is teacher-centered and teacher-dominated. The introduction of the Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah challenges this traditional mode and ethos of schools. The elements of creativity and innovation, entrepreneurship and Information Communication Technology has been promulgated to be taught across the curriculum so as to produce primary school students who are not only grounded in the 3Rs (reading. riting and rithmectic,) but also in the fourth R which is reasoning. This means that students are to become independent learners and movers. Teachers on the other hand must undergo a paradigm shift to become facilitators who are not the sage on the stage but the

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 1

guide by the side. How do we become that? This action research seeks to answer this question. Furthermore, the world of today requires people to be able to think analytically, synthetically, and be equipped with high evaluative skills through the process of critical and creative thinking. As such, education needs to make a decisive paradigm shift from producing exam-smart students to holistically-smart students who can cope in an information-laden and ICT-dominated world. If we assume that teachers do want to change, how can teachers successfully transit into a new mode of teaching that will correspond to this new process-oriented environment? 1.1 Background of Study: Unknown Frontiers In anticipation of this nation-wide transition, we the Science lecturers of Teachers Education Institute, Gaya Campus in collaboration with a primary school in Kota Kinabalu that was adopted as our Teaching School Project, embarked to pro-actively venture into building a model to help teachers specifically and schools in general to transit into this process-oriented education. Change is never easy. In fact, change is more often than not resisted because it causes us to move out of our comfort zone and accost new, unknown frontiers. The process is like salmons swimming upstream always going against the flow of the norm. That is why we need to find a conduit to allow this path of change to be less painful. Uncomfortable and insecure feelings are inevitable and unavoidable, but can there be a path which can be taken by schools to help their teachers to transit without too much unnecessary pain? 1.2 Aims of Research: Think Big, Start Small, Build Deep The specific aim of this research, development and innovation is to explore ways and produce a model in which science teachers can produce thinking students through a multi-method approach. Tishman, Perkins and Jay (1995) wrote that the purpose and aims of teaching thinking is to prepare students for a future of effective problem solving, thoughtful decision making, and lifelong learning. They also suggested an enculturation approach that involved models of the culture, explanation, interaction and feedback. The general aim is to see how this soft approach of extending this endeavour could be implemented school-wide and build a culture of thinking in the schools social fabric and ethos. In the process, it is hoped that several reports will be written in continuity that will highlight the lessons learnt by a school as we journey collaboratively to afford this change with hopes that it will prove useful to other schools that will seek to bring about this change. The approach that we have adopted is: think big, start small, and build deep. In thinking big, we want to bring positive change to a whole school, building a culture that permeates the whole ethos so that it is conducive for students to develop independent learning, adopting thinking creatively and critically, in the process of learning. We seek to build this wave of reform to reach a critical mass so that the influence to the whole school is driven by momentum that is increasingly built up.

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 2

In starting small, we will begin with teachers of primary science, so that we can explore how we can produce thinking students across the levels that will hopefully carry the whole school along. In this sense, we hope to create success stories that will inspire other teachers, infuse them with hope and anticipation and imprint upon them an approach of producing thinking students. For this paper, we will concentrate primarily on one class and document the lessons learnt as we build an initial template for producing thinking students through process. In building deep, we want to be in this for the long run. The way to build deep is to keep piling it deeper and deeper into the teachers practice, forming a strong foundation that is solid, stable and lasting. This foundation will hold up the different floors of approaches, methods, techniques and practices in line with this process-oriented education. We hope to document this research study until we reach the first year of implementation of the reformed method of evaluation by the Ministry of Education. We hope to produce a series of articles and reports that will be a continuous documentation of lessons learnt as we explore and journey into this collaborative effort by lecturers and teachers to produce thinking students who will be like fish in water when the new evaluation system hits the schools in the projected year of 2012. We also hope to document this transition beyond the year 2012 and use this as a means to push this world-class and liberalized education within the limitations that are faced in the Malaysian school system. In this research, a smart partnership of collaboration was established between a primary school science teacher and a lecturer who is a teacher trainer in an institute of education. Paired teaching was often conducted as both entered the science class to begin the process of enculturation to foster and build independent learners, shifting them from a spoon-fed mindset to one that is self-feeding. 1.3 The Vehicles for Change: Social Learning, Independent Learning and ICT Applications Our multi-method approach involves the amalgamation of the following methods and objectives as the vehicles adopted to bring about this change: 1. Cooperative Learning and Cooperative Structures that empowers social learning. 2. Project-based or Problem-Based Learning to empower students toward independent learning. 3. ICT as a learning tool for effective processing and use of information. 4. Action Research to empower reflective teaching amongst teachers.

This amalgamation can be visualized by the following interacting pictorial construct (Diagram 1.1):

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 3

 Information Communication Technology

Technological Literacy & Competency

Cooperative Learning & Cooperative Structures

Independent Learning
Project-Based Learning

Social Learning

Diagram 1.1 Theoretical Framework of Working Model for Producing Thinking Students Through Process 1.3.1 Social Learning: Collaborative Education

Social Learning is the cog that gives the initial push that drives the whole process. Albert Bandura (1997, 2002) suggested the power of observational learning where people learn from watching other people do, which in turn promotes individualisation where the person observing forms an idea of how new behaviours can be performed. Kagan (2009) suggests that this social learning through modeling lends credence to the use of cooperative learning to enhance learning and thinking. Students get it faster and more efficiently. 1.3.2 Independent Learning: Self-Driven Education

In concomitant with this, the project-based learning (PBL) approach or problem-based learning approach provides a good overall framework to plan units and lessons practically to empower social learning and provide opportunities for independent learning that promotes thinking. PBL is defined by Barrell (2007) as a process of inquiry that resolves questions, doubts and uncertainties about complex phenomena in life. The features of PBL provide ample opportunities to learn the heuristics of problem solving and thus inculcate independent learning. So, in this working model, the dynamics of implementing PBL will thus be driven by social learning where the application of cooperative learning structures as espoused by Spencer Kagan will be applied in concomitant with multiple intelligence strategies. In the process of doing PBL, students will be encouraged to use technology to help them in the finding and processing of information and consequently use and present processed information in enhanced forms. Peter and Wheeler (2008) suggest that working and learning
Producing Thinking Students Through Process Page 4

together with ICT yields good dividends when used in the environment of collaborative learning, construction of knowledge, creative thinking and the use of mind tools and social networks. 1.3.3 Technological Literacy and Competency: Borderless Education

This approach to using Information Communication Technology (ICT) is in the mold of emancipatory style where computer tools are used to help accomplish objectives or reduce the students workload by making routine task easier or more convenient. Herbenstreit (1982) has suggested that there are two main approaches to IT in education - the technical and the pragmatic. The technical approach advocates the importance of learning about computers via subjects like informatics that emphasises the need for teaching programming while the pragmatic approach emphasises the importance of learning with computers via the applications into subjects like science, mathematics, geography and others (Pelgrum and Schipper 1993). We are more interested in the latter. The basic purpose of the emancipatory software is to help students accomplish objectives and use the computer as a labour saving device (Sewell 1990:41). In this role, the computer performs tasks that students or teachers would normally do themselves, but it performs these tasks more conveniently and efficiently. Thus, it frees the student to focus on the concepts, principles, skills or interpretation of data that are really the focus of instruction (Woerner et al. 1991:37). Table 1.1 gives us a summary of how ICT helps in the teaching and learning (adapted from Frost 1994:8-9). Table 1.1 ICT Applications in Emancipatory Style FUNCTIONS To handle information and analyse data Spreadsheet To communicate Word processor APPLICATIONS Database HOW INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HELPS Organise, store and analyse experimental results. Organise, store and analyse records kept in a table. Prepare experimental plans, reports, letters, instruction sheets and questionnaires. Assemble drawings, diagrams, photos and words on a page. Measure change. Control a device that reacts to temperature or light levels. Control a device that can work automatically.

Desk top publishing To measure changes and control devices Data logging

Peter and Wheeler (2008) promote the use of ICT to extend classroom boundaries to support the distribution of learning activities across home and school. With the incredibly wide
Producing Thinking Students Through Process Page 5

expense of the internet and its applications like emails, social networking, blogging and webpages, teaching and learning can be pragmatically borderless. These three cogs of social learning, independent learning and ICT literacy and competency that turn in synchronized connection are the tools to help produce thinking students. 1.3.4 The Teacher Factor

The all important factor in all this is of course the teacher. The teacher in the classroom is the one who creates the environment that is conducive for social learning to drive independent learning and the usage of emancipatory style of ICT. The teacher is the one who drives this along in the initial stages, prods it on in the developmental stages and reinforces it in the concluding stages. In fact, the teacher plays three roles that could be liken to the role of social engineer, CEO and technical supervisor. As the social engineer in the classroom, the teacher plays the role of manager of social entities. He or she sets up the teams, teaches actively the social skills that are needed to function successfully as a team, apportions specific roles that ensures the full participation of every member in the team, and gives thinking-enhanced tasks to kick start the whole process of learning. As a CEO, the teacher plans the project-based scenarios that contain the embedded driving question to provide the meaningful and relevant situations that require the students to play real-life roles. In this way, he keeps the vision of thoughtful learning always in fore of the process. As a technical supervisor and consultant, the teacher provides ample opportunities for students to use ICT in the process of learning while providing the necessary scaffolding and support needed. Thus, it cannot be denied that the success or failure of producing thinking students is very much dependent on the teacher factor. For success to be tasted in this endeavour, the teacher needs to fully own the whole process and consistently push the cogs in the teaching and learning experience of the students. 1.3.5 The Research Questions i Will the combination of social learning, independent learning and technological literacy & competency produce thinking students through process? ii How can Project-based Learning as the method for independent learning be carried out? iii What is the influence of cooperative learning in the approach? iv Are the students able to use ICT in the process of learning?

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 6

2. Methodology 2.1 Sample The sample is a convenient sample taken from a year 4 class of students in a school in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. There are 30 students (14 boys and 16 girls) in the class taught by a Chinese science teacher. The students were from the same age, that is, 10 years old and came from different ethnic background (15 Malays, 9 local tribal, 2 Indians, 2 Sino, 1 Chinese, 1 Punjabi). The abilities of these students vary although they have been streamed and this class is the deemed the best class in the year four level. A number are quite competent in English and can speak fluently. Apparently these students come from quite well to do families who use English as their main language for communication. Others struggle in their usage of English. 2.2 Procedure The science teacher is a full partner in the collaborative action research and the lecturer was given access to the class to enter to teach alongside her. This partnership was an amicable and open partnership. It was also a pro-active action research as the researchers sought to try out the different strategies that could lead to the building of thinking students through process. Input was given by the lecturers from the teacher education institute with regards to approaches and methods in producing thinking students. It was important that the teachers and lecturers were essentially on the same page with regards to the approaches and methods. Discussions were carried out to plan the lessons together. Lecturers and teachers then carried out the lessons and activities together in paired teaching. After each class, reflections were written as all researchers gave feedback as to what they observed and learnt. Video recording and photos were taken to have visual documentation to revisit as the occasion required. The first cycle of this collaborative action research involved the direct implementation of a Project-Based Learning (PBL) task (My Schools Badminton court) , cooperative learning roles and signals, the use of ICT-internet applications and virtual learning environment in the form of CLAROLINE webpage by both teachers and students. The second cycle continued the utilization of the strategies implemented in the first cycle for continued familiarization and extended it further with the implementation of cooperative learning structures, development of scientific thinking through hands-on and minds-on activities in the form of experiments and investigations. They also carried out a second PBL task (My Dream House) independently as a team. The third cycle expanded even further the independent nature of study amongst the students by getting them to summarise a big topic into a concept map using the IHMC ConceptMapping software and present it in PowerPoint slides. They worked together cooperatively and demonstrated their understanding by presenting their summarized findings.

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 7

Diagram 2.1 The Action Research Cycles Visualised with Actions Taken Independent Learning: PBL1 Social Learning: Cooperative Roles & Signals Using ICT: Internet & PowerPoint

First Cycle

Second Cycle

Social Learning: Cooperative Structures1 Independent Learning: PBL2 Science Investigations

Third Cycle

Social Learning: Cooperative Structures2 Using ICT: IHMC ConceptMap and PowerPoint slides to summarise.

2.3 Instruments Instruments for collecting and processing data in this research included video recordings, simple surveys in the form of questionnaires to obtain students opinions, observations, interactions with students, researchers reflection, lesson planning, students work (hardcopy and softcopy), triangulation of observers including administrators, teachers and lecturers (as practitioners). 2.4 Method of Analysis Mostly qualitative analysis of data was employed to discover patterns and determine significant developments amongst the students and teachers who were directly involved in this collaborative action research.

3. Research Findings and Discussion

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 8

The Action Research Cycle: The Journey with 4 Berlian 3.1 The First Cycle: Kick-Start the Process The process began with sessions held with lecturers of the institute and teachers of the school meeting to work out a general direction. Some input was given by the head lecturer with regards to topics on cooperative learning and project-based learning. It was important to try and get everyone on the same page with regards to the strategies that would inculcate social learning and independent learning. They met together for four times to map out the approach to be used before implementation. It was of great encouragement to the head lecturer when three of the science teachers, including the head of the school who was also teaching a science class, started to apply some of the suggestions like cooperative learning just after the second session. He wrote this reflection after conducting the third session: Today I completed the input on cooperative learning. I started off the session with the teachers by asking them what stood out for them in the past session. I was pleasantly surprised when three teachers shared that they were starting to implement CL in their classThe best indication of interest is when the teachers shows initiative and carry out things on the own accord. Today, they showed this even though I had not asked them to start carrying it out in their own classes. This really pleased me and pleasantly surprised me. I felt really encouraged. (NKC/Journal_20-4-2010) This indicated the positive attitude of these three teachers and their willingness to try something new and different. This voluntary take-off was significant as this paved the way for the teachers to own the process. One of the early lessons was the resistance to change amongst the students. The partner researcher-teacher shared about her initial observations. I introduced cooperative learning by dividing the class into groups and ask them to discuss in group. Pupils are very quiet, no discussion is going on just every one is preparing their own notes. Pupils are not used to discuss in groups. They are more to find out the answer from book and written down notes from book. No cooperation from each group. (SRY/Journal_April 2010) Nevertheless, after introducing roles for each member of the cooperative learning group to function, she began to see a noticeable change in her students: The second lesson, I try to introduce roles in each group. Pupils started to play their roles and they start to share something in groups. After introduced the roles, pupils are able to start playing their roles and they start to share in group. Discussion is going on more effectively.(SRY/Journal_April 2010)

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 9

The lesson learnt here is that to bring about initial change from traditional mode to cooperative mode, the students have to taught intentionally and explicitly how to function in group work context. Apart from that, time is needed to be given for students to transit into new roles in social learning context. 3.2 The Scenario Unfurled: Monkey See, Monkey Do [Note: From this point onward, this report will document what happened in the head lecturers and 4 Berlian class science teachers collaborative efforts in implementing the process..] The Project-Based Learning (PBL) was carried out by formulating a scenario that related to the world of the students. At the start of this project, the year 4 syllabus was just about to move into the unit entitled Measurements. The following scenario and driving question was decided upon: Scenario: Your school intends to bid to be the center for a badminton tournament at state level. The condition to be selected is that the badminton courts in your school must be of the correct size and measurement. As part of the committee for making this bid, you are given the task to check and ensure that this condition is met. The Driving Question: Are the measurements of your school badminton court accurate and drawn according to the required size? The students were supposed to role-play as committee members who worked together to solve the problem. They were to function as a committee that was entrusted with the task of checking and verifying whether the badminton court in the school was suitable for use as a center for the proposed badminton tournament. The head lecturer conducted the session of giving the scenario and the task to the children. The scenario was unfurled to the students on his first visit to the class. It was carried out at the tail-end of the last ten minutes of the class. One student was asked to read the scenario and they were told to identify which words they did not understand or had problems with. Three words were identified by the students: committee, bid, and ensure. The last few minutes of the class was used to try and explain the words. On the next lesson, we used the KWL chart where the students were asked to fill up only the first two sections, that is: K What I know. W What I want to know.

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 10

The last part of L, What I learnt, was to be left until the unit was completed. When the scenario was first presented by the head lecturer, he was eager that the students understood what to do. So, he gave one or two examples for each section. On hindsight, this was a mistake because as a result every group wrote similar things into the two sections. There were no new ideas produced by any of the groups. He reflected: Obviously, they are not used to thinking on their own. They are more used to writing what they are told. I was a bit disappointed but that is the challenge we have to face in producing thinking students. If they can already think on their own, then there is no need to attempt to produce thinking students.(NKC/Journal_27-4-2010) It was clear that the students were so used to copying that it was unnatural for them to think independently on their own. We realized that we were standing at the foot of the steep climb up the mountain of independent learning. It was not going to be an easy task to break this mold among the students who through the three years of formal education had been ingrained to be spoon-fed who then regurgitated what was fed to them. It was a case of monkey see, monkey do! Creative and critical thinking was not natural for them. A better way to present the scenario would be just let the students come up with the facts themselves. It might be more time consuming and the students will probably struggle more, but that would have been a better start to spark off independent learning. So, teachers will do well to intentionally not provide too much direct help in the beginning, but guide them. The fellow teacher-researcher also learnt the same thing as she reflected: From the very beginning, pupils need 100% guidance from teacher. Every task given they will ask what to do, how to do. After we try not to give any help to them then from that they try to find out everything by themselves and they started to work in group to discuss what they are going to do and how they are going to do. A big change from them. Although pupils can learn from without guidance but it take a longer time and pupils seem to be a bit blur. So, introduction in new learning skills is very importance to them. So that they know what is going on and they know the way when activities are carried out. (SRY/Journal_18-5-10) 3.3 The First Activity: About Coaches and Apprentice This lack of independent thinking was exhibited again in the first activity after the scenario was unfurled. Students were asked to use the parts of their body to measure the length and width of the badminton court in school. Most of the groups used their foot to measure it. The following results were collated from them: Table 3.1 Table of Students Findings Group A B C
Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Length 23 29 54

Width 16 60 24
Page 11

Group D E F G

Length 25 52 25 28

Width 23 52 24 22

The researcher then asked the students a few questions to try and draw conclusions from them, such as: Whose results were right and accurate? Looking at the results, which is longer, the width or the length? The results were rather revealing as recollected by the researcher: I was a bit surprised that the students looked at me blankly. They could not make inferences based on the simple results. They could say that the length was longer than the breadth/width but could not explain why they thought so. Some of the surprising results were: The length because it is longer. Because length is starting with L. Their answers showed that they could not think logically nor process the data. After prodding further, one student finally came up with the answer that there is more foot. (NKC/Journal_27/4/2010)

The students could not interpret data, look for patterns and make inferences. Bearing in mind that this was the best class in year 4 of the school, this was rather disturbing. This meant that the researchers had to develop the students scientific skills as they engaged in thinking during their doing of science. Sometimes such easy tasks which we take for granted is not a norm for children. Obviously, the researchers had to continually give opportunities for the students to think. Thus, thinking does not happen naturally. In a way, teachers need to function as coaches in this endeavour to produce thinking students through process and students become their apprentice. This is in line with the power of mediation and intervention as espoused by Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. In his concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, he suggested that in that zone the students are not able to learn on their own but with the help of the teachers intervention as their skilled partner, they will be able to grasp the needed learning (Schunk,2008; Cook & Cook, 2005; Eggen & Kauchak,2001). This we will do during the second cycle of this action research. 3.4 Cyberspace: Surfing With the Students Just out of curiosity, a simple survey was conducted among the students in the class one day in the class by asking them to put up their hands in response to questions related to their use of ICT.

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 12

With regards to the use of ICT applications, the following results were obtained: Table 3.2 Table of Samples ICT Usage ICT Usage E-mail Facebook Twitter MSN Own Blog Own Computer Shared computer Know how to use Search Engine e.g. Google I own a pen drive to store files No. of students 22 19 1 9 5 12 17 29

10

With regards to the frequency of use of computers, the following results were obtained: Table 3.3 Table of Hours of Use of ICT in a Week No. of Hours 0-2 3-4 4-5 6-7 8-9 More than 10 hours No. of Students 16 5 3 2 0 3

From this simple survey, it could be surmised that the majority of students were computer literate to a certain extent and that they were already users of the internet applications. Most of them already had email addresses (76%) and a high percentage of them were already Facebook users (66%). It was obvious that the students were very faithful users of Facebook judging that several students asked if they could open up their Facebook accounts while in the computer laboratory. Almost all of them also knew how to use Search Engines to search for information and materials on the internet. Slightly less than half of them (41.4%) also had their very own computer but all of them had access to a computer at home. Most of them were frequent users of the computer and also the internet as can be seen that all of them got on the computer every week. I was really surprised when 3 of them said that they used their computer for more than 10 hours.

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 13

Based on all these simple statistics, it could be surmised that these children were practical users of ICT. In other words, they were familiar with the world of cyberspace. Therefore, it was logical to attempt to relate with them using a simple Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). The CLAROLINE VLE was selected to be used because the head lecturer had used this with his teacher trainees in a previous research (Ng, 2008) and the fact that it was very easy to set up almost zero knowledge of setting up a webpage was needed. All that one had to do was get accepted by the website managers and once the approval was obtained, one need only register the course and fill in some necessary details about the course. Thus, the website was set up and the students were registered to be users of the webpage that could only be accessed by them using their own password. The students did not disappoint in their ability to use ICT. In fact, the teacher-researcher was herself surprised with her own students ability which she did not anticipate. She reflected: I can see pupils effort in doing the report. They show their talent in making a power point. They are able to put in animation as well as they are able to put in music. They even able to search for information using internet. From here I know the pupils can learn more than what they can learn in the classroom. (SRY/Journal_6-5-2010) 3.5 Signs of Independent Learning: Metamorphosis and Sprouting Wings The lows and highs of independent learning were experienced in the same week. After students were given more than one week to look for the actual measurements of a badminton court, the head lecturer asked them whether they had found it. It was disappointing when none of the groups had made any effort to do so. He reflected: I learnt that just by releasing them to become independent learners is not the answer. We still have to prod them on in the initial stages. We have to break the mold and mindset that is in the minds of the students that they wait for instructions only. (NKC/Journal_4-5-10) Nevertheless, two days later, the situation took a drastic change for the better. The same head lecturer reflected: Today we took the students to the computer lab. I was expecting that the students will not have anything. But most of the groups really surprised me. They had their PowerPoint slides ready. This showed that they were able to work independently as they searched for their own information and prepared their presentation This was a really good day. I feel that good progress was made and that the students were beginning to own their work as a group. In half an hour, I could see that most groups were surging ahead. They were mostly involved and interested. (NKC/Journal_6-5-10) This contrasting situation was like the metamorphosis of a pupa to a butterfly. The students were beginning to sprout wings and fly independently. What caused the
Producing Thinking Students Through Process Page 14

transformation? I believe that it was the pep talk that happened right after they revealed that they had not found out the actual measurements of a standard badminton court. The head lecturer proceeded to ask the students a few leading questions: How can you decide if the badminton court in the school is correct if you do not know the actual measurements of a badminton court? Where can you find information about the measurements of the badminton court? Their answers ranged from the internet (the first answer), books in the library and actual badminton courts (e.g. Likas Stadium). (NKC/Journal_4-5-10) With a little more prodding to get ready and use PowerPoint slides, the students received the necessary encouragement to surge ahead. The head lecturer reflected: I learnt that just by releasing them to become independent learners is not the answer. We still have to prod them on in the initial stages. We have to break the mold and mindset that is in the minds of the students that they wait for instructions onlyI think what we have to do is to give the students general directions that require them to do independent research. The steps will still have to be given in this initial stage. (NKC/Journal_4-5-10) On D-Day when they presented their findings, it became apparent that they were able to look for information but they were poor in solving problems. All the groups could not give a conclusive or convincing presentation of whether the badminton court in school met the specifications of a standard badminton court. The Head Lecturer reflected: Although the students did well in preparing their slides and finding extra information, yet the disappointing thing which was also expressed by the judges (Madam Florence, Dr. Shahrir) and Mdm Sik was that they did not answer the problem. Its like reading an exciting mystery story to the end of the book except to find that the last few pages were missing!! It was kind of frustrating. I learnt that children have to be taught explicitly the heuristics of problem solving especially when they have not been doing it. But I believe that they realized it after all the evaluators pointed it out to them. It was a good and fruitful learning experience for them. (NKC/Journal_) Their first attempt at PBL by the students was a mixed bag of success and shortcoming. Signs of independent learning were beginning to be demonstrated. One of the invited lecturers as judge for their presentation was clearly pleasantly surprised by the ability of the students. She wrote about her own learning and journey: At the beginning when Dr Ng was so enthusiastic about implementing CL and PBL in year 4 , I was very skeptical and felt it will not be appropriate. When he asked me to accompany him to SK M_______ for the students presentation of their Project I just

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 15

followed him not wanting to let him down. I was thinking it is going to be a waste of time for me and the poor students. However , when the first group presented I was amazed at their work. For a year four student the amount of information they acquired from the internet was fantastic. Knowing my boss I know he would not have told them anything as to what format and what content they were supposed to present. He believes in discovery. Thus whatever they presented must be due to their own creativity and understanding of the question given to them. The outcome was the students were able to work independently and at the same time work together in a group to produce work of admirable quality for a beginner. What I discovered for myself was that giving students freedom does bring about positive outcomes. (NKP/Reflection_18-5-2010) This initially skeptical lecturer frankly shared about her own paradigm shift with regards to trusting the students to produce quality work on their own. The importance of independent learning and discovery on their own became her main learning and observation as she summarized her reflection: Now I believe when my boss says, Dont tell them anything - Let them explore! (NKP/Reflection_18-5-2010) It was clear that the students needed to learn the art and science of problem solving. They were relatively good at their ICT skills but critical thinking was a weak area. The assumption that students could solve problems naturally was a misconception. The main lesson at the end of the first cycle of the action research was that the students needed to be guided in planning the steps of problem solving clearly in the initial stages and then guided clearly to make a clear conclusion. They need to be taught and learn it explicitly. 3.6 The Second Cycle: PBL 2 Our Dream House At the outset of the second cycle, we gave them a second project-based learning assignment. The scenario was stated this way: A developer is coming to your school. They want to build a new housing area called Dream World for kids. They want to gather the design from kids. So, a competition in designing and building a model house is held in your school. Your group is willing to take part. What kind of design and how big a house your group will submit for the competition? This scenario was designed in line with the topics on measurement regarding area and volume. When the scenario was given, it was decidedly more student-empowered. They could soar as they worked independently to think creatively. They managed to fill up the What I Know and What I Want to Know template on their own using their own ideas.
Producing Thinking Students Through Process Page 16

Table 3.4 gives some of the groups sample brainstorming products: Team A Team B What do We are going to build A developer is coming I Know a dream house that is to our school. They held in our school. want to build new housing area called We need to design a Dream World for very unusual house. kids. We need to do a verywas a very big house and There competition for can fly to space. designing and building a model house in our school. Our group is willing to take part in the competition. Can we build the Kind of design and What I house on an how big a house will want to aeroplane? our group submit for Know the competition. What type of fuel is not dangerous to put on a The area of the rocket house? How housing area. are we going to do in eco-friendly? How are we going to do in ecofriendly? How are we going to do a house on a plane and go to space? Team C We need to create a dream house. We are taking part in the competition. A developer is coming to our school to see whatve we designed. We are designing a house for the housing area Dream World.

The shape of our house. The area of our house. The volume of our house. How many rooms/parts are there in our house.

Table 3.4 Three teams results of brainstorming

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 17

Picture 3.1 Pictures of Sample of Students Brainstorming Work There were good evidence of progress made in independent learning and freedom to be critical and creative This was markedly different compared to the first PBL brainstorming session where they produced similar ideas and wordings as given by the example of the head lecturer. This time the students had their own ideas stated in their own words that differed from other groups. The head lecturers reflections revealed this realization: I then unfolded the scenario. This time I had learnt from the previous experience. I did not provide any sample answers to the questions, What do I Know? and What do I Want to know? I need not have worried. They got down to it without much problems, like fish in water. This was such a contrast to the first time. They could work independently and cooperatively. They soon filled up the page with their own thoughts and ideas. One group even wanted to build a house on an aeroplane.(NKC/Reflection_4/6/2010) The students had learnt from their previous experience and knew how to fly on their own. Furthermore, they were also beginning to realize the importance of working together as a team. A rather amusing scenario was remembered by the head lecturer: They were also beginning to understand their different roles. One group which had two boys and two girls on this day, called me to their table. The girls than complained to me that the boys had written in their ideas without consulting them! That was a good indication that they understood the principle of cooperative thinking. (NKC/Reflection_4/6/2010)

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 18

A class brainstorming session using the Cooperative Learning structure called Stand-N-Share yielded a rich set of ideas and opinions that gave a fuller picture of the task ahead for everyone:

Picture 3.2 - The Ray Diagram drawn by the head lecturer as the Class contributed their ideas on the task ahead for them.

During this second cycle and second PBL, the students were mostly left on their own to complete their task. Their presentation was carried out in a similar fashion as the first. This time there was a marked improvement in their PowerPoint slides and in their presentations. One of the lecturers who was acting as a judge and who also witnessed their first presentation wrote this reflection: The students presented their dream house in their respective groups. Their PowerPoint slides were good. Some groups were able to download pictures into their slides. Compared to the previous presentation on the badminton court this PowerPoint presentation was very well planned and done creatively. Command of English has also improved. Most of them have become confident in their presentation. The group members were prepared to answer questions imposed by their fellow friends from other groups. Questioning techniques among students were good. (NKP/Reflection_20/8/2010) After the first presentation, the Head Lecturer who was managing the session forgot to open up for questions. He was promptly reminded by one of the students and after that a robust and very lively question and answer time ensued after every presentation. This showed that thoughtful learning was happening during the session. It had become an accepted norm. The groups also managed to produce 3-D models of their dream house along with their floor plans. It was a very satisfying and fulfilling session that capped the PBL endeavour for the year.

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 19

PBL had become a favorite with the students. The researchers were taken by surprise when it was announced at the presentation that this would the last PBL for the year. There was an expression of disappointment. One student made this astute comment: At least there is something fun to do after working so hard in the exams. (NKC/Reflection_27/8/2010). It is highly probable that the source of this was that the students were bored with routine school work. Thus, when they had an opportunity to do something different and challenging as given in the PBL, they found it stimulating and attractive. 3.7 CSI Investigation The other method that we introduced during this second cycle was to carry out a scientific investigation which was introduced as a CSI Investigation. The students gave an enthusiastic response to the popular series on TV. At the same time, different cooperative learning structures were introduced slowly in stages, one by one. Scientific investigations involved the three phases of planning, doing and concluding. For the experience to be truly investigative, the students needed to be given room and opportunities to think independently on their own and cooperatively as a team. We choose to do an investigation on the factors that could affect how fast a pendulum swings. For this purpose, we allowed the students to brainstorm what they thought could affect the rate of swing of the pendulum and write out a hypothesis that expressed their thought. Group A B C D E F G What to change (Manipulated Variable) Length of string How high we release the bob The thickness of the string The number of bobs The number of bobs The weight of the bob The size of the pendulum Hypothesis If the length of the string is longer than the pendulum will swing slower. If the higher we release the bob then it will swing faster If the string is more thinner then the pendulum bob will swing faster. If the number of bob is more, then the more time taken for the pendulum swing. If the number of bobs increase then the pendulum swing slower If we used a heavier bob then it will go faster. If the size of the pendulum bob is smaller then the pendulum will swing faster.

Table 3.5 The Students Choice of Manipulative Variables to be Tested and Their Corresponding Hypothesis

As could be seen, there was a good variety which again evinced that independent thinking and learning had been instilled amongst the students. Nevertheless, the variety of variables to be tested proved to be quite a challenge to execute. No doubt it would be much easier if the recipe
Producing Thinking Students Through Process Page 20

method was used whereby every group followed a set of instructions given by the teacher but that would not be in the spirit of an investigation. Set instructions curtail thinking and are static in its process. The head lecturer who conducted this session reflected: Allowing them to grapple with the intricacies of doing science allows them to experience a more authentic atmosphere of investigation. Even though it was definitely more messy and chaotic, nevertheless the learning that the students experienced was well worth the effort. These are steps towards independent learning. Solving problems on their own, making decisions, working together while resolving conflicts, coming to a consensus as a team and learning from mistakes made are all part of the process of learning. It looks messy like natural fertilizer on the ground but it is rich soil for learning. I learnt that I have to be satisfied with every small step that the students make. Like babies learning to walk they bump and fall all over the place, but in the end they will learn. (NKC/Reflection_30/7/2010) Messy but fertile is what true investigations is like in the process of learning. The students struggled with simple manipulative skills like tying a pendulum to the retort stand and getting the pendulum to swing without hitting the stand of the retort stand. They also struggled to interpret the results of their test based on the results they obtained and coming to a general conclusion. Nevertheless, these were indispensable part of the thinking and learning process that were pathways towards independent learning. 3.8 Cooperative Learning Structures Working in teams either in class or as they carried out their PBL turned out to be a more popular way of learning for the students. Most of the students who responded in the questionnaire said they preferred to work in a group rather than alone. The reasons some of them gave were: 1. It was more fun: It is more fun and can give me more idea. (S16) Because its fun. (S15) Because it will and is more fun than classes without projects. (S13) 2. It was beneficial to work in a team Because if I work as a team, I will understand a little bit. (S20) Because if I work as a team, I will understand (S19,S20) I learn that I cannot work without my friends. (S7) Because working in group is good. (S1, S4, S14, S20) 3. It stimulated them to think. It helps us to think. (S18) It is because it will give us more idea (S12) I learn to be more creative and to think carefully before I do anything. (S5)
Producing Thinking Students Through Process Page 21

I learn to exercise my creativity. (S2) I learn how to decide correctly. (S17)

The students were thus aware of the benefits of working within a social network. Social learning was mutually beneficial to the members and had the added value of being fun. The fun factor cannot be underestimated in the context of learning. 3.9 The Third Cycle: Independence Achieved During the third cycle of this action research, we added the element of concept mapping using the freeware IHMC ConceptMap)and furthered the use of ICT. The teacher gave them a group task of researching, collaborating, and producing PowerPoint presentations of Properties of Materials. On the day that they presented, the students demonstrated advancement in independent learning in two ways. First, they produced slides that were creative. The quality was so much better as they took heed of feedback that was given during the PBL presentation in the first cycle. Now the slides were less wordy, with more attractive and relevant pictures and even included electronically drawn concept maps. Secondly, they were not passive listeners but immediately responded with questions and critiques right after the presentations. The Lead Lecturer reflected: But the most astounding thing to witness was after each presentation, the students who were the audience immediately responded with their questions without any prompting from the teachers. A good session of discourse happened and they asked very relevant questions to the presenters like: How come you say glass can conduct heat. The group responded by pointing out to the experiment they had just carried out by boiling water in a test tube proving to them that glass do conduct heat. Later on I had to clarify that glass and many non-metals DO conduct heat but were poor conductors of heat.(NKC/Reflection_20/8/2010) As we have noted, this highly interactive question and answer discourse was a clear mark of thoughtful learning. 4. Concluding Remarks This paper documented the journey undertaken by a teacher educator in a smart partnership with a practicing teacher in a primary school as they sought to produce thinking students who could work more independently during the process of learning science. Some of the lessons learnt during the course of this action research and the use of problem-based learning and cooperative learning were significant for the researchers. Coaching students who were used to teacher-dominated classes required intentional and persistent effort to break that mold of passivity and leech-like dependency on teachers. To produce thinking students, very careful methods that avoided giving too much information and facts to their apprentice had to be practiced. Even the giving of examples could lead the
Producing Thinking Students Through Process Page 22

students to go into their automatic mode of just following unthinkingly with no original critical or creative thoughts attempted. Thus, the teacher as coach had to practice restrain and hold back patiently while allowing the apprentice to struggle to the surface with their pearls of original ideas. This did not come easily but when the students realized that help was not forthcoming from the teacher, they were more inclined to think on their own. Project-based learning provided the students with many such opportunities as a myriad of decisions confronted them in the course of carrying out their task of solving the real-life problem. The students did not disappoint in their ability to use ICT to help accomplish their task. The use of internet to source out for information was carried out with little help from the teachers especially once the students realized that the teacher was not going to be the supplier of information and facts. Again the barrier of passivity had to be broken before the students started to soar. During the second cycle of the action research and as the students carried out the second PBL, they were no longer inhibited in thinking creatively and independently. As a result, the students could work more together with more freedom and confidence. Even though science investigations was very new to them in this phase, yet they took to the challenge with not much complains. They exhibited the ability to produce original ideas and make choices on their own. The intricacies of investigations were not mastered in this first attempt but where thinking was concerned, it was definitely a significant progress compared to the first cycle. Cooperative learning which capitalized on social learning was a good partner in helping produce thinking students. Instead of the traditional reliance on the teacher, students began to rely on their corporate abilities and strengths. The students began to realize that each team member had to lay their role for the whole team to be successful. This class was now a good template for teachers to observe how thinking students were produced and how they can function independently both critically and creatively when given the empowerment to do so. The next phase of this school-wide research is to use this template and the lessons learnt to spread this to other science classes and other subject classes. This next phase will be the natural progression for multiplying the effort to transform teaching practices in a school from a teacher-centered orientation to a student-centered one. But that is another story for another time

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 23

References Barrell, J. (2007). Problem-Based Learning. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Cook, J.L. & Cook, G. (2005). Child Development: Principles and Perspectives. Boston, USA: Pearson Education, Inc. Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational Psychology: Windows on Classroom. 5th Edition. New Jersey, USA: Merrill Prentice Hall. Frost, R. (1994) The IT in Secondary Science: A Compendium of Ideas for Using Computers and Teaching Science. (London: IT in Science). Herbenststreit, J. (1982) Computers in Education in Developing Countries. (Paris: UNESCO Division of Structures, Content, Methods and Techniques in Education). (cited by Pelgrum, W.J. And Schipper, A.T. 1993) Kagan, S & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Ng Kee Chuan (2008). Adventures in Cyberspace: Connectivity and Interactivity to Enhance the Learning Experience of Trainee Teachers. Jurnal Ilmiah (1)2008. 1-17. IPGM Kampus Gaya. Pelgrum, W.J. And Schipper, A.T. (1993) Indicators of Computer Integration in Education., Computers and Education, 21 (1/2), 141-149. Peter, D.J. & Wheeler, S. (2008). The Digital Classroom: Harnessing Technology for the Future of Learning and Teaching. London: Routledge. Schunk, D.H. (2008). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. 5th Edition. New Jersey. USA: Pearson Pretice Hall. Sewell, D.F. (1990) New Tools for New Minds: A Cognitive Perspective on the Use of Computers with Young Children. (Hertforshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf). Tishman, S., Perkins, D. & Jay, E. (1995). The Thinking Classroom: Learning and Teaching in a Culture of Thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Woerner, J.J., Rivers, R.H. And Vockell, E.L. (1991) The Computer in the Science Curriculum. (Watsonville, California: Mcgraw-Hill).

Producing Thinking Students Through Process

Page 24