Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:51:20.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of an Instruction Method in Thinking Skills with Students from Compulsory Secondary Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

María Luisa Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga ,
María Teresa Sanz de Acedo Baquedano  and
Milagros Pollán Rufo
María Luisa Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga*
Affiliation:
Universidad Pública de Navarra (Spain)
Milagros Pollán Rufo
Affiliation:
Universidad Pública de Navarra (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mª Luisa Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga. Departamento de Psicología y Pedagogía. Universidad Pública de Navarra. Campus de Arrosadía. 31006 Pamplona. (Spain). Phone: +34-948169479. Fax: +34-948169169. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects caused by the instruction method “Think actively in academic contexts, TAAC”, an adaptation of Wallace and Adams' (1993) method of thinking skills, creativity, selfregulation, and academic learning, with students from the second grade of Compulsory Secondary Education (CSE). We used a pretest-intervention-posttest design with control group. The sample was made up of 110 participants, aged between 13 and 15 years, 58 of them in the experimental group and 52 in the control group. Six assessment instruments were administered before and after applying the method in order to measure the dependent variables. The method, divided into eight stages, was used in all the didactic units of the syllabus content of Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Language, during one academic course, and allowed the conjoint teaching of thinking skills and the syllabus content. The results of the analyses of variance indicate positive impact of the intervention, as the experimental subjects improved significantly in thinking skills and academic achievement. Some interesting reflections for research and education are derived from this study.

El estudio que presentamos tuvo como objetivo evaluar los efectos originados por el método de instrucción “Pensar activamente en entornos académicos, PAEC”, una adaptación del método de Wallace and Adams (1993), en las habilidades del pensamiento, la creatividad, la autorregulación y el aprendizaje académico con alumnos de segundo curso de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria (ESO). Se utilizó un diseño pretest-intervención-postest con grupo control. La muestra estuvo formada por 110 sujetos entre 13 y 15 años, 58 de ellos pertenecientes al grupo experimental y 52, al grupo control. Antes y después de aplicar el método se administraron seis instrumentos de evaluación para medir las variables dependientes. El método, dividido en ocho fases, se utilizó en todas las unidades didácticas de los contenidos de ciencias naturales, ciencias sociales y lengua durante un curso académico, y permitió la enseñanza conjunta de las habilidades del pensamiento y de los contenidos curriculares. Los resultados de los análisis de varianza sugieren un impacto positivo de la intervención, ya que los sujetos experimentales mejoraron significativamente en habilidades del pensamiento y en rendimiento académico. Se derivan de este estudio interesantes reflexiones para la investigación y la educación.

Keywords

thinking skillsTAAC methodcreativitytransferand academic achievementhabilidades del pensamientométodo PAEAcreatividadtransferenciarendimiento académico
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , May 2010 , pp. 127 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Barrio, J., Bermúndez, M. L., Faure, A., & Gómez, M. F. (2003). Ciencias de la naturaleza ]Natural sciences]. Madrid: Oxford University Press España.Google Scholar
Baron, J. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Teaching thinking skills theory and practice. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Bennett, K., Seahore, H. G., & Wesman, G. (1992). Differential Aptitude Tests (5th ed.). New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonate, P. L. (2000). Analysis of pretest-posttest designs. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainerd, C. J. (1975). Rejoinder to Bingham-Newman and Hooper. American Educational Research Journal, 12(3), 389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executuve control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In Weinert, F. & Kluwe, R. (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Büchel, F. P., & Scharnhorst, U. (1993).Training des induktiven Denkens bei Lern- und Geistigbehinderten ]Training of inductive reasoning with learning disabled and mentally retarded subjects]. In Klauer, K. J. (Ed.), Cognitive training (pp. 95–123). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Castán, P., Fernández, D., & Laborda, X. (2003). Lengua castellana y literatura ]Spanish language and literature]. Alcorcón, Madrid: Almadraba Editorial.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, A. K. S. (1973). Measuring intelligence the with culture fair test (Manual for Scale 2 and 3). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing ]Spanish translation: TEA Ediciones, 2001].Google Scholar
Chappell, K., Craft, A., Burnard, P., & Cremin, T. (2008). Question-posing and question-responding: the heart of “Possibility Thinking” in the early years. Early Years, 28(3), 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. S., Freeman, J. T., & Wolf, S. (1996). Metarecognition in time-stressed decision making: Recognizing, critiquing, and correcting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 38(2), 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbalán Berná, F. J., Martínez Zaragoza, F., Donolo, D. S., Alonso Monreal, C., Tejerina Arreal, M., & Limiñana Gras, R. M. (2003). CREA, Inteligencia Creativa, Manual ]CREA, Creative Intelligence. A cognitive measure of creativity. Manual]. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.Google Scholar
Costa, A. L. (2001). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Costa, A. L. (2006). Five themes in a thought-full curriculum. Thinking skills and creativity, 1(1), 62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropley, A. J., & Urban, K. K. (2000). Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity. In Heller, K. A., Monks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J. & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 485–498). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Csapó, B. (1997). The development of inductive reasoning: Cross-sectional assessments in an educational context. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20(4), 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program of cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Vidal, J., González Manjún, D., & García Pérez, M. (2002). Batería Psicopedagógica Evalúa-8 y Evalúa-9. Manual (versión 2.0) ]Psychoeducational Assess-8 and Assess-9. Manual (version 2.0)]. Madrid: Editorial EOS.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1983). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Klauer, K. J. (1998). Inductive reasoning and fluid intelligence: A training approach. In Kingma, J. & Tomic, W. (Eds.), Advances in cognition and educational practice (Vol. 5, pp. 261–289). London: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51(2), 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. (1989). On improving thinking through instruction. Review of Research in Education, 15(1), 3–57.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. N., Goodrich, H., Tishman, S., & Mirman-Owen, J. (1994). Thinking connections: Learning to think and thinking to learn. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (1997). Teaching intelligence. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1125–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1992a). The science and art of transfer. In Costa, A. C., Bellanca, J., & Forgarty, R. (Eds.), If minds matter: A foreword to the future (Vol. 1, pp. 201–210). Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing.Google Scholar
Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1992b). Transfer of learning. International Encyclopeadia of Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Pintrich, P. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressley, M., & Woloshyn, V. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children's academic performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.Google Scholar
Richards, R. (2007). Everyday creativity. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2005). Learning to think: The challenges of teaching thinking. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 775–802). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Román, J. M., & Gallego, S. (1994). Escalas de estrategias de aprendizaje, Manual ]Scales of learning strategies. Manual]. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.Google Scholar
Rosário, P., Mourão, R., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J., Solano, P., & Valle, A. (2007). Eficacia de un programa instruccional para la mejora de procesos y estrategias de aprendizaje en la enseñanza superior ]Evaluating the efficacy of a program to enhance college students' self-regulation learning processes and learning strategies]. Psicothema, 19(3), 422–427.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A., & Sakamoto, S. O. (1999). Experimental studies of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 62–92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sada, F. J., Santos, F., Alcázar, M., Espino, O., Etxebarria, L., García, J. et al. (2003). Geografía e historia ]Geography and history]. Madrid: Santillana Educación.Google Scholar
Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, M. L., & Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, M. T. (2007). Creatividad individual y grupal en la educación. Madrid [Individual creativity and grupal in the education]: IEUNSA.Google Scholar
Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, M. L., Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, M. T., Goicoa Mangado, T., & Cardelle-Elawar, M. (2009). Enhancement of thinking skills: Effects of two intervention methods. Thinking Skills and Creativity 4(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga, M. L., Ugarte, M. D., Iriarte, M. D., & Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, M. T. (2003). Immediate and long-term effects of a cognitive intervention on intelligence, self-regulation, and academic achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(1), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Segal, J. W., Chipman, S. F., & Glaser, R. (1985). Thinking and learning skills. Relating instruction to research (Vol. 1, pp. 317–359). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic of human intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J.Kaufman, J. C., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2008). Applied intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swartz, R. J., & Parks, S. (1994). Infusing the teaching of critical and creative thinking into content instruction. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Press & Software.Google Scholar
Tishman, S., Perkins, D. N., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Tomic, W., & Kingma, J. (1998). Introduction: Issues in the malleability of intelligence. In Kingma, J. & Tomic, W. (Eds.), Advances in cognition and educational practice (Vol. 5, pp. 1–12). London, UK: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Tomic, W., & Klauer, K. J. (1996). On the effects of training inductive reasoning: How far does it transfer and how long do the effects persist? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11(3), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, B., & Adams, H. B. (1993). TASC. Thinking actively in a social context. Bicester, UK: A B Academic Publishers.Google Scholar