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.com

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to fathom the Thinking Skills and Emotional Intelligence

framework 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 their

students 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 content

statement. Learning outcomes are what result from a learning process. They are specific

measurable achievements and are stated as achievements of the student.

Keywords: Critical and creative thinking skills, Emotional Intelligence, GRAMEITS

Introduction

At the heart of the Revised Curriculum lies an explicit emphasis on the development

of 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, your

teachers can develop pupils’ personal and interpersonal skills, capabilities and dispositions,

and their ability to think both creatively and critically (Morrow,2004). A distinctive feature

of the current framework is that it integrates a range of different types of thinking skills and

learning dispositions with collaborative learning (working with others) and independent

learning (self-management and taking responsibility). Most of our thinking is developed

informally as engage in both everyday and school activities (Richards, 2001). Developing

thinking skills means designing learning so that pupils will think more skillfully than they

would 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 knowledge

in order to deepen their understanding and apply ideas, generate new possibilities and make

decisions as well as to plan, monitor and evaluate their progress.

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 process

regulated by motivations, dispositions, and personality traits. Despite differences of opinion,

many researchers agree that critical thinking is "Purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which

results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the

evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological or contextual considerations upon

which judgment is based" (Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner & Salovey, 2006).

Critical thinking is a common "buzz phrase" in educational, psychological, and

philosophical, circles today. Much work has been completed in the name of critical thinking

in education to date that not only leaves one wondering how it is measured, but also leaves

one groping for a cognizant definition of critical thinking . Part of this ambiguity lies in the

existence of multiple definitions for critical thinking (Crane, 1983).

Critical thinking is also regarded as intellectually engaged, skillful, and responsible

thinking that facilitates good judgment because it requires the application of assumptions,

knowledge, competence, and the ability to challenge one’s own thinking. Critical thinking

requires the use of self-correction and monitoring to judge the rationality of thinking as well

as reflexivity. According to Banning, critical thinking involves scrutinizing, differentiating,

and appraising information as well as reflecting on information to make judgments that will

inform clinical decisions. Richards (2001) asserts that identifying and challenging

assumptions and analyzing assumptions for validity are essential to critical thinking skills.

He also suggested that because critical thinkers possess curiosity and skepticism, they are

more likely to be motivated to provide solutions that resolve contradictions.

Creative Thinking

Creativity applies both to the quality of particular outcomes and the thinking activity

that led to them. Thought is creative when it produces something that is both novel and

interesting or valuable, the birth of "imaginative new ideas" or "the imaginatively gifted

recombination of known elements into something new". The ideas need to be appropriate or

relevant in terms of an intended purpose (Brackett, et. al., 2006).

Creativity involves thinking ‘outside the box’ in order to solve a problem, create

something new, do something differently than it’s been done before. Simply thinking

creatively will only get us so far. Creative thinking must be combined with critical thinking

to truly produce distinctive results (Print, 1988).

3

Creativity sparks the imagination to think in unique ways to do things, to solve

problems – even in interactions with others in non-conforming ways. Creativity and

imagination 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 she

wrote: “When reasoning fails, Imagination saves you! When Intuition fails, reason saves

you!”(p. 7). There has been an abundance of research on each construct but very little

examining if they are related. Scriven (1979) stated: “Critical skills go hand in hand with

creative ones” (p. 37). Only by understanding if there is a relationship between these two

essential constructs will educators be able to enhance the capacity of their students to utilize

both creative and critical thinking. It is essential to first define each of these constructs to

determine if indeed they are correlated.

Emotional Intelligence

This phrase, first used by Salvove and Mayar in 1990, (Morrow, 2004) refers to the

interpersonal relationship skills common in effective leaders. In Working with Emotional

Intelligence, Mayer & Salovey (1997) identifies five domains of emotional intelligence as

self 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 the

effects of emotional intelligence on a leaders success.

With the positive effects of emotional intelligence ingrained in the research record of a

number of fields, the key issue becomes using emotional intelligence as one criterion for

hiring while imparting these skills in leaders that may be deficient. In either case effective

library leaders using these competencies will be essential for the transition and growth of the

profession.

Today, there are two general models of Emotional Intelligence (EQ) in the literature: a

skill-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 about

emotions and to process emotional information to enhance cognitive processes and regulate

behavior. For instance, Mayer et al., (2002) discuss the ability to manage one’s own

emotions (e.g., the ability to distract oneself temporarily from a difficult situation) as an

element of EQ.

Mixed models, on the other hand, define and measure EQ as a set of perceived

abilities, skills, and personality traits. For instance, Bar-On (1997) model of EQ includes

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 as

opposed 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 then

introduced and presented as one of the key papers in a seminar on "Critical and Creative

thinking 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 to

CCTS 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 the

developers, "the descriptors used in the model can be catered for all responses (teachers and

students) 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 classroom

instruction. 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 student's 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).

5

Aims & Objectives

The aim of this paper is to understand the Thinking Skills and Emotional Intelligence

framework; 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 CCST

and EQ as a construct and entity in itself; and plan effectively for the development and

progression of Thinking Skills and Emotional Intelligence through the curriculum.

Methodology and Procedure

Classroom instructions were audio recorded, and later transcribed and contents were

analyzed using GRAMEITS. The data gather from the observation and reviewing of the

recorded 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 of

percentage. The SPSS version 16 statistical program was carried out to determine the data

frequency of GRAMEITS.

GRAMEITS is an attempt that suggests a practical way to measure both CCTS and

EQ in classroom instruction using a single instrument. This paper highlights the framework

of GRAMEITS and shares it's practically and feasibility to measure EQ and CCTS in

classroom instruction.

Results

The result of this research based on the GRAMEITS described that the students in

terms of critical thinking, creative thinking abilities, and emotional intelligence in classroom

instruction. All of the respondents in the sample were postgraduate student in faculty of

educational studies at University Putra Malaysia.

In terms of critical and creative thinking skills and emotional intelligence, percentile

scores were calculated from the raw scores based upon the adult population in the one

classroom. In terms of the CCTS and EQ, the GRAMEITS consists of six categories in

which 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 STUDENT'S 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

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 encourage

thinking and EQ, has more frequent than others subcategories and whereas the rate of

applying scale D that related to assesses the questions and tasks used by the teacher during

the classroom teaching, is less when compared to the others items in this instrument.

Although none of the analyses were statistically significant, responses that inhibit

thinking and EQ accounted for 12.79% (f=22), 14.95% on responses that limits student's

thinking (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 responses

that 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 that

thinking skill. Brackett & Salovey (2004) pointed out that critical and creative thinking

processes require active argumentation, initiative, reasoning, envisioning and analyzing

complex alternatives, and making contingency-related value judgments. According to, on the

other hand, Mayer and Salovey (2005), EQ pertains to an individual’s capacity to reason

about emotions and to process emotional information to enhance cognitive processes and

regulate behavior.

Therefore, the following table was depicted the frequency, percentage of each

category and also percentage of overall; to find out students this skill along with how to

master test taking, how to develop good study habits and more. The each item was to

investigate the relationships between critical and creative thinking skill and emotional

intelligence. This result was based on 160 responses however an overall score of 160 is rare.

7

Table 4.1: Breakdown of analysis according to the categories of GRAMEITS

CATEGORIES of GRAMEITS f % each category

% overall

A . RESPONSES THAT INHIBIT THINKING AND EQ 1. Responses that bring closure: i. Agrees with student's idea 3 13.63 1.87 ii. Disagrees with student's idea 1 4.54 0.62 iii. Doesn't 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 STUDENT'S 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 student's 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

8

CATEGORIES of GRAMEITS f

% each 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 the

way students think and behave, and 2) develop a set of tools for manipulating the

emotions of oneself and others in order to affect thinking, behavior, and especially

performance and effectiveness in different domains.

This is a great brainstorming activity for teachers to discuss with each other and their

students 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 their

daily activities and again converse with others to find out what strategies have worked or

failed.

Conclusion

The term critical thinking is common in educational, psychological, and philosophical

circles today. Employers, parents, administrators, and students themselves want critical

9

thinking skills developed in today's graduate. Developing critical thinking skills is not a new

idea.

Mayer, Salovey & Caruso (2004) stated that, "…it is assumed that development of

thought power is one of the major aims of education." Crane (1983) believed that educational

institutions were responsible for teaching students to go beyond the simple mental activities

of recall and restatement of ideas and facts to the higher-level skills and habits involved in

critical thinking.

Bar-On, (1997) explored the importance of creativity in higher education when he

wrote: The college experience should include an opportunity to discover one’s potential and

achieve higher levels of creative expression. The extent to which this happens depends on

curriculum and the commitment of the faculty members to nurture this development both

inside and outside of the classroom. The learning environment as reflected by the classroom

and campus setting, supportive extra-curricular and the advisor/student relationship all

impact the total educational mission of developing creativity. (p. 55)

Brackett and Salovey (2004) asserted that although students' complete basic courses

they have only a superficial understanding of what they have learned. In fact, few students

are taught the skills needed to examine principles, values and facts.

This study was limited to the one postgraduate class that participated. The results from

this study suggest that the two constructs (critical and creative thinking skills and emotional

intelligence) are closely connected. These researchers emphasize that much more research

needs to be conducted with different age ranges, gender, and socio-economic background to

confirm the results of this study. This research should help to answer very important

questions on how to enhance the capacity of students to critically and creatively think and

emotional intelligence. The preliminary findings in this study suggest that educators must

prepare specific curriculum that stimulates creative and critical thinking and emotional

intelligence, separately.

Next, students are asked to think about feeling a particular emotion and different

experiences that elicit that emotion. A class discussion is initiated as students are asked to

share with the class or the experiences they wrote about and how they managed their

emotions. Alternatively, class discussions should emphasize as few or as many of the

following: what they were feeling, how they reacted, how long the feeling lasted, what or

who changed the feeling, how effective that was, and how they may have reacted differently.

10

REFERENCES

Bar-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 Master's 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. Conference Mayer, 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 17

Morrow, K. (2004). Insights from the Common European Framework. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

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.