Longitudinal Study of Students’ Reflective Judgment in Four Degree Programs With the Steps for...
1
Longitudinal Study of Students’ Reflective Judgment in Four Degree Programs With the Steps for Better Thinking Model: First-Year Results Ellen C. Banks, Dominique Coffie and Pamela Rueda Psychology Department, Daemen College, Buffalo, New York With assistance from Susan Wolcott, WolcottLynch.com First-year results are consistent with other reflective judgment studies (e.g., King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 161): 50% of students responded at SBT stage 0 (corresponding to Kitchener and King’s Stage 3); 5% at SBT Stage .5; 9% at Stage 1.5, 9% at Stage 2 and 3% at Stage 3. Second-year data collection is in progress. This study presents first-year data from a longitudinal study of reflective judgment in college students, using the Steps for Better Thinking model developed by Lynch and Wolcott (Lynch, 1996; Wolcott & Lynch, 1997 and 2001.) Steps for Better Thinking (SBT) is based on the Reflective Judgment Model of King and Kitchener (1994) and Fischer’s Skill Theory (1980). SBT advances the assessment of reflective judgment by providing a flexible assessment rubric that can be applied to teaching and research. It is less costly in time and training than the Reflective Judgment Interview. Steps for Better Thinking provides a rubric that is adaptable to any issue calling for responses to open-ended (also known as “unstructured,” “ill-structured,” or “ill-formed”) problems: those that have no certain correct answer. SBT also provides a framework for design of educational materials and tasks that can stimulate higher levels of reflective judgment in students (Wolcott, 2000, Lynch & Wolcott, 2001.) This study is following students through four different programs during their courses of study at a medium-sized, multipurpose college: two clinical programs, Physician Assistant Studies and Physical Therapy, and two liberal arts programs, Psychology and History/Government. The clinical programs involve one year (PA) or two years (PT) of study beyond the bachelor’s degree, permitting assessment of students’ development through the post-baccalaureate level. Questions addressed in this study include: Does the development of reflective judgment show different trajectories among students in different fields of study? Within a field of study, do students progress differently in reflective judgment when analyzing issues closely related to their fields of study as compared to general social issues? We propose that course work in a student’s major field will provide contextual support (Kitchener, Lynch, Fischer & Wood, 1993) resulting in a higher level of thinking on specialized topics. Each year, students read and respond in a short essay to a scenario that discusses various sides of a contemporary issue, such as genetically modified food and same-sex marriage. The scenarios include standard reflective judgment prompts such as, “How sure are you that your opinion is right? If experts disagree, does that mean that one is right and Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87, 477-531. King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S. (1994) Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Lynch, C. L. (1996). Facilitating and assessing unstructured problem solving. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 27, 16-27. Lynch, C. L., Wolcott, S. K. Helping your students develop critical thinking skills. Idea Paper #37. Manhattan, Kansas: The IDEA Center. Wolcott, S. K., (2000) Designing assignments and classroom discussions to foster critical thinking at different levels in the curriculum. In D.F. Fetyko (Ed.), Changes in accounting education: Implementation in specific accounting courses and subject areas (pp. 1-16.) St. Louis: Federation of Schools of Accountancy. Wolcott, S. K. , Lynch, C. L. (1997). Critical thinking in the accounting classroom: a reflective judgment developmental process perspective. Accounting RESULTS INTRODUCTION & METHODS REFERENCES Stepsfor BetterThinking Rubric LessComplexPerformance Pa tter ns More Complex Perf ormance Patterns StepsforBetter Thinking SKILLS "Confused Fac t F inde r" Perf ormance Patt ern 0 — How perf ormance might apearwhen Step 1 , 2, 3 , and 4 skill s are weak "Biased J umper" Perf ormance Patt ern 1 —-How perf ormance might apearwhen Step 1 skill s are ad equate, bu t Ste p 2, 3, and 4 ski lls areweak "Perpetual Analy zer" Perf ormance Patt ern 2 —-How perf ormance might apearwhen Step 1 and 2 skills are adeq uate, bu t Step 3 and 4 skills are weak "Pragmatic Perf ormer" Perf ormance Patt ern 3 —-How perf ormance might apearwhen Step 1 , 2, and 3 sk ills are adequa te, but Step4 skil lsareweak "Str ategic Re-Vision er" Perf ormance Patt ern 4 —-How perf ormance might apearwhen one has str ong Step 1, 2, 3, and 4 s kills Step 1: IDENTIFY A— Ide ntify and use relevant inf ormation B—A rtic ulate uncertainti es A0—Usesvery li mite d inf ormation; primarily"fac ts, "def init ions, o r expert opin ions B0—E ith er denies uncertain tyOR att ri but es u ncertaintyto t emporary lack of in formation or to o wn lackof knowled ge A1—U sesli mite d inf orm ati on, p ri marily evide nce and info rm atio n supporti ng ownconclusion * B1— Identif ies at le ast o nereasonfor signi fic ant an d enduring uncertai nty* A2—U sesarange of carefull y evalu ated, rele vant info rmatio n B2—Arti culat escomplexitie s r ela ted to uncertainti es a nd th e r ela tion ship s among diffe rent s ources of uncertainty A3—U sesarange of carefull y evalu ated, rele vant info rmatio n, inclu ding alte rnati ve c ri teria for judgi ng am ong solu tion s B3—E xhibit scomplex a warenessof rel ati ve im portan ce o f dif ferent sourcesof uncertain ties A4—S ame as A3 P LUS inc ludesviabl e strateg ies f or GENERATING ne w information toaddressli mitat ions B4—E xhibit scomplex a warenessof waysto mini miz e uncertaintie sin coherent, on -goin g processof inqui ry Step 2: EXPLORE C—Integ rate m ulti ple perspecti ves and clarif y assum pti ons D—Qualita tive lyinte rpret information and create a meani ngful organization C0—Portraysperspectiv es a nd information dic hotom ously, e.g., rig ht/ wrong, good/bad, sm art/stu pid D0— Does not a cknowledge interpretation of i nformation; use s contradicto ry or illo gica l argument s; lacksorganiz atio n C1—A cknowled ges more t han o ne potenti al solut ion, approach, or viewpoi nt; do es n ot a cknowledge ownassumptions or biases D1— Inte rpr ets info rmatio n superfi cial ly aseit her supporting o rnot supporting a poi nt of vie w; ignores relevant inf ormation t hat d isagrees with own positi on; fa ils tosuffi cient ly break d own the probl em C2— Inte rpr ets info rmatio n from multi ple viewpoints; ide ntifi es a nd evalu ates assumption s; att emptsto control own bi ases* D2— Objective lyanal yzesqualit yof information; Organiz es i nformation and concepts into viab le f ramework for e xplorin g r eal isti ccomplexit ies of the problem* C3—E valuate sinformation usin g general principl es t hat a llo w compari sons a crossviewpoin ts; adequatelyjustifi es a ssum pti ons D3— Focusesanaly ses on th e most important in formation b ased on reasonable assumptionsabout rel ati ve im portan ce; organizes information usi ng c ri teria that appl y acrossdif ferent vie wpointsand all ow for q ual itati vecomparis ons C4—Sameas C3 PLUS argues convincingl yusing a com ple x, coherent di scussi on of own perspecti ve, i nclu ding st rength sand limit ation s D4—Sameas D3PLUS s yst ematically reinterpretsevide nce as n ew information is g enerated o ver ti me OR describe sprocesstha t could b e used t o syste mati calyreinterpret evide nce Step 3: PRIORITIZE E— Use g uide line sor princi ple sto j udge objective lyacross th e variou sopt ions F—Implement a nd comm unic ate conclusions for t he setti ng an d audien ce E0— Fai ls t o r eason l ogicall yfrom evide nce toconcl usi ons; reli es primaryon u nexamin ed p rior bel iefs , clic hés, or an expert opi nion F0—Creat es i llog ical implementat ion plan; u sespoor or inconsist ent comm unic atio n; do es n ot ap pear to recognize exi sten ce of an a udie nce E1—Provideslitt le e val uatio n of alternat ives; off ers p artia lly reasoned c oncl usi ons; uses superfi cia lly understoo d evidence and inf ormation in s upport of be lief s F1—Fails to adequately add ress alternat ive viewpoint sin imple ment ation pla ns a nd comm unic atio ns; p rovi des insuff ici ent i nformation o r motivation for a udi ence to a dequatel y underst and alte rnativ es a nd complexi ty E2—Usesevidence t o r eason l ogicall y with in a giv en pe rspectiv e, but unable to e stab lis h crit eria t hat a ppl y acrossalt ernati ves to reach a well - founded concl usi on OR unable to reach a conclusio n in light of reasonable alte rnati ves and/o r uncertainti es F2—E st ablishesoverly com pli cate d Implementa tion plan sOR dela ys imple ment ation process in search of additi onal info rmati on; p rovid es audien cewit h too m uch inf ormation (unable to a dequa telypriori tiz e) E3—U seswell -founde d, o verarching guideline sor pri nci plesto obje cti vely compare and chose among alternat ive solutio ns; p rovi des reasonable and substant ive justif ication for assumptio ns a nd choices in l ight of oth er opt ions* F3— Focuses o n pragm ati cissues i n imple ment ation pla ns; p rovi des appropriate i nformation and motiv atio n, p rio ri tiz ed fo r t he setti ng and audien ce* E4—Arti culat es h ow a syste mati c processof criti cal inq uirywasused to bui ld s oluti on; i dent ifie show analy sisand crite ri a c an b e r efin ed, leadi ng to bette r s olution sor g reate r confi dence over tim e F4—Imple menta tion plan saddress current a s w ell as long-term i ssues; provid es a ppropriate i nformation and motiv atio n, p rio ri tiz ed fo r t he setti ng and audien ce, t o engage othe rsover ti me Step 4: ENVISION G— Acknowledge and monito r s ol utio n limit ation sthrough next steps H—Overall approach to the problem G0— Does n ot a cknowledge sig nifi cant limit ation sbeyond temporary uncertainty ; next st eps artic ulate d as fi ndin g the “ri ght ” a nswer ( often by experts) H0—Proceds as i f goal isto f ind t he singl e, "corr ect" answer G1—Acknowledges a t lea st o ne limit ation or r eason f or si gnif icant and enduring uncertai nty; if prom pte d, ne xt st eps generall y addressgat herin g more info rmati on H1—Proceds as i f goal isto stac kup evide nce and info rm atio n to support ownconclusion G2—Articulate sconnectio ns a mong underlying cont ri but orsto limitati ons; articulate snext st eps as g athe ring more inf ormation a nd l ooking a t problem morecomple xly and/ or thorough ly H2—Proceds as i f goal isto e stab lis h anunbiased, ba lanced view of evide nce and info rmatio n from diffe rent poi nts of vi ew G3— Adequatel ydescribes relati ve importance of s oluti on l imit ation s when comparedto ot her viabl e option s; n ext step spragm ati c w ith focus on e ffic ientl y GATHERING more inf ormation t o address signi fic ant l imit ation sover ti me H3—Proceds as i f goal isto cometo awell-fou nded conclusion based o n objective con sideratio n of priorit ies acrossvi able alte rnati ves G4— Iden tifie slimit ation sasin G3; as next step s, su ggests viab le processesfor strateg ically GENERATING new i nfo rmatio n to aid in addressing sign ific ant limit ation sover ti m e* H4—Proc eds as i f goal isto strateg ically construct knowledge, to move t oward be tter concl usi ons or greater confi dence in conclu sion sas the problem is a ddressed over t ime* 2003,Susan K.W olcott. Permission is granted to reproduce this information for noncommercial purposes. Please cite this source: Wolcott, S.K. (O ctober29, 2003). Steps for Better T hinking Rubric [On-l ine].Available: http://www.WolcottLynch.com . Based in parton i nform ation from Reflect ive J udgment Scoring Manual With Examples (1985 /1996) by K.S.K itchener & P.M .King. Grounded in d ynam ic skill t heory(Fischer& Bidel l,19 98). *Shaded c ell smost c losely relate d to "stai r step"model. Performance descript ions to th e lef t of a shaded cel characte ri ze skill weaknesses. Performance de scriptio ns to the ri ght of a shade d cell characterize s kil l strength s. Repeat or paraphrase information from textbooks, notes, etc. Reason to single "correct" solution, perform computations, etc. (highest cognitive complexity) Acknowledge, explain, and monitor limitations of endorsed solution Integrate skills into on- going process for generating and using information to guide strategic innovation STEP 4: Envisioning STEP 3: Prioritizing STEP 2: Exploring STEP 1: Identifying FOUNDATION: Knowing A D evelopm entalProblem S olving P rocess Lynch, C. L., Wolcott, S. K., & Huber, G. E. (August 5, 2002). Steps for Better Thinking: A Developmental Problem Solving Process [On-line]. Available: http://www.WolcottLynch.com. Model evolved from ideas presented in King and Kitchener's (1994) reflective judgment model of cognitive development and Fischer's (Fischer & Bidell, 1998) dynamic skill theory. Response Rated 0.0: Confused Fact Finder Personally I do not think that genetically modified foods are safe and useful. Also, there production should not be encouraged. My basis for this opinion is, that I grew up in a farming neighborhood were foods were not modified. Also, natural foods are better for a person to eat. If these modified foods get out and harm animals what is to say that they will not harm humans in the long run. I do not think that it is possible to say whether or not my opinion is the correct opinion because I do not know the exact research methods and materials that back up this production of genetically modified foods. It is very possible for experts to disagree about this issue. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion whether it is right or wrong. Each expert also has their own research on the subject of modified foods so who is to determine which one has the accurate research. This is another reason why it is not right to modify foods because if the experts can not agree on the issue then how does the public really know that what they are eating is not going to harm them later on in life. If the scientists do disagree on the issue it does not mean one is correct and the other is not and it does not make one view better then the other. I think that if there is a disagreement it just shows that these foods really are not good for people. The kinds of information that would make me possibly change my mind about this issue would be to actually see the research that is being conducted and to see that the experts do agree on it. Also, I would have to see that it will not harm humans like it does harm animals if it gets out of the lab and into the real environment. There would have to be several kinds of tests done to these genetically modified foods before I would want to be part of the human population that is consuming them. Response Rated 1.0: Biased Jumper In my personal opinion, I do not believe genetically modified foods are safe and useful. Plants and animals are genetically designed so that the natural environment is not harmed. Tampering with genetics is a risky business and the long-term effects of it are not known. If it is true that even a butterfly can be harmed, there is a possible chance that these genetically designed foods can be damaging to the human body. For thousands of years people have eaten the food and animals that have been naturally raised and grown on this earth without the outside help of genetic modification. It is not until the past century that researchers are beginning to see the recent effects of pesticides and insecticides on crops. These chemicals are detrimental to human health because they are not natural. I think that this decision is going to continue to be disputed for several years until researchers have more information to support why these types of food enhancements are harmful. Many pesticides, insecticides and genetically modified foods are too new for researchers to study the long-term side effects quite yet. I do see the benefits behind changing genetic structure of food in order to increase food output. The world population is growing at an alarming rate and enhancing food output is most definitely a serious issue associated with this problem. However, I think scientists must be more aware of how they may be damaging the natural environment before making such rapid changes. The more humans damage the environment, the less time humans will able to reap the benefits of the earth. If it was proven that there were few negative side-effects associated with genetic modification, I may be more inclined to have a different point of view. Response Rated 2.0: Perpetual Analyzer Our society is always advancing itself with new products and different technologies. Given the concept of genetically modified food and person in their mind would question it. It is something new. However, I believe it is things such as this that have enabled our society to advance to the point at which we find ourselves today. Scientist have continually tried to better our food sources and crops for years with pesticides that in the end though they turned out to be harmful to our society. I believe that genetically modified food may be a better option. I honestly am not sure if it is safer, but it may be in the long run. That is my opinion, and I believe no one has the right to tell me I’m wrong. Every individual has their own opinion, and most of the time no ones personal opinion is the same. That is what makes us unique. Our ability to think, and express in our own way how we feel on an issue. Naturally scientist would agree and disagree on the safety of something like GMF. Everything that has ever been created throughout our history has been questions and drilled to exhaustion. That is how technologies are bettered. No one person is entirely correct or completely wrong. However, one suggestion may be better than another as perhaps it is close to the truth we are looking for. This is a very scientific issue or process, of which I know very little, however, in the end it is all collaborative effort to assume one answer. I believe I would have to do more research on the issue, or perhaps read studies performed, but for the most part. This has truly opened my eyes, and will be something I’m sure I will be looking into.
-
Upload
sharleen-dickerson -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Longitudinal Study of Students’ Reflective Judgment in Four Degree Programs With the Steps for...
Longitudinal Study of Students’ Reflective Judgment inFour Degree Programs With the Steps for Better Thinking Model:
First-Year Results Ellen C. Banks, Dominique Coffie and Pamela Rueda
Psychology Department, Daemen College, Buffalo, New YorkWith assistance from Susan Wolcott, WolcottLynch.com
First-year results are consistent with other reflective judgment studies (e.g., King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 161): 50% of students responded at SBT stage 0 (corresponding to Kitchener and King’s Stage 3); 5% at SBT Stage .5; 9% at Stage 1.5, 9% at Stage 2 and 3% at Stage 3. Second-year data collection is in progress.
This study presents first-year data from a longitudinal study of reflective judgment in college students, using the Steps for Better Thinking model developed by Lynch and Wolcott (Lynch, 1996; Wolcott & Lynch, 1997 and 2001.) Steps for Better Thinking (SBT) is based on the Reflective Judgment Model of King and Kitchener (1994) and Fischer’s Skill Theory (1980).
SBT advances the assessment of reflective judgment by providing a flexible assessment rubric that can be applied to teaching and research. It is less costly in time and training than the Reflective Judgment Interview. Steps for Better Thinking provides a rubric that is adaptable to any issue calling for responses to open-ended (also known as “unstructured,” “ill-structured,” or “ill-formed”) problems: those that have no certain correct answer. SBT also provides a framework for design of educational materials and tasks that can stimulate higher levels of reflective judgment in students (Wolcott, 2000, Lynch & Wolcott, 2001.)
This study is following students through four different programs during their courses of study at a medium-sized, multipurpose college: two clinical programs, Physician Assistant Studies and Physical Therapy, and two liberal arts programs, Psychology and History/Government. The clinical programs involve one year (PA) or two years (PT) of study beyond the bachelor’s degree, permitting assessment of students’ development through the post-baccalaureate level.Questions addressed in this study include: Does the development of reflective judgment show different trajectories among students in different fields of study? Within a field of study, do students progress differently in reflective judgment when analyzing issues closely related to their fields of study as compared to general social issues? We propose that course work in a student’s major field will provide contextual support (Kitchener, Lynch, Fischer & Wood, 1993) resulting in a higher level of thinking on specialized topics.
Each year, students read and respond in a short essay to a scenario that discusses various sides of a contemporary issue, such as genetically modified food and same-sex marriage. The scenarios include standard reflective judgment prompts such as, “How sure are you that your opinion is right? If experts disagree, does that mean that one is right and one is wrong? What would lead you to change your opinion about this issue?” (King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 122)
Additionally, students are asked to release copies of essays written in college courses; general education courses in the first two years, and eventually, course work in the students' major fields as well as in upper-level general education courses. In the clinical programs, faculty will construct assignments for the study that assess the development of clinical judgment and ethical issues in health care. Faculty in the two clinical programs are supporting the study as they are committed to problem-focused education.
Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87, 477-531. King, P. M., Kitchener, K. S. (1994) Developing reflective judgment:
Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Lynch, C. L. (1996). Facilitating and assessing unstructured problem solving.
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 27, 16-27.Lynch, C. L., Wolcott, S. K. Helping your students develop critical thinking skills. Idea Paper #37. Manhattan, Kansas: The IDEA Center.Wolcott, S. K., (2000) Designing assignments and classroom discussions to
foster critical thinking at different levels in the curriculum. In D.F. Fetyko (Ed.), Changes in accounting education: Implementation in specific
accounting courses and subject areas (pp. 1-16.) St. Louis: Federation of Schools of Accountancy.Wolcott, S. K. , Lynch, C. L. (1997). Critical thinking in the accounting
classroom: a reflective judgment developmental process perspective. Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice and Research, 2, 59-78.
RESULTSINTRODUCTION &
METHODS
REFERENCES
Steps for Better Thinking Rubric Less Complex Performance Patterns More Complex Performance Patterns
Steps for BetterThinking
SKILLS
"Confused Fact Finder"Performance Pattern 0—Howperformance might appear whenStep 1, 2, 3, and 4 skills are weak
"Biased Jumper"Performance Pattern 1—-Howperformance might appear whenStep 1 skills are adequate, but Step2, 3, and 4 skills are weak
"Perpetual Analyzer"Performance Pattern 2—-Howperformance might appear whenStep 1 and 2 skills are adequate, butStep 3 and 4 skills are weak
"Pragmatic Performer"Performance Pattern 3—-Howperformance might appear whenStep 1, 2, and 3 skills are adequate,but Step 4 skills are weak
"Strategic Re-Visioner"Performance Pattern 4—-Howperformance might appear when onehas strong Step 1, 2, 3, and 4 skills
Step 1:IDENTIFYA—Identify and userelevant informationB—Articulateuncertainties
A0—Uses very limited information;primarily "facts," definitions, orexpert opinions
B0—Either denies uncertainty ORattributes uncertainty to temporarylack of information or to own lack ofknowledge
A1—Uses limited information, primarilyevidence and information supportingown conclusion*
B1—Identifies at least one reason forsignificant and enduring uncertainty*
A2—Uses a range of carefullyevaluated, relevant information
B2—Articulates complexities related touncertainties and the relationshipsamong different sources ofuncertainty
A3—Uses a range of carefullyevaluated, relevant information,including alternative criteria forjudging among solutions
B3—Exhibits complex awareness ofrelative importance of differentsources of uncertainties
A4—Same as A3 PLUS includes viablestrategies for GENERATING newinformation to address limitations
B4—Exhibits complex awareness ofways to minimize uncertainties incoherent, on-going process ofinquiry
Step 2:EXPLOREC—Integrate multipleperspectives and clarifyassumptionsD—Qualitatively interpretinformation and create ameaningful organization
C0—Portrays perspectives andinformation dichotomously, e.g.,right/wrong, good/bad, smart/stupid
D0—Does not acknowledgeinterpretation of information; usescontradictory or illogical arguments;lacks organization
C1—Acknowledges more than onepotential solution, approach, orviewpoint; does not acknowledgeown assumptions or biases
D1—Interprets information superficiallyas either supporting or notsupporting a point of view; ignoresrelevant information that disagreeswith own position; fails to sufficientlybreak down the problem
C2—Interprets information frommultiple viewpoints; identifies andevaluates assumptions; attempts tocontrol own biases*
D2—Objectively analyzes quality ofinformation; Organizes informationand concepts into viable frameworkfor exploring realistic complexities ofthe problem*
C3—Evaluates information usinggeneral principles that allowcomparisons across viewpoints;adequately justifies assumptions
D3—Focuses analyses on the mostimportant information based onreasonable assumptions aboutrelative importance; organizesinformation using criteria that applyacross different viewpoints and allowfor qualitative comparisons
C4—Same as C3 PLUS arguesconvincingly using a complex,coherent discussion of ownperspective, including strengths andlimitations
D4—Same as D3 PLUS systematicallyreinterprets evidence as newinformation is generated over timeOR describes process that could beused to systematically reinterpretevidence
Step 3:PRIORITIZEE—Use guidelines orprinciples to judgeobjectively across thevarious optionsF—Implement andcommunicate conclusionsfor the setting andaudience
E0—Fails to reason logically fromevidence to conclusions; reliesprimary on unexamined prior beliefs,clichés, or an expert opinion
F0—Creates illogical implementationplan; uses poor or inconsistentcommunication; does not appear torecognize existence of an audience
E1—Provides little evaluation ofalternatives; offers partiallyreasoned conclusions; usessuperficially understood evidenceand information in support of beliefs
F1—Fails to adequately addressalternative viewpoints inimplementation plans andcommunications; providesinsufficient information or motivationfor audience to adequatelyunderstand alternatives andcomplexity
E2—Uses evidence to reason logicallywithin a given perspective, butunable to establish criteria that applyacross alternatives to reach a well-founded conclusion OR unable toreach a conclusion in light ofreasonable alternatives and/oruncertainties
F2—Establishes overly complicatedImplementation plans OR delaysimplementation process in search ofadditional information; providesaudience with too much information(unable to adequately prioritize)
E3—Uses well-founded, overarchingguidelines or principles to objectivelycompare and choose amongalternative solutions; providesreasonable and substantivejustification for assumptions andchoices in light of other options*
F3—Focuses on pragmatic issues inimplementation plans; providesappropriate information andmotivation, prioritized for the settingand audience*
E4—Articulates how a systematicprocess of critical inquiry was usedto build solution; identifies howanalysis and criteria can be refined,leading to better solutions or greaterconfidence over time
F4—Implementation plans addresscurrent as well as long-term issues;provides appropriate information andmotivation, prioritized for the settingand audience, to engage others overtime
Step 4:ENVISIONG—Acknowledge andmonitor solutionlimitations through nextstepsH—Overall approach tothe problem
G0—Does not acknowledge significantlimitations beyond temporaryuncertainty; next steps articulated asfinding the “right” answer (often byexperts)
H0—Proceeds as if goal is to find thesingle, "correct" answer
G1—Acknowledges at least onelimitation or reason for significantand enduring uncertainty; ifprompted, next steps generallyaddress gathering more information
H1—Proceeds as if goal is to stack upevidence and information to supportown conclusion
G2—Articulates connections amongunderlying contributors to limitations;articulates next steps as gatheringmore information and looking atproblem more complexly and/orthoroughly
H2—Proceeds as if goal is to establishan unbiased, balanced view ofevidence and information fromdifferent points of view
G3—Adequately describes relativeimportance of solution limitationswhen compared to other viableoptions; next steps pragmatic withfocus on efficiently GATHERINGmore information to addresssignificant limitations over time
H3—Proceeds as if goal is to come toa well-founded conclusion based onobjective consideration of prioritiesacross viable alternatives
G4—Identifies limitations as in G3; asnext steps, suggests viableprocesses for strategicallyGENERATING new information toaid in addressing significantlimitations over time*
H4—Proceeds as if goal is tostrategically construct knowledge, tomove toward better conclusions orgreater confidence in conclusions asthe problem is addressed over time*
2003, Susan K. Wolcott. Permission is granted to reproduce this information for noncommercial purposes. Please cite this source: Wolcott, S. K. (October 29,2003) . Steps for Better Thinking Rubric [On-line]. Available: http:/ /www.Wolcott Lynch.com. Based in part on information from Reflective J udgment Scoring Manual With Examples(1985/ 1996) by K. S. Kitchener & P. M. King. Grounded in dynamic skill theory (Fischer & Bidell, 1998).* Shaded cells most closely related to "stair step" model. Performance descriptions to the left of a shaded cell characterize skill weaknesses. Performance descriptions to the right of a shaded cell characterize skill strengths.
Repeat or paraphraseinformation fromtextbooks, notes, etc.
Reason to single"correct" solution,perform computations,etc.
(highest cognitivecomplexity)
Acknowledge, explain,and monitor limitationsof endorsed solution
Integrate skills into on-going process forgenerating and usinginformation to guidestrategic innovation
STEP 4:Envisioning
STEP 3:Prioritizing
STEP 2:Exploring
STEP 1:Identifying
FOUNDATION:Knowing
A Developmental Problem Solving Process
Lynch, C. L., Wolcott, S. K., & Huber, G. E. (August 5, 2002). Steps for Better Thinking: A Developmental Problem Solving Process [On-line]. Available: http://www.WolcottLynch.com. Model evolved from ideas presented in King and Kitchener's (1994) reflective judgment model of cognitive development and Fischer's (Fischer & Bidell, 1998) dynamic skill theory.
Response Rated 0.0: Confused Fact Finder
Personally I do not think that genetically modified foods are safe and useful. Also, there production should not be encouraged. My basis for this opinion is, that I grew up in a farming neighborhood were foods were not modified. Also, natural foods are better for a person to eat. If these modified foods get out and harm animals what is to say that they will not harm humans in the long run. I do not think that it is possible to say whether or not my opinion is the correct opinion because I do not know the exact research methods and materials that back up this production of genetically modified foods. It is very possible for experts to disagree about this issue. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion whether it is right or wrong. Each expert also has their own research on the subject of modified foods so who is to determine which one has the accurate research. This is another reason why it is not right to modify foods because if the experts can not agree on the issue then how does the public really know that what they are eating is not going to harm them later on in life. If the scientists do disagree on the issue it does not mean one is correct and the other is not and it does not make one view better then the other. I think that if there is a disagreement it just shows that these foods really are not good for people. The kinds of information that would make me possibly change my mind about this issue would be to actually see the research that is being conducted and to see that the experts do agree on it. Also, I would have to see that it will not harm humans like it does harm animals if it gets out of the lab and into the real environment. There would have to be several kinds of tests done to these genetically modified foods before I would want to be part of the human population that is consuming them.
Response Rated 1.0: Biased Jumper
In my personal opinion, I do not believe genetically modified foods are safe and useful. Plants and animals are genetically designed so that the natural environment is not harmed. Tampering with genetics is a risky business and the long-term effects of it are not known. If it is true that even a butterfly can be harmed, there is a possible chance that these genetically designed foods can be damaging to the human body. For thousands of years people have eaten the food and animals that have been naturally raised and grown on this earth without the outside help of genetic modification. It is not until the past century that researchers are beginning to see the recent effects of pesticides and insecticides on crops. These chemicals are detrimental to human health because they are not natural.
I think that this decision is going to continue to be disputed for several years until researchers have more information to support why these types of food enhancements are harmful. Many pesticides, insecticides and genetically modified foods are too new for researchers to study the long-term side effects quite yet. I do see the benefits behind changing genetic structure of food in order to increase food output. The world population is growing at an alarming rate and enhancing food output is most definitely a serious issue associated with this problem. However, I think scientists must be more aware of how they may be damaging the natural environment before making such rapid changes. The more humans damage the environment, the less time humans will able to reap the benefits of the earth. If it was proven that there were few negative side-effects associated with genetic modification, I may be more inclined to have a different point of view. Until research associated with this issue is done and proven, there is no way to decide whether my opinion or anyone else’s in correct. However, until then, I currently believe that scientists are oftentimes tampering too much with nature. So many people wonder why there are so many diseases, high obesity and cancer rates. If people only ate the food that God put on this green earth, this society would have far less health problems.
Response Rated 2.0: Perpetual Analyzer
Our society is always advancing itself with new products and different technologies. Given the concept of genetically modified food and person in their mind would question it. It is something new. However, I believe it is things such as this that have enabled our society to advance to the point at which we find ourselves today. Scientist have continually tried to better our food sources and crops for years with pesticides that in the end though they turned out to be harmful to our society. I believe that genetically modified food may be a better option. I honestly am not sure if it is safer, but it may be in the long run. That is my opinion, and I believe no one has the right to tell me I’m wrong. Every individual has their own opinion, and most of the time no ones personal opinion is the same. That is what makes us unique. Our ability to think, and express in our own way how we feel on an issue. Naturally scientist would agree and disagree on the safety of something like GMF. Everything that has ever been created throughout our history has been questions and drilled to exhaustion. That is how technologies are bettered. No one person is entirely correct or completely wrong. However, one suggestion may be better than another as perhaps it is close to the truth we are looking for. This is a very scientific issue or process, of which I know very little, however, in the end it is all collaborative effort to assume one answer. I believe I would have to do more research on the issue, or perhaps read studies performed, but for the most part. This has truly opened my eyes, and will be something I’m sure I will be looking into.
