In class for GSE 827 we were required to develop a workshop and enact a session from the workshop. I was in a group of three and within this group we decided to focus on the processes of Critical Thinking and Reflection for our session. Our session involved using de Bono’s (1995) Six Thinking Hats to look at Australia’s Carbon Tax.
My impression of how our enactment went was that it was not overly successful. Having said that, I know from my experience as a teacher that having unsuccessful lessons is not necessarily a bad thing. Having unsuccessful lessons is apart of learning to be a better educator, as long as you reflect on the process and what you will do different next time. As such here is my reflection on the process of our session and what I would do better next time.
Description of Session
Our session was one component of a workshop that looks at the processes of Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD) through examining Australia’s Carbon Tax. The session involved learners being split into pairs with each pair having one of the six thinking hats. Learners were required to jot down their thoughts of the Carbon Tax while only operating under their given hat. We then asked for responses and wrote some of these onto a white board next to a picture of their appropriate hat. We were then supposed to use these responses to start a discussion about the way we as individuals think and how this thinking can influence the way we view a situation, like the Carbon Tax.
While this was the intended structure of the session, all did not go according to plan. Unfortunately the room was not set up as we had planned which meant we had to adapt how we were going to use resources like the white board and projector. Personally, I felt we could have done this better. We needed to be more flexible and work within the constraints better. This is what educators have to do on a daily basis.
At the orientation of our session, we gave learners a brief overview of the workshop and I explained the six thinking hats. While I think I explained the hats somewhat sufficiently, for this activity to have been successful in developing deeper understandings participants needed to have more time to learn about each hat and digest the information about each hat. We also forgot to mention the session objectives, which was a large oversight on our part, as this would not have allowed for explicit criteria (DET 2003) to be known.
Following the explanation, hand outs were given to each pair. Each handout was tailored to the pair’s hat with a description of their hat’s way of thinking. With these hand outs learners wrote down their responses. This part was okay as from going around a engaging in dialogue with participants, they appeared to have understood the concept.
However, following this part of the session, we asked learners to give us their responses and we wrote these on the white board. This process was rather slow and not engaging enough. It would have been better to ask participants to share their responses with the class and engage in dialogue about their experience.
We were supposed to use the responses that we wrote on the white board in the conclusion/reflection part of the session. However, we did not follow our session plan. Instead of questioning learners about thinking and using the hats to gain different perspectives about the Carbon Tax while using the responses as prompts, we told participants what they should have learnt. This did not allow for the development of understanding, nor did it allow for Critical Thinking or Reflection which is what we wanted to achieve.
Analysis
Prior to commencement of the session I thought our ideas were good. Particularly about using the Six Thinking Hats as they are a tool that I use in everyday situations to be aware of how I am thinking and reacting to a particular event that is occurring. I assumed that this may then be a tool learners could be use to develop an awareness of how they think and perceive situations thus create critical and reflective thinkers. However, the activity was not appropriate for the use of the hats. It was clear from participant feedback that we were not clear enough with what we were trying to achieve thus the creation of understanding was not achieved.
Our activity was also not appropriate for the 20 min time slot. If we wanted to develop reflective thinkers participants needed more time to engage in the activity as well as swap hats around. I also think participants needed more time to engage in dialogue about how they perceive their thinking processes and the effect this might have on how they look at the world around them. Although it was suggested through feedback that the Carbon Tax was possibly not an appropriate subject to use the Six Thinking Hats with, I tend to disagree as it is a contentious present subject that appears to be coloured by people’s biases towards the issue. I believe these biases are influenced by the way an individual looks at their world and this in turn is influenced by their thinking. However, to develop this idea that individuals’ perception of issues is influenced by the way they think requires activities that enable deep analysis and I do not think this activity was suited to that outcome. Through my experience as a teacher I know through the interaction between participants and us, as educators, this was not a deep learning experience.
Conclusions
Through this experience and other experiences teaching, I think I tend to develop learning experiences that set out to create reflective thinkers and develop deep understandings, however I think I make the process too complicated leaving participants disengaged and confused. Reflective Thinkers cannot be created in one 20 min lesson, it can however, build the foundations to develop reflective thinkers. I think I need to be aware of this when I am developing lessons and try to ‘unmuddle’ my thoughts so I do not have a complicated learning experience.
Action Plan
If I were to do this activity again it would not be for a 20 min time frame. I think an hour would be needed where participants can engage in longer dialogue with their pairs about their hat and following this engage in dialogue with other pairs about the type of thinking that happens under the hat they are using. Following this I think a whole class discussion would be required, where sitting in a circle, participants share their experience, how they perceive their way of thinking. Perhaps, then as small groups participants are given a scenario where each hat has to be used. Participants share findings with whole class and discuss how using all the hats may change the perception of a situation rather than just using the one.
No comments:
Post a Comment