I assume that 'meta-cognitive' skills involve thinking about
thinking. So do I need 'meta-meta-cognitive' skills to take part
in a discussion that involves thinking about thinking about
thinking?
I agree with James that ''Some of the strategies utilised in
thinking style training programs could possibly be fruitfully
incorporated into outdoor education programs.'' Something like an
Edward de Bono 'Teaching Thinking' course woven into an outdoor
one might well result in more thinking about thinking and higher
'Intellectual Flexibility' scores. (Is anyone providing such
courses?)
A similar term is 'Span of Relevance' - associated with
metaphor-making and the transfer of learning. I would guess that
transfer of learning is more likely when people score higher on
the 'Intellectual Flexibility' scale. So effective
teaching/training in Intellectual Flexibility might well result
in higher levels of transfer - especially aspects of transfer
that are 'thought-assisted'.
Is 'Intellectual Flexibility' also associated with 'Tolerance of
Ambiguity' - something else that I think is measurable?
How does Intellectual Flexibility fit in with experiential
learning theory? James describes various stages through which
flexibility can change. Does this not correlate with where a
person is on the learning cycle? Lewin wrote about 'freezing' and
'unfreezing'. Kelly wrote about 'tight' and 'loose' construing
(Personal Construct Theory). I understand these to be rhythms in
the learning process - with learning (in Kelly's terms) being a
never-ending process of loosening and tightening. In which case
is 'Intellectual Flexibility' the equivalent of 'loose
construing' OR is it the ability to move around between tight and
loose?
Intellectual IN-flexibility is clearly a barrier to all
(cognitive) learning. So any clues that research can give for
ways of developing intellectual flexibility will surely be very
welcome. Not surprisingly the most important ingredients of
outdoor learning also turn out to be the most difficult to
measure.
James writes: ''it may be that the outdoor education programs,
particularly Outward Bound Australia programs, which were mostly
assessed in my study, were not particularly effective in
facilitating growth in intellectual flexibility.''
It may take some intellectual flexibility to get round the fact
that ''not to yield'' is part of the Outward Bound motto. How
does success in ''not yielding'' show up in Intellectual
Flexibility scores? Maybe that's partly why changes in
Intellectual Flexibility ''tended to be low (around ES=.31)
compared to other program outcomes''?
It's possible that students are receiving (and instructors
giving) some very mixed messages about yielding and flexibility!
Surely both ''risk'' (see recent discussion) and ''flexibility''
are essential ingredients of the process of experiential
learning. Without a good measure of both there are unlikely to be
any outcomes worth measuring.
Just a few thoughts on this thought-provoking subject! My main
interest in this particular kind of measurement is that I believe
that 'learning to learn' (and maybe 'thinking to think'?) is
probably the most powerful and dynamic outcome that outdoor
learning can provide. It can remove emotional blocks to learning,
re-awaken curiosity to learn, provide rapid success in new skills
and amaze people about the depth of their hidden talents and
potential. There must surely be some effective ways of measuring
these higher level outcomes?
Roger Greenaway
Reviewing Skills Training
[log in to unmask]
http://reviewing.co.uk
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|