Continued from page 1
Another problem of implementing a thinking program in school is resistance to change of teachers. Teachers who are used to their traditional methods of teaching may find learning and use of new teaching strategies a chore for them. A word of advice to heads of schools who are planning to implement this program - NURTURE change. A program will not be successful unless every member involved is ready for changes ahead and are willing to undertake their tasks with responsibility and passion. Thus, success of this program is inevitably dependent on ability of head of school to communicate vision and to garner support from staff involved.
In short, a credible thinking programme should not just enhance brainware but also ‘HEARTWARE’. There is a need to inculcate a creative thinking culture in schools for thinkers (including staffs and students) to challenge them to seek continuous improvements. Slogans such as ‘ DARE to CHANGE,‘DARE to INNOVATE’ and other inspiring messages must be taught and be ingrained in hearts and minds of our people. It may remind one of Cultural Revolution in China with slogans and brainwashing. Yes, I have to admit that this is a revolution indeed! A ‘Thinking Revolution’ that will ensure Singapore’s progress and prosperity in these turbulent times as we marched into next millennium.
To reiterate, unless our hearts are in touch with vision of ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’, desired outcomes will not materialise. Total commitment to vision is critical!
There are also other concerns to ponder upon, namely choice of which thinking models to adopt. There are a few models for teaching thinking that are currently used in some schools. For example, Robert Schawtz’s Infusion method of teaching thinking. Other models include Spencer Kagan’s Multiple Intelligence and comprehensive thinking system of ‘G.O.D is CREATIVE’ program by Brainwerks Research.
With various models of teaching thinking available, a principal has difficult task of selecting an appropriate model to be used in school. It will be advisable that such imported models of teaching thinking should be adapted and integrated into local curriculum by heads and teachers for better results.
To conclude, this article does not seek to explain fully workings of nurturing a thinking culture /program in Singapore’s education system but to create an awareness of its importance to meet nation’s future challenges. There will be glitches along path towards vision but I am sure we, educators of Singapore, would THINK SMART and INNOVATE to ensure its success. So, should we teach thinking? The question is rhetorical.
Dr.Alvin Chan is an Innovation Research Specialist in Asia. Currently, Dr. Chan is the Senior Research Consultant at First Quatermain Centre of Collaborative Innovation (www.firstquatermain.com).Please email Dr.Chan at bizguru88@hotmail.com.