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.