How to Apply Global Thinking Scale

How to Apply Global Thinking Scale

Method of Multilevel Content Analyses

In order to measure students’ levels of Global Thinking (GT), we have to find conceptual units or their absence for a certain GT level in the content of the solution.

Ordinary content analyses are about finding certain conceptual units (key words) in students’ solutions. A conceptual unit is a statement which testifies to an application of a certain thinking operation or system of operations as a part of a solution to the task.

Multilevel Content Analysis are about finding versions of conceptual units (key statements which may vary in descriptions) in context of a solution. This significant difference is caused by multistep transition of conceptual units through structures of Global Thinking:

• A particular conceptual unit in the content of a solution for the certain task (“a river pollution”) which testifies for a certain level of a certain parameter (Integrity 0): “Close a factory which pollutes the river”.

• Similar conceptual units in the content of solutions for the same task which testify for the same level of the same parameter: “Close all pipes which go into the river”;”close resort on the river”.

• Different conceptual units for the same task which testify for the same level of the same parameter: “Fence-off the river banks”, “Post notes prohibiting littering”, “Prohibit motor boats on the river”.

• Different conceptual units for different tasks which testify for the same level of the same parameter:“Prohibit logging in the local forest”, “Relocate waste farther away from the city”.

• Full spectrum of conceptual units which can testify for this level of this parameter (Integrity 0) is determined by key statement based upon the description of the principle for this level on the Global Thinking Scale: “No connections of the problem with anything which might be involved in situation”.

• Different spectrums of conceptual units which can testify for certain levels of certain parameters are determined by key statements for those levels of those parameters on GT Scale; each of those key statements is determined by certain key concept for certain level on GT Scale + key concepts for certain parameter of GT. For testifying conceptual units above, we use Level 0 key statement and definition of Integrity. “Cancelling or relocating the problem” + “Vision of the pattern of the connections which involves the problem”.

So, understanding of key principles needed to eventually identify all possible conceptual units in the content of a particular solution. Conceptual units in any solution should be considered only as optional and not only units which can testify for a certain level of GT.

Structure of levels of Multilevel Content Analyses reflects the structure of Global Thinking Scale.

The rater’s level of Global Thinking must be high in order to avoid mistakes in the formal approach of interpretation of conceptual units. Particularly, the rater should not treat sample conceptual units as the only basis for a certain thinking level identification. He/she should understand the concept illustrated by those conceptual units, and be able to recognize this concept or similar concepts illustrated by other conceptual units. It is impossible to describe all conceptual units students can use in solutions because they can always come up with unpredictable ones, and if level of rater’s Global Thinking is lower than these student’s level the rater would not be able to identify those units with a certain concept and a certain level of Global Thinking. It is true for many types of diagnostic but a mistake in the case of Global Thinking can be very significant. In ordinary content analyses method any rater can identify a student’s level by applying “stencils”- key words to student’s work so rater’s level on a test doesn’t matter.

3. Examples of a solution interpretation evaluated on the Global Thinking Scale

The following are an outline examples of the interpretation of solutions for tasks on the Global Thinking Scale are based on a general review of the high school student’s solutions from five educational institutions in St. Petersburg, Russia in 2003-2004.

The first example verifies the level of one of the parameters (Integrity in this case) on the scale for Global Thinking measurement, and the second example verifies the level of all three parameters of Global Thinking - Integrity, Dynamics, Alternativity.

EXAMPLE OF VERIFYING LEVELS OF ALL THREE PARAMETERS OF GLOBAL THINKING:

These are two variants of case studies for each of two teams competing in Global Thinking:

The choice of the particular sea and river should depend on students’ familiarity with chosen regions and countries. The most familiar regions and countries are recommended for the beginners, and the least familiar ones are recommended for the advanced learners.

INTEGRITY LEVEL 0:

Cancelling the problem.

“Close all pipes which pollute the water”, and/or other options: “A prohibit waste dumping for all surrounded industries”, “close industries”, “close resorts”, “fence off all shores and do not let anybody in”.

Such a solution ignores the connection of the problem with the rest of the world. Closing industries and resorts can lead to economical problems. Prohibition of waste dumping can lead to illegal waste dumping in other regions which can lead to worse problems.

INTEGRITY LEVEL 1:

Partial solution to the problem (ranges from structures of strong connections to structures with full spectrum of connections).

“Build waste treatment facilities” and/or “install trash cans, dump stations, and notes of prohibitions”.

This solution does not take into account:

• • All sources of pollution. That is why it cannot solve problem in full. (For instance, it does not contain a solution for what to do with water transport waste.)

  • A degree of satisfactory implementation of those solutions for the problem. (For instance, no one can guarantee that all the people will put trash in trash cans; no one can guarantee that all of them will read notes, and that all of those who read them will follow them. No one can guarantee that industries will agree to spend money for building waste treatment facilities.)

INTEGRITY LEVEL 2:

A full approach which takes into account strong connections (which leads to the vision of lateral connections).

- All the sources of pollution are identified. That makes it possible to find solutions for overcoming each kind of pollution (industries, water crafts, ecologically related regions, tourists, locals, etc.), or/and:

- All parties which are interested in finding a solution are identified. This creates a reserve for participating in solutions (locals, resorts, healthcare authorities, ecologically and possibly economically related regions, etc.).

This approach gives an opportunity to develop, for instance, the following solution:

“Waste treatment facilities for industries; filters for water crafts; environmental sustainability education for locals; resort taxes for tourists; trash cans for all” or/and:

“Suggest to close by regions how to find resources to help with pollution control; set up a control team made up from locals and healthcare authorities; assign areas around resorts to resorts for pollution control”.

This solution formally coves a holistic approach to “entrance” factors only. It is missing a structure core, an opportunity for building a strategy for solutions from a higher degree of generalization which would open opportunities to see gaps and failures in implementation of such a strategy.

INTEGRITY LEVEL 3:

A full approach which takes into account strong and lateral connections

In addition to a system of strong connections, a financial base for efforts and actions is considered. Set up not just a control team from interested people and organizations but “a commission that find solutions to problems, which works on issues of control, and searches for recourses and tools.” This commission ensures that prohibitive measures are applied in combination with educational ones, and that special local conditions concerning a solution are taken into account (landscape, natural areas, local infrastructure, etc.) Following is an example of financially based of solution:

“- industries will pay taxes out of their profits for using natural environments, and the government will partially spend it for setting up waste treatment facilities and paying salaries to controllers;

• • Related regional governments which are interested in finding solutions will engage private funds in order to help build waste treatment facilities. Mutually beneficial solutions are possible depending on local conditions;

  • Water craft owners would be obligated to install good filters for their exhaust;

  • Resorts would keep assigned areas clean by using part of their profits;

  • Volunteer resources would be used for area maintenance and for promotional-educational activities in help for the work of a committee”.

INTEGRITY LEVEL 4:

A full approach which takes into account strong and lateral connections within the context of a situation.

Besides all above mentioned strategies, the whole system of conditions a situation is settled in and difficulties of those related conditions for joint solutions are included; for instance:

• • “ Ecological inequity of regions situated along the river related to the direction of a stream line;

  • Real level of the economical development of regions/countries involved into the problem. Third world countries have much less economical resources and much less developed environmental sustainability ethics but they usually have much more creativity potential which they developed because of economic survival.

  • Cultural differences between populations in countries around the sea or the ocean.”

Verification of sufficiency of the solution: Collect exact data about pollution, approximate estimation of expected results and recourses for solutions of the problems; then follow up with what part of the problem can be solved with what kind of actions and recourses.

DYNAMICS (Ability to consider a problem in dynamics of its development).

DYNAMICS LEVEL 0:

Consideration with no changes and no movement of thoughts

“Close all pipes which pollute the water”, or/and other options: “prohibit waste dump to all surrounded industries”, “close industries”, “close resorts”, “fence off all shores and do not let anybody in”.

Such a solution means removing the problem to other places. If a plant or a factory is closed, most likely another one will be build at another location. Instead of polluting in a particular preserved area people would trash out other areas.

DYNAMICS LEVEL 1:

Solution postponement.

- “Permission for industries to dump waste somewhere else far away from human settlements;”

- “Dispose of trash cans” (this solution needs to be supported by financial solution for payments for maintenance people’s work);

- “Conduct educational-informational work among population” (this solution needs to be followed up and its results need to be periodically supported).

DYNAMICS LEVEL 2:

Taking into account strong interdependences, often with immediate results

Milestones of a solution: “Waste treatment facilities are needed - design engineers are needed – then materials, equipment, workers, and management are needed – then educators are needed to teach people of how to work on those treatment plants”.

Consideration of such a solution should lead to a result of looking for a financial basis for each stage which will help to solve the problem. Following is an example of a situation modeling when looking for a solution:

“Fines and prohibition notes – controllers – there will be trash anyway because it is impossible to keep track of everyone – maintenance workers – it is not good enough for the same reason.” After considering this model for a solution we can conclude that those actions cannot be a full solution, and also need a financial basis for payments to controllers and maintenance workers.

So, an imaginary modeling helps in the selection of the ideas and educes problems associated with the solution.

DYNAMICS LEVEL 3:

Taking into account not only strong but also lateral interdependences which impact takes longer time but solve the problem deeper.

It is often reasonable to implement this kind of solutions in combination with the kinds of solutions mentioned above.

• • “Gradual development of ecological infrastructure; efficient placement of trash cans, bathrooms, and showers on public beaches; recycling – using waste of one kind of production as resources for the other kind of production; applying new technologies of production which are less harmful for nature; fostering natural water filters (sea weeds, microorganisms, mollusks, etc.) where it will be appropriate; learning from national and foreign experiences; developing a bank of ideas concerning those problems, etc.” and/or :

  • “Gradual development of environmental ecological literacy of the population: building volunteer teams from interested people and organizations; thinking out the ways of effective conduction of lectures, seminars, and also the content and ways of distribution of printed materials; conducting public activities, exhibitions; creating permanent societies and clubs; engaging mass media and related organizations.”

DYNAMICS LEVEL 4:

Step-by-step modeling of the solution taking into account the interactions with the situation and conditions for its development.

In addition to eduction of working capacity of the ideas of solutions with the help of imagery modeling of the situation. it would be very helpful to establish real “dialogue” with the changing situation in the “language” of measures implementation, and follow up on what is going on after each action is applied. In the framework of educational tasks (case studies) it is possible to get close to that when modeling the reaction of the situation to those actions, and create step-by-step correct plans for the effective solution to the problem during gradual satiation development. Such a solution should take into account a verification of theory by practice. In the framework of educational tasks, we can substitute real dialogue with a situation with dialogues with other team participants which can be tracked with pedagogical observation and recorded on student’s paperwork.

On this level all cause-effect and step-by-step chains are accomplished and point out approximately which part of the problem the suggested solution is able to cover. This is an example of a combination of solutions for short- and long-term results:

“The development of ecological literacy of the population will help with long term results but cannot solve the problem immediately. That’s why along with those activities we should take into account ecological illiteracy of the parts of population: find funds for payments to controllers and maintenance workers, organize garbage disposal, treatments, and recycling on the basis of real capabilities”.

“After analyzing the situation we concluded that the best solution for some industries is a transition to a new technology, but they cannot afford to buy new equipment. While they collect the money they can install a cheaper filter system. Before they install a filter system, they can dispose their waste to another place which would be less harmful for environment and people’s health.”

ALTERNATIVITY LEVEL 0:

Only one solution to a complex problem is considered.

“Build waste treatment facilities”.

ALTERNATIVITY LEVEL 1:

Presence of options for alternative solutions (at least at one bifurcation point).

“Build waste treatment facilities”,” Transition to the new technology”, “Collect waste in containers and dispose of it to wasteland.”

ALTERNATIVITY LEVEL 2:

Vision of the spectrum of diverse alternative solutions (at least at one bifurcation point).

“For plants and factories: build waste treatment facilities; transition to the new technology; transition to the new product which may be substituted for the original one; waste disposal; using waste as a resource for production in another industry.”

“For people: notes of prohibition; fines for littering; development of ecological infrastructure; educational programs for ecoliteracy; organizing activities for searching resources and tools for solving a problem.”

ALTERNATIVITY LEVEL 3:

Vision of the importance of the solutions key points in cause-effect chains (at least two bifurcation points).

“Pollution – industries – transition to the new technology – purchase of new equipment - finding finances for the purchase out of profits”;

Or:

“Pollution – people – fostering of ecological-environmental culture – methods – periodically conducting lectures and workshops in schools and organizations – creating permanently functioning centers – human resources – building a team from volunteers and paid representatives from interested organizations.”

Underlined links in the chain are the most difficult points and need consideration of the spectrum of alternative ways to the solution. Generally, locations of key points in chains depend on availability of enough information about the situation and local conditions.

ALTERNATIVITY LEVEL 4:

Ability to build a spectrum of alternatives in any point in the process of problem solving and choose the most promising options from the whole visible spectrum. The description of all alternatives in all key points is not necessary; it is fine to go straight ahead to results selection. In this case identification of the solution with level four on Alternativity is diagnosed upon the final result which is sufficiency of approaches for the full solution provided by varieties of alternatives.

LEVEL 5: THE UNIFICATION LEVEL FOR A SYSTEM OF PARAMETERS: “INTEGRITY-DYNAMICS-ALTERNATIVITY”

The cooperative work of parameters in the system is harmonic if it is directed toward building a strategy of solutions and not to dissolution of the problem. Here is an example of such an inappropriate approach to the solution in the task of finding a connection between used batteries dumped into the river and people’s health. “Dumped batteries are a particular case of environmental pollution. If everyone will dump their used batteries and their other waste into a river, it will increase health problems.”

Ability for holistic vision is a great skill which helps in problem solving, but it was applied in at a wrong point when solving problem. Generalizing at this point leads to the general principles which are already well known Instead of leading to a solution by clarification of important connections. In this case holistic vision should be applied at the next stage after analyses of alternatives for strategies in order to modeling their development in the context of the situation.

Please do not consider the following example as the only possible solution to the problem which claims to be identified with level five of Global Systems Thinking. As an open type of task the problem can be solved in different ways.

“Let’s approach the problem from different angles in order to come to a full solution. Find out:

1. Who pollutes the water, how, and how to recover that;

2. Who is directly interested in the solution and how to apply this interest to a solution;

Then develop a program of necessary actions on the basis of the obtained situation, and include in this program a tracking of its effectiveness via follow up corrections of this program depending upon the results.

1. Pollutants are from waste products of industries, water crafts; trash and garbage are from people: tourists, fishermen, locals.

For water treatment/disposal:

• • Create a system of filters, water treatment facilities;

  • Move on to a new technology which is less harmful for the environment;

  • Reconstruct the equipment for more new ecologically advanced products which will substitute for original ones;

  • Modify waste or at least their part into something else which is less harmful for the environment and people, or even useful;

  • Dump waste at another location where pollution will be less significant for the environment (perhaps this can be used as a temporary intermediate solution);

  • Gradually collect waste into containers, move to another location to modify it to the point when it can be included in an ecosystem exchange cycle, or move to another plant/factory as a resource.

For people: There are two interconnected problems – an infrastructure of collection and modification of waste is not developed enough, and lack of ecological literacy and culture.

For further maintenance of healthy levels of water purity: spreading out and fostering natural filters (sea weeds, microorganisms, mollusks) where it is appropriate.

2. Parties who are interested in solving the problem: locals; organizations for tourists: hotels, lodges, resorts; regions, organizations, and people related to this region economically, geographically, or in any other way. All those parties are suggested to create a committee on this problem for the control of the situation which would compose and correct programs of actions, look for human, financial, and other resources, inform and educate the population, and foster ecological culture in the general public.

Suggested measures of such a committee:

• • Data collection of the ecological condition of the region with engaging specialists; this help for quantity estimation of what resources are able to solve what parts of the problem;

  • Explore possible financial resources for solving problem for water purification and for maintaining healthy ecological condition; funds for the payments to controllers and other specialists, for the organizers of educational activities and for the issues of educational materials;

  • Explore human resource of volunteers who are ready to participate in the solution, their possible functions and the degree of their possible participation;

  • Engage regional mass media, and maybe also national and international media if appropriate;

  • Create a bank of ideas and suggestions for solving this problem, and welcome everyone’s contributions;

  • Study national and foreign experience in solving similar problems;

  • Take into account positive and negative sides of local conditions.

Engaging funds:

• • For business, industries, and water craft owners: oblige them take care of their waste treatment and disposal; set up a tax for using the environment (which would be partially used for the payments to controllers and maintenance workers);

  • For resorts and other private businesses for tourists: assign them to surrounding areas. They would control themselves because they are interested in attracting tourists who would like to vacation only in a clean place; they fund salaries for controllers and maintenance workers from their profits;

  • For locals: finding money from region’s budget for solving problem; engaging volunteers for educating population and fostering ecological culture;

  • For regions, organizations, and people related to this region economically, geographically, or in any other way: engage private capital in solving this problem.

This is an initial outline on how to approach the problem and how to start solving it. As far as the process of solution goes, the situation will be changing and it will become more and more clear which plans and actions will be more effective in which local circumstances and to which level of satisfaction. The way of “dialogue” with the situation in the “language” of actions taken and conditions made will help for the final solution.

Consideration of the problem in the context of special conditions contributes to the corrections at each stage of solving the problem.

“A. The problem of maintaining healthy environment in a sea and surrounding areas of different countries:

Necessity of cross-cultural competence: knowledge and understanding of peculiarities of cultural mentalities in different countries situated around a sea, and also other conditions of its implementation and development should be taken into account during the cooperative process of solving the problem.”

“B. The problem of maintaining a healthy environment in a big river and surrounding areas of different regions:

Ecological inequity of regions situated along the river because of the stream line. The sources of pollution and polluted areas are apart. That’s why controlling organizations of the sources of possible pollution should be in the most likely polluted areas.”

It is not necessary to write down all intermediate stages and details, but the points which are significant for global systems level identification should not be missed.

Formed responsibility for chosen solutions appears not in its declaration but in thorough consideration of the situation and in motivation to lead the process of solutions to the full accomplishment. It expresses in student’s attempts to approach the problem from different angles, and their selection with the principle of minimal negative effects, in substantiation of measures planned and actions taken.

4. Methods of level calibration of the Global Thinking Scale.

The Global Thinking Scale gives us an understanding of students’ level of worldview which determines their abilities for solving global problems. However, the pace of this scale is too big for exploration of interdependence between GT and any other characteristics which we measure by more frequent calibration on smaller scales. Here are two ways to calibrate GT scale levels by a degree of fulfillment of each level with conceptual units.

Here is the example of calibrating Alternativity levels within the first method:

Level 1: From two options of solutions in one key point to the full spectrum of solutions of a certain kind.

1.25 –more than two options (at least three); 1.75- almost the full spectrum of that kind of solutions; missing less than two options ( one) for being qualified for Level 2. Any intermediate fulfillment between those positions – 1.5.

Level 2: From two different kinds of options for solutions at a certain key point to the full spectrum of diverse kinds of solutions at this key point.

2.25 –more than two options of kinds (at least three); 2.75- almost the full spectrum of kinds of solutions at the certain key point; missing less than two options ( one) for being qualified for Level 3. Any intermediate fulfillment between those positions – 2.5.

The same pattern is for transition between levels 3 and 4, only instead of evaluating quantity of alternative options we evaluate quantity of key points which are important for chosen strategy in solving problem.

Level 3: From two key points in chosen strategy to the full spectrum of key points which are important in this strategy.

3.25 –more than two key points (at least three); 3.75- almost the full spectrum of key points in the certain strategy; missing less than two key points ( one) for being qualified for Level 4. Any intermediate fulfillment between those positions – 3.5.

This method of level calibration is for the approximate evaluation of degree of level fulfillment. The more exact method is finding a ratio between quantity of conceptual units found by rater within a solution, and quantity of conceptual units found by student. This is another reason why rater’s level and a degree of level fulfillment with possible key units should be higher than student’s ones to avoid significant mistakes in evaluation.

* * *