Download research as PDF

The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) emphasizes the need for research-based materials and states: “All States must identify a set of academic standards for core subject areas at each grade level.” Mentoring Minds’ TAKS Tornado Flip Charts incorporate research-based strategies and pedagogically sound principles for teaching and learning and provide the academic standards for all core subject areas at each grade level in accordance to the requirements identified in the No Child Left Behind Act.

“Recognizing that there are different levels of thinking behaviors important to learning, Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues developed Bloom’s Taxonomy, a common structure for categorizing test questions and designing instruction. The taxonomy is divided into six levels, from basic factual recall, or Knowledge, to the highest order, Evaluation, which assesses value or asks the teacher or learner to make judgments among ideas.” Each flip chart identifies and defines the six levels of thinking (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl, 1956), provides effective questions for each level, and suggests multiple questioning prompts at each of the six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. 

In the 1950s, Bloom found that 95% of the test questions developed to assess student learning required them only to think at the lowest level of learning, the recall of information. Similar findings indicated an overemphasis on lower-level questions and activities with little emphasis on the development of students’ thinking skills (Risner, Skeel, and Nicholson, 1992). “Now, a considerable amount of attention is given to students’ abilities to think critically about what they do” (Hobgood, Thibault, and Walberg, 2005). Leaders in various businesses, medical fields, and other professions have voiced their concern that schools are not preparing students to be critical thinkers. Having knowledge of the procedure for CPR, how to estimate expenses, or being able to calculate elapsed time is no longer enough. These skills have little value without the ability to know how, when, and where to apply them. Thus, teachers must consistently utilize the array of questions to students at the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels as noted on the TAKS Tornado Flip Charts.

Studies show that the art of asking questions with an emphasis on higher-level thinking can advance student achievement. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) reported how teachers can increase their effectiveness in teaching and learning by using research findings on questioning strategies. An important conclusion showed learning to increase in classrooms where teachers asked questions related to essential content rather than questions teachers gleaned would interest students (Alexander, Kulikowich, & Schulze, 1994; Risner, Nicholson, & Webb, 1994). Redfield and Rousseau (1981) reported that knowledge level questions resulted in less learning than higher-level questions that encouraged students to use their analytical thought processes. Fillippone (1998) found that teachers ask lower-level questions more times than not.

Wait-time should be acknowledged before and after asking a question. Usually teachers give less than one second for students to respond to a question and the results are short responses or no response at all. Student-to-student interaction and quality of responses increase when wait-time is addressed noted Fowler (1975). Rowe (1974) studied the effect of questions used by teachers on elementary students. Results showed three to five seconds of wait-time led to increases in student responses, student confidence, evidence supporting the response, and student conversation. This finding is consistent at the middle and high school levels when wait-time is allowed after asking a question. A recommendation is to allow five seconds of wait-time. Students must be informed that this time is their think-time and time should also be adjusted to the cognitive level of the questions. The back of the flip chart offers direction in how to use wait-time and think-time.

Critical thinking is an important issue in education today.  Attention is focused on good thinking as an important element of life success. (Huitt, 1998; Thomas and Smoot, 1994). Studies over the last 40 years have confirmed Bloom’s Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain as a framework to establish intellectual and educational outcomes.  The conclusions reached by researchers substantiate that students achieve more when they manipulate topics at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy.  A revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy is also included (Anderson, Krathwohl, Airasian, Crusikshank, Mayer, Pintrich, Raths, and Wittrock, 2001).

Research indicates that thinking skills instruction makes a positive difference in the achievement levels of students. Studies that reflect achievement over time show that learning gains can be accelerated.  In verbal learning, research reports that the depth with which students process information has a definite impact on retention (Craik, 1979; Haller, Child, and Walberg, 1988). These results indicate that the teaching of thinking skills can enhance the academic achievement of participating students (Bass and Perkins, 1984; Freseman, 1990; Matthews, 1989; Nickerson, 1984). Therefore, Mentoring Minds’ TAKS Tornado Flip Charts provide support in teaching critical thinking and meet the requirements for incorporating research-based strategies and pedagogically sound principles for teaching and learning.

K-3 TAKS Tornado Flip Charts contain the 220 most frequently found words in books that children read. Vocabulary is important in learning to read. Stahl and Fairbanks (1986) concluded that instruction centered on words like the high-frequency word lists can boost a student’s ability to comprehend new content by 12 percent. Building word recognition skills means increasing the number of words that a reader can recognize effortlessly and without thought. These skills lead a student to recognize words automatically. Increasing difficulties arise as students progress through the grades, particularly at the secondary level, when the reading load in content areas such as math, science, and social studies greatly increases. Reading can be easier and a student can maintain the pace as the reading load increases if automaticity of a large group of words has been acquired early on in school.Recognizing words and phrases on sight improves reading fluency and comprehension.

The PDAS domains are referenced in the contents of each flip chart. Professional Development Appraisal System (PDAS) continues to be the approved instrument in the state of Texas for appraising teachers and designating areas that would improve through staff development. The State Board of Education (SBEC) adopted eight domains containing 51 criteria that reflect the Proficiencies for Learner-Centered Instruction (SBEC, 1967).

"All states and schools will have challenging and clear standards of achievement and accountability for all children and effective strategies for reaching those standards" (NCLB, 2001). These high standards give direction to schools as they work collaboratively toward common academic goals. The TAKS Tornado Flip Chart ensures that each teacher who uses the flip chart has been provided a set of academic standards as required by the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). This flip chart contains the TAKS objectives, the Blueprint for Learning, and the TEKS at each grade level and for every subject.  These skillfully designed teaching tools fit conveniently into a lesson plan book and provide quick and easy access to State Standards. The TAKS Tornado Flip Chart is an excellent critical thinking resource to help educators prepare students for success.

Bibliography for the TAKS Tornado Flip Chart

Alexander, P., Kulikowich, J., & Schulze, S. (1994). How subject-matter knowledge affects recall and interest. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 313-337.

Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Crusikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Bass, G., Jr. & Perkins, H. (1984). Teaching critical thinking skills with CAI. Electronic Learning 14, 32, 34, 96.

Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.

Craik, F. (1979). Human memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 63-102.

Fillippone, M. (1998). Questioning at the elementary level. Master's thesis, Kean University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 421).

Fowler, T. (1975). An investigation of the teacher behavior of wait-time during an inquiry science lesson. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Los Angeles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 108 872).

Freseman, R. (1990). Improving higher order thinking of middle school geography students by teaching skills directly. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova University.

Haller, E., Child, D., & Walberg, H. (1988). Can comprehension be taught? A quantitative synthesis of metacognitive studies. Educational Researcher, 17, 5-8.

Hobgood, B., Thibault, M., & Walbert, D. ( 2005 ). Kinetic connections: Bloom’s taxonomy in action. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Learn NC.

Huitt, W. (1998). Critical thinking: An overview. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved May 7, 2007 from, http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/critthnk.html. [Revision of paper presented at the Critical Thinking Conference sponsored by Gordon College, Barnesville, GA, March, 1993.]

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Matthews, D. (1989).The effect of a thinking-skills program on the cognitive abilities of middle school students.  Clearing House,62, 202-204.

Nickerson, R. (1984). Research on the Training of Higher Cognitive Learning and Thinking Skills.  Final Report # 5560.  Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.

No Child Left Behind. (2001). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Risner, G., Nicholson, J., & Webb, B. (1994). Levels of comprehension promoted by the Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) Program. Florence: University of North Alabama. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 751)

Risner, G., Skeel, D., & Nicholson, J. (1992). A closer look at textbooks: what research says. Science and Children, 30, 42-45, 73.

Rowe, M. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic, and fate control: part one - wait-time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1974, 11, (2), 81-94.

Stahl, S. &  Fairbanks, M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction:  A model-based meta-analysis.  Review of Educational Research, 56, 72-110.

State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC). (1967). Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS), Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Thomas, G., & Smoot, G. (1994, February/March). Critical thinking: A vital work skill. Trust for Educational Leadership, 23, 34-38.