US20120058458A1

US20120058458A1 - Interactive method and system for teaching decision making

Info

Publication number: US20120058458A1
Application number: US13/186,390
Authority: US
Inventors: Thomas J. Reynolds
Original assignee: Individual
Current assignee: Individual
Priority date: 2000-05-11
Filing date: 2011-07-19
Publication date: 2012-03-08
Also published as: US6971881B2; US20020146676A1; WO2001086611A1; US20060115802A1; AU2001261509A1

Abstract

The present invention is directed to an interactive computer tool for presenting and presenting documents directed to decision-making. The computer tool requires users to identify choice options and, for each choice option, relevant consequences, outcomes, and/or goals, for evaluating outcomes therefor.

Description

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation of pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/257,142, filed Oct. 24, 2005, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/853,407, filed May 11, 2001, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,971,881, and claims the benefits under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application Serial Nos. 60/203,514, filed May 11, 2000; 60/203,528, filed May 11, 2000; 60/203,527, filed May 11, 2000; 60/203,525, filed May 11, 2000; 60/203,524, filed May 11, 2000; 60/203,526, filed May 11, 2000; and 60/207,714, filed May 26, 2000, all of the above-identified references are fully incorporated herein by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is directed generally to decision making and specifically to interactive tools for teaching decision making.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

In all levels of society and across all age groups, people routinely use poor judgment in making decisions and consequently exhibit poor character. Although people are quick to see the freedom that choice brings, they all too often fail to see the corresponding responsibility that accompanies each and every choice they make. Most of their decisions are based either on a desire for instant gratification, convenience, peer approval, or avoidance of conflict. The increasing degree of mechanization and dehumanization of our lives—the disastrous byproduct of scientific and technical advancement—coupled with poor decision making have lead to a horrifying deterioration in the ethical conduct or character of people today.
A variety of interactive tools have been developed for character building. A common approach is to provide the reader/viewer with an abstract concept, such as a value, then present an ideational story with some factual content which: (a) is related to the abstract concept, and (b) is presumably relevant to developing decision-making skills relating the abstract concept. This factual context is often inapplicable to the real life situations confronted by the reader/viewer (also denoted user herein) and therefore provides little guidance and little decision-making skill development. Moreover, the abstract factual concepts, individually and/or combined fail to show a methodology for making decisions.
A variety of interactive tools have also been developed for teaching decision making. A common approach is to list advantages and disadvantages associated with a decision. These approaches often fail to link the choices with specific goals or values. Moreover, such approaches are often too complicated for many individuals.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

These and other needs are addressed by the interactive tool(s) and method(s) of the present invention. The present invention provides a logical, structured approach to teaching users critical decision-making skills. The tool(s) and method(s) reinforce and/or develop developmental intelligence particularly in the areas of logico-mathematical thought, self understanding and the understanding of others. The tool(s) and method(s) are particularly useful in automated systems, such as computational systems.
In one embodiment, an interactive teaching method is provided that includes the steps of:
(a) referencing at least one factual context to a user;
(b) requesting the user to provide a collection of choice options corresponding to the factual context(s);
(c) requesting the user to provide a collection of potential future results corresponding to each choice option;
(d) requesting the user to provide a collection of goals that are relevant to each choice option;
(e) requesting the user to specify a rationale for at least one of the choice options; and
(f) evaluating at least one of the collection of choice options, the collection of results, the collection of goals, and the rationale.
In one configuration, the method further includes the steps of:
(g) requesting selection of a choice option for which the rationale of step (e) above is requested; and
(h) requesting the user to identify one or more driving forces relevant to one or more of the choice options;
(i) assessing the rationale in the step (f) of evaluating above.
The factual (or choice) context can be any suitable set of facts that require a choice to be made. For example, the set of facts may have personal relevance to the user, such as a real life situation in which the user has made or will make a choice; though having no personal relevance to the user, may have application or relevance to the user's surroundings and/or environment; or though having no personal relevance to the user or application to the user's environment, is useful in teaching the user decision making skills.
As will be appreciated, the “user” can be any individual or group of individuals, including computer users, students (whether at the primary, secondary, or pre- or post-educational levels), job skills trainees, participants in adult education, “at risk” juveniles, those incarcerated in detention facilities, and military personnel. The user can be of any age, with ages between 5 and 50 years being typical.
The collection of choice options is simply a listing of alternatives or possibilities generated, either internally or externally, by the choice context. The listing can include one or more choice options, depending upon the choice context.
The collection of results includes one or more results associated with each choice option in the collection of choice options. Results commonly include both long term results (or outcomes) or short term and/or immediate results (or consequences). Outcomes and consequences typically include both positive (as viewed by the user) and negative (as viewed by the user) results.
The collection of goals includes one or more goals that are relevant to each choice option. As will be appreciated, certain goals may be shared by a number of choice options. “Goals” refer to objectives of the user, such as to things the user wants to do or become (e.g., the desired end-states toward which effort is directed). Goals are the reasons outcomes derive their importance.
The driving force(s) of the user defines a hierarchy of the collection of goals. As in the case of goals, one driving force may be shared by a number of goals and choice options. A “driving force” typically refers to the user's perceived identity; that is, the user's unique way of visualizing him- or herself. A driving force thus determines the relevant importance of each of the collection of goals.
One or more of the collections are evaluated by any suitable technique to determine a level of performance of the user. In one configuration, the evaluating step can include the step of determining a test score for the user's performance in one or more of steps (b), (c), (d), and (h) hereinabove. For example, the number of choice options, results, goals, and/or driving forces can be counted, and the resulting number(s) compared to a predetermined ordering of numbers or grade scale for the corresponding collection to determine a level of performance or test score. The evaluating step can also be performed using a more sophisticated approach such as by considering the number of choice options in the choice option collection, a level of sophistication of a choice option in the collection, and/or a number of choice options considered for selecting a most important choice option.
In one configuration, the evaluating step is performed by building and analyzing a decision tree or chain. The chain is formed by the following steps:
comparing the collection of choice options obtained from the user to a predetermined collection of choice options and corresponding codes to identify at least one choice option on the predetermined collection of choice options and a code corresponding thereto;
assigning the code to the at least one of the choice options obtained from the user;
comparing the rationale with the collections of results, goals, and driving forces to identify which of the results, goals and/or driving forces are in the rationale;
comparing the results, goals and driving forces in the rationale with a predetermined collection of results, goals, and/or driving forces and corresponding codes to identify the codes corresponding to the results, goals and/or driving forces in the rationale; and
determining the highest code level and the number of code levels in the rationale to form the decision chain.
When one or more of the collections is unacceptable, the user may be required to repeat one or more of the steps, depending on the level of sophistication of the user.
A counter can be used to monitor the number of iterations through the steps by a user whose collection(s) is found unacceptable. Thus, the method may include the steps of:
initializing a counter;
comparing the counter to a predetermined number of iterations;
when the counter at least one of: equals and exceeds the predetermined number, then the user is failed; and
when the counter is less than the predetermined number, repeating the desired step(s).
To reinforce the decision model concepts in the mind of the user, the various steps can be repeated for a variety of choice contexts over the same or varying periods of time. In an illustrative configuration, only steps (a), (b), and (f) above are repeated for a first time period, only steps (a) through (c) and (f) are repeated for a second time period, and only steps (a) through (d) and (f) are repeated for a third time period. The first time period precedes the second time period and the second time period precedes the third time period.
The interactive teaching method can include additional steps. In one configuration, the method includes the additional steps of:
requesting a list or collection of choice distinctions for each collected choice; and optionally
evaluating the list or collection of choice distinctions for each collected choice. A choice distinction is a defining characteristic or label for a corresponding choice option.
The invention has a number of advantages compared to existing decision-making tools. First, the present invention can provide a critical thinking curriculum that will help educators and parents develop citizens of better character by imbuing children with a decision-making framework that will provide them with an understanding of the decision-making process in their lives and the ability to make rational decisions directed toward achieving their personal goals. Second, the present invention can expand student awareness of the number of choices that are made, explicitly or implicitly, every day of their lives and of the range of choices available to them with regard to any significant decision. Third, the invention can increase student understanding of the critical determining characteristics of each choice option within the decision context and their relation to the likely short- and long term results of that choice. Fourth, the invention can help students identify and evaluate the causal relationships between their personal goals and the choices that they make across an array of decisions that range from simple everyday decisions to more complex types of risk- or reward-creating decisions. Fifth, the invention can develop students' abilities (and recognition of the need to take the time) to graphically map out the choice options with regard to any decision or problem context, including drawing of inferences with regard to their goals. Sixth, the invention can increase three important types of intelligence that can significantly accelerate a person's self-growth, namely logico-mathematical growth, self-understanding, and the understanding of others. Understanding the decisions of others and their behavior can lead to compassion for others. Seventh, the invention can address the decision-making defect from which many people suffer. Specifically, many people make poor decisions because such people focus on a shorter-term time horizon and/or mistakenly contrast two different defining elements of their choice options, namely a positive distinction of one choice option with a negative distinction of the other choice option, creating a biased contrast. The invention can use a bottom up (situation-based) approach employing real life scenarios with a decision making model, requiring the definition of causal implications of choice options. This is the most effective way in which this flaw in such thinking can be addressed. Conventional top down value or virtue approaches are too abstract for many users and are therefore not very effective. Eighth, the invention progressively introduces the user to the various pieces of the decision-making model, which reinforce the model in the mind of the user. Ninth, the invention uses the concept of “trade-off” in the decision-making model. Trade-off requires the user to compare and contrast higher order personal motivations or objectives (e.g., comparing positive elements with positive elements or negative elements with negative elements) in making a decision. Tenth, the invention permits an assessment of each lesson with regard to its effectiveness in changing an a priori or initial decision the individual or a group would make without the use of the invention. Eleventh, the invention permits the assessment of a variety of key facets of the depth of thinking of individuals with regard to their decision-making processes. For example, the present invention requires users to focus on a positive element, such as an outcome or consequence, associated with a choice option and to link the element to one or more relevant goals. This forces users to identify and apply driving forces to select a choice option.
Other features and benefits are provided in the accompanying drawings and the description hereinbelow.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIGS. 1A-D define a flowchart of a first embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a computation system that can be used with the flowchart of FIGS. 1A-D;

FIG. 3 depicts data structures associated with the methodology of the present invention;

FIG. 4 depicts a process for forming a decision chain;

FIG. 5 depicts a decision chain assembled using the process of FIG. 4;

FIGS. 6A-I depict various displays in connection with FIGS. 1A-D;

FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating the high level components of an embodiment of the present invention for presenting the critical thinking/reasoning instructional materials of the invention via a communications network such as the Internet; and

FIGS. 8A through 8H depict yet another embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 9 summarizes the key components of the LifeGoals GOOD Decision Model by the grade in which they will be taught. For example, the component “CHOICE” is shown as being taught in the 1^stgrade, the component “DISTINCTIONS” is shown as being taught in the 2^ndgrade, etc.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

FIGS. 1A-D and 2 depict a first embodiment of an interactive algorithm according to the present invention. The processor 200 (FIG. 2) initially obtains a (via step 100, FIG. 1A) profile of the user from user information 204 (FIG. 2). The profile may be stored in memory 208 as shown and/or obtained from the user through a series of queries.
The user then is presented with a choice context (step 104 FIG. 1) from a plurality of choice contexts 212 in memory 208, and a counter “i” is initialized (step 108 FIG. 1A), e.g., set equal to one. The counter tracks the number of iterations through the loop defined by steps 112, 116, 120, 124 and 128.
The processor 200 can select which choice context to present using a random or pseudorandom number generator (in which event each of a plurality of choice contexts would be assigned a unique number or id) or a predetermined ordering of the choice contexts based on the user's profile information. The id can include a first field for setting, e.g., home, school and community, a second field for appropriate grade level, e.g., “45” means for grade levels four and five, and a third field for order of presentation of the context, e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc. The third field can be based on a number generator or a predefined ordering of presentation of the choice contexts. Simpler and/or more life relevant choice contexts are provided depending, for example, on the age or grade level of the user. The choice context can be presented to the user orally or visually using display 216 (FIG. 2) or a combination of the two. For example, the choice context can be a video presented on the display 216 with audio output. This approach is particularly useful for users that have a low level of reading skills.
The processor 200 then requests the user to input a list of choice options (step 112 FIG. 1A) corresponding to the choice context. The user inputs the list of choice options using any suitable techniques, including voice recognition techniques, a stylus or mouse with one or more screens displaying a list of possible choice options, a keyboard, and the like. The list may be entered by the user and identified by the processor 200 using key words and/or selected by the user from a list of possible choice options presented by the processor. An illustrative display when the list is entered manually by the user is shown in FIG. 6A. If the user selects the choice options from a list provided by the processor 200, the user may be asked to rank the selected choice options in order of importance and indicate the reason(s) why the user chose that option.
In one process configuration that is not shown in the figures, a timer could be set and the user given a predetermined amount of time in which to select the number of choice options arising from the choice context. The processor 200 would cease receiving new choice options when the predetermined amount of time had elapsed.
In the depicted process configuration, the user notifies the processor 200 when the list is completed, and an evaluator 220 (FIG. 2) assesses (in step 116 FIG. 1A) the list of choice options by any suitable technique. Particularly, where the user originates the choice options on the list, the evaluator 220 evaluates the list by the number of choice options on the list and compares the total number of choice options with a predetermined number or grading scale to determine a level of performance. Particularly, where the user selects the choice options on the list from a list provided by the processor 200, the evaluator 220 may evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected choice options and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings.
As part of the assessing step 116 (FIG. 1A), the processor 200 can also sort the various choice options into predetermined categories. For example, the choice options could be sorted based on the place in which the choice situation occurs (e.g., school, home, or community) and/or the relationship with the primary individual in the choice context (e.g., self, friends, parents, siblings, kids (non-friends) or adults). Symbols can be used for choice options rather than words (e.g., teeth to represent tooth brushing, a first to represent fighting, etc.) A matrix can be constructed using one or more of the above classification systems. For instance, “places” can be on one axis and “relationship” on the other, and each choice context is placed in one cell of the matrix.
The number(s) of choice options in each classification can be used to evaluate the breadth or sophistication of the identified choice options. For example, the number of choice options in “non-self” categories could be an additional measure of performance used in any of the assessment steps discussed below.
If in decision step 120 (FIG. 1A) the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor 200 determines in decision step 124 (FIG. 1A) if the counter i is equal to N, the predetermined maximum number of iterations through the loop of steps 112, 116, 120 and 128. If so, the processor 200 fails the user (step 122 FIG. 1A) and determines (step 123) whether to proceed with another test. If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one (step 128) and again requests the user to provide a list of choice options associated with the choice context previously presented in step 104.
If in decision step 120 the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 132 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made based on the user's level of performance, profile, and the like. If the user has not yet performed to a certain level of performance or is required to complete successfully a certain number of selected choice contexts before proceeding, the user returns to step 104 and repeats the above steps with a different choice context. If the user has performed to a certain level of performance or completed the requisite number of choice contexts, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 136 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision making (via the steps commencing with step 137), or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110 (FIG. 1D). This determination is typically made based on the user's user profile. In one configuration, users in the first grade do not continue while users beyond the first grade continue on.
Assuming the user continues, the counter i is again initialized (step 137), and the processor 200 requests a list of choice distinctions (step 138) for each of the listed choice options provided previously in step 112. This step 138 can be performed in any of the ways noted above in connection with step 112 with choice distinctions being substituted for choice options. An illustrative display, when the list of choice distinctions is entered manually by the user, is shown in FIG. 6B.
Each choice option typically has at least one corresponding distinction. As noted, the distinction is the key characteristic that serves to label the positive and negative aspect(s) of each choice option. Although distinctions and results are often the same, it is important to start teaching users to label their choice options prior to defining the results of each.
The list of choice distinctions is assessed in step 139 using any suitable technique including those described above in connection with step 116 with choice distinctions being substituted for choice options. For example as in the case of choice options, the evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by the number of choice distinctions on the list and compare the total number of choice distinctions with a predetermined number or grading scale to determine a level of performance, particularly when the user originates the choice distinctions on the list. The evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected choice distinctions and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings, particularly when the user selects the choice distinctions on the list from a list provided by the processor 200.
Alternatively or in addition to the techniques described above, the evaluating step (step 139) can analyze the total number of choice distinctions. The number is compared to a predetermined grading scale and a performance level determined.
If in decision step 140 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor in decision step 141 determines if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines in decision step 123 whether the user is to proceed with another test. If not, the processor increments the counter i by one (step 142) and again requests the user in step 138 to provide a list of choice distinctions associated with the choice context.
If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 143 whether a further choice context should be presented in step 104. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132. If the same choice context is to be used, then, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 144 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision making or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136 above. In one configuration, users in the second grade do not continue while users beyond the second grade continue on.
When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized (step 145), and the processor 200 requests a list of consequences for each of the listed choice options provided to the user in step 146. This step 146 can be performed, as noted above in connection with step 112 and/or 138 with consequences being substituted for choice contexts and choice distinctions, respectively. Each choice distinction (and therefore each choice option) typically includes a number of corresponding consequences, both positive and negative. An illustrative display for manual entry of the list by the user is shown in FIG. 6C.
The list of consequences is assessed in step 13 using any suitable technique, including any of the techniques set forth above in connection with steps 116 and 139, with consequences being substituted for choice options and choice distinctions, respectively. As in the case of choice options and choice distinctions, the evaluator 220 typically evaluates the list by the number of consequences on the list and compares the total number of consequences with a predetermined grading scale to determine a level of performance, particularly when the user originates the consequences on the list. This approach refrains from rendering any assessment or opinion whether the user's pathways are right or wrong. The approach causes users to think about choices and the meaning of choices to them personally in an open manner and not in a judgmental way. The evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected consequences and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings, particularly when the user selects the consequences on the list from a list provided by the processor 200.
If in decision step 148 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor 200 determines in decision step 149 if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines in decision step 123 whether or not to try another test. If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one step 150, and again requests the user, in(step 146) to provide a list of consequences associated with the choice context presented in step 104.
If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 151 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132.
The processor 200 next determines in decision step 152 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision-making strategies or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136 above. In one configuration, users in the third grade do not continue while users beyond the third grade continue on.
When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized (step 153), and the processor 200 requests (step 154) a list of outcomes for each of the listed choice options provided in response to step 112 and/or choice distinctions provided in response to step 138. As will be appreciated, each choice option typically corresponds to one choice distinction, and each choice distinction typically corresponds to more than one consequence and outcome. The step 156 can be performed using any of the techniques described above in connection with step 112 (with outcomes being substituted for choice options), step 138 (with outcomes being substituted for choice distinctions), and/or step 146 (with outcomes being substituted for consequences). An illustrative display when the list is manually input by the user is depicted in FIG. 6D.
The list of outcomes is assessed in step 155 using any suitable technique, including one or more of the techniques described above in connection with steps 116 (with outcomes being substituted for choice options), 139 (with outcomes being substituted for choice distinctions), and/or 147 (with outcomes being substituted for consequences). As in the case of choice options, the evaluator 220 typically evaluates the list by the number of outcomes on the list and compares the total number of outcomes with a predetermined number scale to determine a level of performance, particularly when the user originates the outcomes on the list. The evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected outcomes and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings, particularly when the user selects the choice distinctions on the list from a list provided by the processor 200.
If the user's performance is not acceptable in decision step 156, the processor determines in decision step 157 if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines in decision step 123 whether or not to try another test. If not, the processor 200 increments 158 the counter i by one and again requests the user to provide in step 154 a list of outcomes associated with the choice context.
If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 159 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision diamond 132 with outcomes being substituted for choice options.
If the user has performed to a certain level of performance or completed the requisite number of selected choice contexts, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 160 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision making or complete the text and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136 above with outcomes being substituted for choice options. In one configuration, users in the fourth grade do not continue while users beyond the fourth grade continue on.
When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized (step 161), and the processor 200 requests (step 162) a list of goals relevant to each of the listed choice options provided in step 112. This step can be performed using any of the techniques noted above in connection with steps 112, 138, 146, and/or 154, with goals being substituted for choice options, choice distinctions, consequences, and outcomes, respectively. An illustrative display for manual entry of the list by the user is shown in FIG. 6E.
As will be appreciated, a selected goal can correspond to more than one choice and therefore to more than one choice distinction, consequence, and outcome. The results previously listed by the user are typically the bases for the identification of the relevant goals.
The users can be required to rank the goals for each choice option or among the goals listed for all of the choice options. The ranking can later be used in step 163 for evaluating the user's performance.
The list of goals is assessed in step 163 using any suitable technique, including one or more of the techniques described above in connection with steps 116 (with goals being substituted for choice options), 139 (with goals being substituted for choice distinctions), 147 (with goals being substituted for consequences), and/or 155 (with goals being substituted for outcomes). As in the case of choice options, the evaluator 220 typically evaluates the list by the number of goals on the list and compares the total number of goals with a predetermined number scale to determine a level of performance, particularly when the user originates the goals on the list. The evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected goals and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings, particularly when the user selects the goals on the list from a list provided by the processor.
If in decision step 164 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor determines in decision step 165 if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 123 and determines in decision step 123 whether or not to try another test. If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one in step 166 and again requests the user to provide a list of goals associated with the choice context.
If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132 with goals being substituted for choice options.
The processor 200 next determines in decision step 168 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision-making strategies or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136 above with goals being substituted for choice options. In one configuration, users in the fifth grade do not continue to higher levels of decision-making instruction while users beyond the fifth grade do continue on.
When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized (step 169), and the processor 200 requests or determines in step 170 a list of one or more driving forces relevant to each of the listed choice options provided in step 112. This step can be performed using any of the techniques noted above in connection with steps 112, 138, 146, 154, and/or 162, with driving forces being substituted for choice options, choice distinctions, consequences, outcomes, and goals, respectively. An illustrative display for manual entry of the list by the user is shown in FIG. 6F.
The driving forces drive the ranking'of the goals. The user will trade-off (or compare) one set of goals against another set of goals depending upon which driving force(s) are most important to the user. For example, assuming two competing goals in the choice context are “be responsible” versus “in control”, the associated driving force would be self esteem versus power, respectively. The user or the processor 200 would list the various driving forces linked to each of the goals in the listing of goals provided in step 162. As will be appreciated, the same driving force may be shared by multiple goals.
The users can be required to rank the driving forces for each choice option or among the driving forces listed for all of the choice options. The ranking can later be used in step 171 for evaluating the user's performance.
The list of driving forces is assessed in step 171 using any suitable technique, including one or more of the techniques described above in connection with step 116 (with driving forces being substituted for choice options), 139 (with driving forces being substituted for choice distinctions), 147 (with driving forces being substituted for consequences), 155 (with driving forces being substituted for outcomes), and/or 163 (with driving forces being substituted for goals). As in the case of choice options, the evaluator 220 typically evaluates the list by the number of driving forces on the list and compares the total number of driving forces with a predetermined number scale to determine a level of performance, particularly when the user originates the driving forces on the list. The evaluator 220 can evaluate the list by identifying one or more rankings associated with one or more of the selected driving forces and determining the level of performance based on the one or more rankings, particularly when the user selects the driving forces on the list from a list provided by the processor 200.
If in decision step 172 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor determines in decision step 173 if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines whether to proceed with another test. If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one in step 174 and again requests in step 170 the user to provide a list of driving forces associated with the choice context.
If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 175 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132 with driving forces being substituted for choice options.
If the user has performed to a certain level of performance or completed the requisite number of selected choice contexts, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 176 whether or not to continue to higher levels of decision-making strategies or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136 above with driving forces being substituted for choice options. In one configuration, users in the second semester of the fifth grade do not continue while users beyond the second semester of the fifth grade continue on.
When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized 177, and the processor 200 requests the user, in step 178 to select a choice option from among the listed choice options provided by the user in step 112. This step can be performed using any of the techniques noted above in connection with steps 112, 138, 146, 154, 162 and/or 170, with a selected choice option being substituted for choice options, choice distinctions, consequences, outcomes, goals, and driving forces, respectively. An illustrative display for this step is shown-in FIG. 6G.
The choice option selected will typically be based on one or more driving forces as determined by the user. The driving forces cause the goals to be ranked in an order as determined by the user.
The users can be required to rank the various choice options in order of importance or attractiveness to the user. The ranking can later be used in step 179 for evaluating the user's performance.
The selected choice option is assessed in step 179 using any suitable technique. Typically, the criteria used in the assessment include a level of sophistication of the selected choice option, a level of judgment associated with the selected choice option, whether it is primarily defined by a positive or negative distinction and the degree to which the choice option is driven by self interest versus concern for others.
If in decision step 180 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor 200 determines in decision step 181 if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines whether to proceed with another test. If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one in step 182 and again requests the user to select a choice option from among the listing of choice options.
If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 183 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132.
The processor 200 then determines whether or not to continue (step 184) to higher levels of decision-making strategies or complete the test and award a score to the user in step 110. This determination is typically made in a manner similar to that of decision step 136.
When the user is to continue on, the counter i is again initialized 185, and the processor 200 requests or determines a rationale for the selection of the choice option in step 186. This step can be performed using any of the techniques noted above in connection with steps 112, 138, 146, 154, 162, 170, and/or 178. Illustrative sequential displays for this step are shown in FIGS. 6H and 6I.
The rationale and/or listed driving force(s) are assessed in step 187 using any suitable technique, including one or more of the techniques described above in connection with steps 116, 139, 147, and/or 155.
A possible evaluation algorithm is shown in FIG. 3, which is discussed in detail below.
If in decision step 188 the user's performance is not acceptable, the processor 200 in decision step 189 determines if the counter i is equal to N. If so, the processor 200 fails the user in step 122 and determines if the user wishes to or is required to take another test (decision step 123). If not, the processor 200 increments the counter i by one in step 190 and again requests the user in step 186 to provide rationales for the choice options.
If the user's performance is acceptable, the processor 200 next determines in decision step 191 whether a further choice context should be presented. This determination may be made as noted above in connection with decision step 132.
If the user has not performed to a certain level of performance or completed the requisite number of selected choice contexts, the processor returns to step 104 and presents a new choice context to the user. Otherwise, the processor 200 determines a score and the test is completed in step 110.
FIGS. 4A-C depict a possible evaluation technique for assessing the choice option selected. The technique forms a decision chain and uses the chain to analyze a depth of analysis of the user.
Referring to FIG. 4A, the processor 200 compares 400 choice to a predetermined listing of choice options and corresponding codes. If in decision step 402 choice is in the predetermined listing, the processor 200 in step 404 assigns the corresponding code to the choice option.
If choice is not in the list or after the code is assigned, the processor determines in decision step 406 if i is equal to N, the number of choice options identified by the user for the choice context presented in step 112 (FIG. 1A).
If not, the processor increments i by one in step 408 and returns to step 400.
If so, the processor reinitializes i, or sets i equal to one in step 410, and gets (in step 412) the most likely positive result for choice according to the rationale input by the user that was identified by the user when the rationale was requested in step 186 of FIG. 1D (see FIG. 6I). The processor, in step 414, then compares the most likely positive result to a predetermined listing 224 (FIG. 2) and corresponding codes.
The predetermined listing includes not only results, namely consequences and outcomes, but also distinctions, goals, and driving forces with corresponding codes. In one configuration, the code for a consequence is “CX”, for an outcome is “OX”, for a goal is “GYX”, and for a driving force is “DZX”, where “X” is the numerical identifier of a particular variable, Y is the type of goal, namely “S” for social, “F” for family, “T” for trait, “P” for physical, and “E” for enjoyment, and “Z” is the orientation of driving force, namely “E” for externally oriented and “I” for internally oriented. The predetermined listing can also include a category variable (“S” or “M”) as discussed below and/or an indicator of which items in the list are positive or negative. The indicator can simply be a “+” for positive or “−” for negative.
The appropriate code is assigned in step 416 to each of the most likely positive results wherein the code corresponds to pertinent code(s) referred to above.
In decision step 418, the processor 200 determines if i is equal to “N”. If i is not equal to
“N”, the processor increments i by one in step 420 and returns to step 412. If i is equal to “N” then each choice option selected by the user has had a code assigned thereto. Subsequently, the processor initializes i (in step 422) and proceeds to step 424.
In step 424, the processor 200 gets the most likely negative result for choice option i, which was provided in step 186 of FIG. 1D (see FIG. 6I). The processor 200 compares in step 426 the most likely negative result to the predetermined listing and identifies the corresponding code wherein the code corresponds to pertinent code(s) referred to above. The appropriate code is assigned in step 428 to the most likely negative result.
As noted, the processor 200 determines in decision step 430, whether i is equal to N. If not, the processor increments (step 432) i by one and returns to step 426 and, if so, initializes i (in step 434) and proceeds to step 436.
In step 436, the processor 200 gets the most important positive rationale for choice option i, which was provided by the user in step 186 of FIG. 1D (see FIG. 6H). The processor 200 compares (in step 438) the most important positive rationale to the predetermined listing and identifies the corresponding code. The code is assigned (step 440) to the most important positive rationale.
The processor 200 determines in decision step 442 whether i is equal to N. If not, the processor increments i by one (step 444) and returns to step 436 and, if so, initializes i in step 446 and proceeds to step 448.
In step 448, the processor 200 gets the most important negative rationale for choice option i, which was provided by the user in step 186 of FIG. 1D. The processor 200 compares in step 450 the most important negative rationale with the predetermined listing and identifies the corresponding code. The code is assigned in step 452 to the most important negative rationale.
The processor 200 increments i by one in step 456 and determines in decision step 454 whether i is equal to N. If not, the processor returns to step 448 and, if so, initializes i in step 458 and proceeds to step 460.
In step 460, the processor determines the total number of levels for choice option i. This is done by first determining a numerical level equivalent to each of the assigned codes. Namely, the numerical equivalent of “C” is one, of “O” is two, of “G” is 3, and of “D” is four. Using these numbers, the processor can, for each choice option i, sum the numerical equivalents for the codes representing the most likely positive result, the most likely negative result, the most important positive rationale, and the most important negative rationale. Alternatively, the processor can count the number of different levels considered by the user. This is done by determining how many different numbers are represented for each choice in the variables, most likely positive result, the most likely negative result, the most important positive rationale, and the most important negative rationale.
In step 462, the highest code of the highest positive level for choice is determined. This is done, using the numerical equivalents noted above, by determining the highest numerical equivalent among the variables, most likely positive result and the most important positive rationale.
In step 464, the highest code of the highest negative level for choice is determined. This is done, using the numerical equivalents noted above, by determining the highest numerical equivalent among the variables, most likely negative result and the most likely negative rationale.
The processor 200 determines in decision step 466 whether i is equal to N. If not, the processor increments i by one in step 470 returns to step 460 and, if so, proceeds to step 474.
In step 474, the processor gets the choice option selected by the user in step 178 (FIG. 1D, see FIG. 6G).
In step 478, the processor then determines the category of the rationale for the choice option selected. In one configuration, this is done by including a category variable for each item in the predetermined list. The category variable is one of: “M” for moral, or “S” for self. For grading purposes, an “S” is scored as a −1.0, and an “M” is scored as a 1.0. Based on the number, a score, score1, is determined in step 482.
A depth of analysis is determined in step 486. This may be done as described above. Alternatively, this may be done by comparing the rationales identified in step 186 of FIG. 1D. If a positive rationale selected by the user corresponds to a positive item associated with one of the choice options and another positive rationale selected by the user corresponds to a positive item associated with another choice option, the user is given only a score of “3”. If the user did not select a positive item from each of the different choice options but identifies a negative item from one of the choice options, the user is given a score of “2”. If the user selected positive and/or negative items are from only one choice option and no items from the other choice option, the user is given a score of “1”. This score is score2 in step 490.
The test grade is determined in step 494 as a function of score1 and score2. The reason for scoring comparisons of items from different choice options more highly is that it reflects the ability of the user to apply the “trade-off” method, which is a key to making good decisions. Contrasting higher-order personal motives is at the heart of the trade-off method. In short, the “trade-off” method is to focus on competing outcomes and linking them to their respective goals (for each choice option). Choice is driven by a contrasting or trading-off between competing goals or driving forces. The ability of the choice option to satisfy the most important goal held by the user is preferably the basis for selecting that respective choice option. The above algorithms teach users to employ the method of “trade-off”. Score1 and score2 measure the aptitude of the user in identifying and contrasting the higher order elements (consequences to outcomes to goals to driving forces).
An example of a decision chain generated using the above technique is depicted in FIG. 5. “H453” is the code for the choice context. “H” representing home, “45” indicating that the context is applicable to users in the third and fourth grades, and the “3” being the unique identifier of the choice context. “1C” and “2C” are the codes for the two different choice options. The number to the left of the period (e.g., two, two, three, and two moving from left to right) refers to the highest level discussed at each stage. The number to the right of the period (e.g., two, two, two, and two moving from left to right) refers to the total number of levels discussed at each stage. The letters, “C” and “O” refer to consequence and outcome, respectively; in the phrase “Gt4”, “G” refers to goal, “t” to trait, and “4” to the identifier of the particular goal.
With reference to FIGS. 4A-C, the symbols “1C” 504 and “2C” 508 were generated in step 404; the symbols “C” and “O” 512 and “C” and “Gt4” 514 in steps 416 and 438; the symbols “C” and “O” 516 and “C” and “O” 520 in steps 428 and 452; “O” and “Gt4” 524 and 528 in step 462; “O” and “O” 532 and 536 in step 464; “1C” 540 in step 474; “2” 544 in step 482; and “0” 548 in step 490.
FIG. 3 is a hierarchical chart of the data structures for the above algorithm(s). The various labels are self-explanatory with the following exceptions: “MOSTLIKELY-RESULT” refers to the most likely negative result; “MOSTLIKELY+RESULT” refers to the most likely positive result; “MOSTLIKELY-RESULTCODE” refers to the most likely negative result code; “MOSTLIKELY+RESULTCODE” refers to the most likely positive result code; “TOTALNUMBERLEVELS−” refers to the total number of levels determined in step 460; “TOTALNUMBERLEVELS+” refers to the total number of levels determined in step 460; “HIGHESTLEVEL−” refers to the highest level determined in step 464; and “HIGHESTLEVEL+” refers to the highest level determined in step 462.
Although the interactive teaching tool is discussed above in the context of an automated architecture, it is to be expressly understood that the invention includes the manual (nonautomated) use of the above techniques by an instructor or teacher. The above techniques readily lend themselves to the classroom where students can interact with an instructor. In some applications, the above techniques are in fact more effective in the classroom than in an automated architecture. For example, the instructor may use the Socratic method to teach decision making skills according to the present invention. Additionally, the combination of homework assignments and decision-making concepts discussed above offer a very consistent and comprehensive approach to assessing student progress in developing critical decision-making skills. First, the ability to involve all members of the educational community with a common framework for choice behavior discussion can be invaluable. Second, the ability to understand and assess the decision-making ability of individual students, where complex value-laden trade-offs are involved, offers a very unique assessment opportunity for teachers. Third, the ability to use the results of these assessments for early-warning purposes, working toward possible intervention work by teachers and social service professionals, offers another fruitful opportunity. Fourth, the classroom supports the use of cooperative teaching techniques, in which students use teamwork and pro-social behavior to accomplish assigned tasks. Such cooperative teaching combined with a graphical summation of the decision-making process at the end of every class can reiterate and reinforce the concepts discussed by the groups, yield a common framework the students can build upon from year to year, build a pictorial representation that is more easily remembered by the students, and offer a decision-making framework that can be used in the class when analyzing individual behavioral situations.
FIGS. 8A-H depict another embodiment of the present invention. The figures show different screen displays for a simpler algorithm than that discussed above. In FIGS. 8C and 8D, only two consequences and outcomes are identified for each choice option. Unlike the previous embodiment, a comprehensive listing of consequences and outcomes is not provided by the user. The two positive and negative consequences and outcomes listed for each choice option represent the most likely consequences and outcomes for each option. In FIG. 8E, only two goals are identified for each choice option. Unlike the previous embodiment, a comprehensive listing of goals is not provided by the user. The positive and negative goals listed for each option represent the most likely positive and negative goals for each option. In FIG. 8F, the user contrasts the listed goals, or performs a trade-off between the goals which he or she feels are most important. The user is also asked to indicate which goal is the most important to the user. The selections are indicated by the pointers. In FIG. 8H, the user is asked to identify the primary reason (or rationale) that he or she would decide to tell the truth (the choice option selected in FIG. 8G). As indicated by the pointer, the user chose (b).
In another embodiment, the decision chain is constructed by the following steps:
(a) determine a code corresponding to the choice context;
(b) determine a code corresponding to each listed choice option i (where i is the number of each choice option);
(c) obtain a positive and negative response to the following question: “What is the most likely good (+) thing or result and bad (−) thing or result for each of the listed choice options?”;
(d) obtain a positive and negative response to the following question: “What is the likely future end result and why is that important to you, for each of your good (+) and bad (−) results?”;
(e) read positive (+) response to question in (c) for each choice option i and determine code corresponding thereto;
(f) read positive (+) response to question in (d) for each choice option i and determine code corresponding thereto;
(g) read negative (−) response to question in (c) for each choice option i and determine code corresponding thereto;
(h) read negative (−) response to question in (d) for each choice option i and determine code corresponding thereto;
(i) repeat steps (e) through (f) for each choice option i;
(j) determine code corresponding to choice option selected;
(k) determine code corresponding to rationale for choice option selection; and
(l) determine score as set forth above based on whether positive or negative items from each chain are contrasted by user.
Note that Exhibit A hereinbelow shows a representative embodiment of the instructional materials for assisting users in developing better critical thinking/reasoning skills related to choices they make. In particular, Exhibit A illustrates how the method of the present invention may be presented to children via specific factual contexts also provided therein.
An alternative embodiment of the present invention is shown in FIG. 7 wherein the invention is accessible through a communications network, and more particularly, the Internet and/or a public switched telephone network (PSTN). This figure shows only the high level components of this alternative embodiment along with arrows indicating the primary data and control flows between these components so that one of ordinary skill in the art will understand how to make and use the present embodiment of the invention. However, it is also worth noting that in order simplify FIG. 7, not all data and control flows between the illustrated components are shown. Additional data and/or control flows will be described hereinbelow. Accordingly, this embodiment of the invention includes an instructional server 704 (e.g., website) operatively connected to a communications network 708 (e.g., the Internet and/or a PSTN) for providing the critical thinking instructional materials corresponding to the method and system of the present invention. In particular, the instructional server 704 provides the following services:

- a. Provides a network interactive embodiment of the present invention.
- b. Allows a user to download instructional sessions and subsequently upload results therefrom
  the instructional materials and the method of the invention may be provided to network 708 users at corresponding user network device/nodes (e.g., a personal computer having an Internet browser) such as network device/node 712. Thus, in one embodiment, such users may access the instructional materials on line from the instructional server 704, wherein this server retains and controls access to substantially all of the instructional materials and the user responses therefrom. However, in another embodiment, at least some of the instructional materials and/or corresponding software therefor may be downloaded from the instructional server 704 for at least assisting the instructional server 704 in the presentation and processing of both the instructional materials as well as user responses thereto. Thus, in this latter embodiment, an instructional client module 716 may be downloaded (or otherwise provided) to facilitate user interaction with the present invention. In particular, certain components of: the presentation engine (described hereinbelow), the help module (described hereinbelow), the level control (described hereinbelow), the response timer (described hereinbelow), the user response evaluator (described hereinbelow) as well as versions of one or more of the instructional server 704 associated databases (described hereinbelow) may be incorporated into the instructional client modules 716.

In at least some contexts where the instruction server 704 is utilized, users may be students (e.g., grades 1 through 6), or others who desire (or require) supervision and/or additional instruction in making reasoned choices such as the present invention facilitates. In such circumstances, there may be a supervisor/monitor/teacher (also denoted herein as merely a supervisor) that review the performance of users for which they have such responsibility, and for receiving alerts when one of their users appear to be experiencing difficulties that warrant informing the supervisor. Accordingly, such supervisors may communicate with the instructional server 704 through a supervisor/monitor/teacher network device/node 720 also operatively connected to the instructional server 704 via the network 708.
Regarding the instructional server 704, it includes a network interface 724 for receiving and transmitting information related to the instructional material and responses thereto on the network 708. The network interface provides network input from the users and supervisors to various program elements (e.g., cgi scripts, as one skilled in the art will understand) such as a purchasing interface 728, a user registration 732, and a user session controller 736, these being described hereinbelow.
Thus, regarding the purchasing interface 728, this component allows for the purchasing the use of the instructional materials, the software for providing the instructional material interactively, and related support (e.g., storage of user performances, supervisor alerts, statistical comparisons of user performances with other users, etc.). The purchasing interface 728 has the following inputs and outputs:
Inputs:

- a. From supervisors/monitors/teachers: Requests to license the instructional materials of the present invention, requests to review license agreement
- b. From the purchasing and accounting back office component 742 (described hereinbelow): Verification of purchase, instructional materials access key code or other access identifier

Outputs:

- a. To supervisors/monitors/teachers: Responses to requests for information about the instructional materials; license agreement information; instructional materials access key code or other access identifier
- b. To the purchasing and accounting back office component 742: Purchase information (e.g., credit card information etc), type of license requested, duration of license, etc.

Note that such a purchase is a licensing agreement wherein the licensee is allowed to use the instructional materials and utilize the related services provided by the instructional server 704 for a specified time period (e.g., one semester, one year, etc), for a specified maximum number of users (e.g., 20 students), a maximum number of computers, and/or for specified levels of critical thinking presentations and interactions (e.g., the higher levels of selecting choice options, providing rationales may be provided at different costs from the lower levels). Note that the purchasing interface 742 may be accessed by a user, a supervisor or other (e.g., school) administrator for purchasing a use license to the invention for one or more users. Moreover, as indicated above, the purchasing interface 728 communicates with the purchasing and accounting backoffice 740 for obtaining license payment and for providing access identification for accessing the services of the instructional server 704. Note that the assess identification is then output to the purchaser via the purchasing interface 728 and the network 708 to the purchaser. Moreover, the purchasing and accounting backoffice components 740 also generate validation information for use in validating each user access under such a license (as described hereinbelow). Furthermore, such validation information is stored in the purchasing and licensing database 742.
Regarding the user registration component 732, this component receives the assess information supplied to a purchaser for thereby registering one or more users so that these users can utilize the services of the instructional server 704. Accordingly, the user registration 732 communicates with the purchasing and accounting backoffice components 740 for verifying that the access identification supplied is valid and allows the number users (at their corresponding critical thinking levels) desired to be registered. Note that in One embodiment, a supervisor (e.g., a teacher) may register entire class. In addition to the names of the users provided to the user registration 732, this component may also be supplied with additional user information for thereby storing a data profile of the user(s) in the user profile database 744. In particular, the following additional information may be requested about a user and stored in the user profile database 744:

- (a) age,
- (b) grade,
- (c) school type,
- (d) ethnicity,
- (e) grade point average,
- (f) history,
- (g) scores on standardized tests, and
- (h) parental status.

Regarding the user session controller 736, this component substantially controls and monitors an instructional session with a user. In particular, the user session controller 736 requests and receives user validation information that identifies at least the user requesting the instructional services of the server 704. Note that such user validation information may be a user specific password (input, e.g., by a teacher or the user), or the user's name together with a code that can be used to identify the purchased license which permits the user to access the instructional server 704. In either case, however, the controller 736 activates the user validation component 748 for determining the validity of the user's input identification, and whether the user is allowed to access the requested instructional materials. Note that the user validation 748 accesses at least one of the user profile database 744 and the supervisor/monitor/teacher database 752 to verify the user's identity, and in some embodiments, to verify that the user has access to the instructional materials requested. Additionally, the user session controller 736 provides the following functionality:

- (a) Determines type of interaction (e.g., audio, video or streaming audio/video) to be supplied to a user.
- (b) Performs the steps of FIG. 1 by activating other server modules.
- (c) Communicates with the factual context selector 756 for obtaining the identity of a (next) factual context to present to the user during an instructional session.
- (d) Communicates with the response timer 760 to obtain one or more time intervals within which the user must give a response to an instructional session question.
- (e) Communicates with the level controller 764 to determine the deepest level of critical thinking analysis to which it is desired that the user have presented thereto.
- (f) Outputs the factual context identity, the deepest level of critical thinking and response time data to the presentation engine 768 so that this engine is able to provide an appropriate presentation to the user.
- (g) Outputs incomplete sessions to the session archives database 772 (e.g., user terminates a session prematurely).
- (h) Outputs user performance statistics to the performance statistics database 776 (described hereinbelow).
- (i) Receives instructional material responses from the user and communicates with the user response evaluator 780 to determine whether the user provided an appropriate response which will allow the user to, e.g., progress through additional instructional materials at a deeper level.
- (j) Determines, using the results from the user response evaluator 780, whether the user must continue with the current material, has completed the current session successfully, proceed to a deeper level, or has failed to properly analyze the current factual context. Note that FIG. 1 and its related descriptive text hereinabove is illustrative of the processing performed here.
- (k) Communicates with the supervisor alert module 784 to alert a supervisor when a user (for which the supervisor has responsibility) appears to be having persistent difficulties; the alert may be real time during the user's session or after the user has terminated the session; moreover, such an alert may be by email and/or a graphical alert pushed to the supervisor/monitor/teacher's network node 720.
- (l) Retrieves partially completed instructional materials from the session archives 772 using data identifying the user so that the partially completed materials can be continued substantially at the point where the materials was prematurely terminated.

Regarding the factual context selector 756, this component may include a random or psuedo-random number generator for identifying a next factual context for presentation to a user. However, in at least some embodiments, the factual context selector 756 accesses a table of factual contexts descriptors, wherein this table is stored in the factual contexts database 788, and the table describes the factual contexts also stored therein. In particular, since it is an aspect of the invention to present factual contexts in different environmental and relational settings (e.g., family, school, community, friends, strangers, vacations, fables, etc.), the descriptor for each stored factual context may categorize each factual context according to its environmental and relational settings. Accordingly, the factual context selector 756 may randomly (or psuedo-randomly) select a factual context from a particular category dependent upon a user's selection of factual context category, and/or a supervisor's selection of a factual context category. Moreover, such a selection of a factual context may be performed by specifying and/or determining the goals and/or the driving forces that are involved in the choice option trade-offs presented by the selected factual context. Additionally, note that in some embodiments the factual context selector 756 may access information identifying a predetermined order that certain factual contexts are to be presented to the user. In particular, such predetermined orders of factual contexts may be input to the instructional server 704 and stored in the supervisor/monitor/teacher database 792 (which is described hereinbelow). For example, a supervisor (e.g., a teacher) may input an ordered list identifying factual contexts, wherein the list ordering is the order in which the identified factual contexts are to be provided to each student for which the supervisor is responsible. Alternatively, such an ordered list may be referenced in the user profile data for each of the students.
Regarding further details of the factual contexts database 788, this database also includes, for each factual context stored therein, the corresponding choice options, goals, driving forces and rationales as described hereinabove.
Regarding further details of the supervisor/monitor/teacher database 792, this database also includes bi-directional associations between the stored data identifying each supervisor and the users for which the supervisor is responsible. Additionally, this database includes data for contacting each supervisor (e.g., network address, email address, and/or phone number), and under what conditions the supervisor should be alerted regarding user difficulties.
Regarding the level controller 764, in addition to determining the deepest level of critical thinking analysis for which it is desired that instructional material be presented to the user, this component determines an appropriate initial level at which a user commences an instructional session. Thus, the level controller 764 accesses the user's profile from the user profile database 744 for determining therefrom the levels at which the user has succeeded and the levels that the user has experienced difficulties. Additionally, the level controller 764 may access the session archives 772 to retrieve information about a previous unfinished instructional session (query information for performing the retrieval being stored in the user's profile). By gathering such information, the level controller 764 determines an appropriate level in the instructional material for the user to continue in a new session. In particular, the level controller 764 may start the user at a level lower than he/she has previously reached for thereby reinforcing previous levels and also providing initial successes for the user at beginning of an instructional session for thereby motivating the user to continue.
Regarding the presentation engine 768, this component provides the majority of the user output during an instructional session. In particular, the presentation engine 768 provides the following functionality:

- (a) Presents instructional materials to users in a desired medium, the mediums include: (i) graphical (ii) audio, (iii) streaming audio/video.
- (b) Outputs synthesized speech of substantially any text either on user demand (e.g., user clicks on text), or automatically with substantially all textual output. Note that for children having poor or no reading skills such synthesized speech may allow the instructional materials to be effectively presented to such children.
- (c) Outputs email to users and/or supervisors regarding, e.g., user performance evaluations, passwords needed to access instructional materials, and notices of new instructional materials.

Note that the presentation engine 768 receives output requests from various components such as the user registration 732, the user session controller 736, the supervisor alert 784, and the help module 796. Accordingly, each input to the presentation engine 768 identifies or provides the data for outputting together with an indicator identifying one or more output mediums (as in (a) above) in which the output is to be presented to a user or supervisor. Note that the presentation engine 768 in general retrieves the output data and/or a template thereof from one of the databases accessible by the instructional server 704. In particular, the user session controller 736 provides the presentation engine 768 with an identifier for accessing the next portion of an instructional session related to a factual context. Thus, the presentation engine uses this identifier to retrieve factual context data from the factual contexts database 788 for outputting to a user. The presentation engine 768 also uses message identifiers from the supervisor alert 784 and the help module 796 to retrieve the corresponding messages from the supervisor/monitor/teacher database 792 and the help database 800 respectively, wherein the help database provides graphical, textual and animated help to users requesting such further assistance (as will be described further hereinbelow). Additionally, the presentation engine uses input from the user registration 732 to provide user registration presentations (e.g., visual and/or audio presentations) to a user or supervisor so that he/she may register with the instructional server 704. Further, the presentation engine 768 uses input from the user registration 732 for emailing information to a user or supervisor such as registration codes and/or passwords.
Regarding the help database 800, this database stores help and user instructional assistance information that is accessed by the help module 796 in response to a user request. In particular, the help module 796 provides the following functionality:

- (a) Receives requests for assistance, e.g., such input may be data derived from the speech recognition unit 804 in response to speech input by a requester.
- (b) Accesses the help database 800 for appropriate instructional materials and help files for appropriate responses to help requests
- (c) Outputs such appropriate responses to the presentation engine for presentation to the requester in the medium designated by the requester

Note that the combination of the help database 800 and the help module 796 may provide context sensitive help to a user. For example, these components may provide the user with help information that is dependent upon the user's profile data (e.g., the reading level of the user), whether this is the first or successive request for help related to the same condition, and the level of critical thinking that the user has achieved.
Regarding the user response evaluator 780, this component evaluates user responses to the instructional materials, e.g., for determining whether users can appropriately perform critical reasoning at the level being presented. In particular, the user response evaluator 780 provides the following functionality:

- (a) Receives input from the user session controller 736 indicative of a user response to the instructional materials.
- (b) Evaluates user responses according to the steps of FIGS. 4A-4C; i.e., identifications of the user's choice options are obtained, and the corresponding user input results, and rationales are compared for consistency with predetermined lists results and rationales corresponding to the goals and driving forces also provided by the user.
- (c) Stores and retrieves runtime session instructional information from the instructional session runtime database 808, wherein this database includes descriptions of instructional concepts, corrective messages for the user, the status and performance of each user while he/she is interacting with the instructional materials via the server 704.
- (d) Performance data is output to the user session controller 736.

Regarding the supervisor alert 784, this component determines an appropriate message to send to a supervisor regarding difficulties a user is having with instructional materials, wherein the supervisor is responsible for monitoring the user's progress. More particularly, the supervisor alert 784 performs the following tasks:

- (a) Receives input from the user session controller indicating that a user is having difficulties in a particular instructional session
- (b) Uses an identification of the user to obtain the user's supervisor/monitor/teacher's identification (e:g., network node address and/or email) from the database 792 and/or the user profile database 744.
- (c) Uses an identification of the factual context, the level of critical thinking at which the user is having difficulties for retrieving an appropriate message from the instructional session runtime database 808 to send to the identified supervisor. Note that such messages may include information specific to the particular factual context with which the user is having difficulty such as an identification of the factual context, its category as it relates to environmental and relational settings.
  Additionally, note that more than one supervisor may be alerted regarding the difficulties a user is experiencing.

Regarding the statistics database 776, this database retains statistics on the effectiveness of the instructional materials of the present invention. For example, how many and/or how quickly do users progress through the critical thinking levels according age, background, ethnicity, and reading skills. Additionally, statistics may be retained on the effectiveness of individual factual contexts. For example, statistics may be determined as to whether the mastery of the critical thinking skills for a particular factual context is better or worst preparation for the mastery of critical thinking skills of a subsequent factual context.
Regarding the instructional session runtime database 808, this database stores various instructional session messages as well as the runtime status of each user instructional session.
Regarding the speech recognition unit 804, this component may be utilized with users that do not have sufficient computer skills to perform the instructional tasks otherwise. Moreover, user speech input may be particularly beneficial for users that are handicapped and unable to easily provide input by selection devices (e.g., a computer mouse) and/or a keyboard.

- (a) Receives user input derived from speech input by the user; this input can come via various networks such the Internet and/or a public switched telephone network (PSTN). Such speech input may be the primary technique of input for users with impaired computer skills; e.g., children in grades 1 to 4.
- (b) Outputs data corresponding to the speech; in one embodiment, it is contemplated that the recognized input does not require the speech recognition unit to identify words particular to a particular factual context. Accordingly, this unit may need to only recognize words that are common to substantially all factual contexts such as numbers and/or letters for identifying choices presented to the user. However, it is within the scope of the present invention that the speech recognition unit may also recognize words related to a particular factual context that has been presented to the user. Accordingly, a list of such words may be provided to the speech recognition unit to disambiguate user spoken responses.

The foregoing description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description. Furthermore, the description is not intended to limit the invention to the form disclosed herein. Consequently, variations and modifications commensurate with the above teachings, and the skill or knowledge of the relevant art, are within the scope of the present invention. By way of example, one or more of the steps in FIGS. 1A-D and/or 4A-C may be omitted as desired. By way of illustration, the series of steps to obtain from the user a list of choice distinctions may be omitted. Alternatively, the ordering of the steps in the figures can be altered. A way of illustration, the request to the user for a list of driving forces can follow the request for the selection of a choice option. Depending upon the profile of the user, one or more of the assessment steps can be skipped. For example, for a user who will provide each of the listings requested in steps 112, 138, 146, 154, 162, 170, 178, and 186, assessment steps 116, 139, 147, 155, 163, 171, and 179 can be omitted. In other words, only one assessment step would be used in this alternative embodiment. Various other displays may be used in connection with the above-described process. For example, the display can be progressive as the various lists are entered by the user. In other words, the display at any one step will display the information entered by the user in prior steps. The embodiments described herein above are further intended to explain best modes known for practicing the invention and to enable others skilled in the art to utilize the invention in such, or other, embodiments and with various modifications required by the particular applications or uses of the present invention. It is intended that the appended claims be construed to include alternative embodiments to the extent permitted by the prior art.

Exhibit A

Introduction

The primary objective of parents and teachers is to systematically work with our children to enable them to be productive, responsible citizens. Children must be taught to make good decisions through understanding the consequences associated with the various choice options they encounter each day. This method of learning is far superior to rote memorization of what behaviors in which they should, or should not, engage. Because, it is beyond our ability to prepare a definitive set of rules that will deal with every type of situation, which our children will face, in their lives.
Our goal as educators should be to help students become better life-decision-makers, thus directly influencing their ability to become good citizens. Students need to develop the ability to define goals and assess the relative likelihood that each of their choices will not hinder their chances of ultimately achieving their own personal goals. Indeed, students need to develop the ability of ethical reflection and thoughtful choice analysis. The primary beneficiaries will be our children, our families and, ultimately, our society as a whole. We realize that this is by no means an easy task, but the rewards are clear, if not vital, to the very survival of our American society.
In order to develop good citizens, the fundamental building block must involve teaching our children to understand the decision-making process. Learning decision-making, like most things in life, must be done one step at a time. For example, a reasonable parallel may be found in mathematics. Students must first learn to add before they can learn to multiply, and they must learn to multiply before they learn to take square roots. Once these basic relationships between numbers are understood, the student is then ready to apply this knowledge to algebraic “word problem” derived equations. Similarly, the LifeGoals Critical Thinking Skills curriculum breaks down decision-making into basic operations which, when put together, can be utilized to solve the “choice problems” our children are faced with everyday.
The basic teaching objectives of the LifeGoals curriculum are:

- Expand student awareness of the number of choices that are made, explicitly and implicitly, every day of their lives;
- Create student awareness of the range of choices available to them with regard to any significant decision;
- Increase student understanding of the critical determining characteristics of each choice option within the decision context, and their relation to the likely short- and long-term consequences of that choice;
- Help students identify and evaluate the causal relationships between their personal goals and the choices they make across an array of decisions that range from simple everyday decisions to more complex types of risk-creating decisions;
- Develop students' ability (and recognition of the need to take the time) to graphically map out choice options with regard to any decision or problem context, including drawing of inferences with regard to their long-term goals.

LifeGoals is a curriculum that develops each component of the choice process, continually reinforcing the need to step back and analyze the options available before making a decision. Concepts are introduced as the students become capable of comprehending and integrating them. At each grade level, the concepts of choice are reinforced and practiced repeatedly.
The following is a brief overview of the six building blocks of the LifeGoals GOOD Decision Model that corresponds to the six elementary grades [1]-[6]:
[1] Children in the first grade focus primarily on the core idea of choice, specifically, understanding and defining choice options (which continues into the second grade and is reinforced at every grade level).
[2] In the second grade, students work on developing labels for the distinctions that best characterize their choice options.
[3] The third grade curriculum involves teaching the concept of sequencing, that is, linking the defining distinctions to behavioral consequences, both positive and negative, for each choice option.
[4] The fourth grade curriculum moves the time frame further into the future, connecting (associating) the short-term consequences of a choice option to the longer-term outcomes, for both positive and negative consequences.
[5] By the end of the fifth grade, the students are familiar with the concept of defining their own personal goals, and relating each choice option to their goals. Each student will understand the pathways which begin with the defining characteristics of choice options, lead to their likely positive and negative consequences, the corresponding long-term outcomes and, ultimately, to their own goals. This comprehensive, holistic approach of being able to visualize and chart the entire decision process is known as chunking. Chunking simply refers to the ability of the student to treat the decision-making model as one complete process, without the need to break down into its component parts every time it is applied. For example, chunking applied to walking means the individual would not have to think about each aspect, like “pick up left foot” for every step they take. This obviously only is achieved with much repetition.
[6] In grade six, the focus centers on the “why” underlying goal selection, with discussions as to the acceptability of the differing ways to achieve and build one's confidence and self-identity. These higher-level driving forces that determine which self-defining goals are important are value orientations. Discussions of these abstract concepts in class permit the students to both know themselves better as well as gain a better understanding of their classmates as well. Choice is ultimately seen as a result of a trade-off between competing value orientations. That is, each choice option can be linked to a goal. And, each goal is important to the individual because it “satisfies” a value orientation. Thus, choice really includes at the highest level a trade-off between value orientations. Clearly, understanding that different individuals have different value orientations that drive their choice behavior is key to developing acceptance of others.
In the second semester of the sixth grade, this understanding of choice and the reasons that driye it, made possible by the GOOD Decision framework, is used to analyze the decisions of others in more traditional academic coursework, like literature or social studies (figures from current events and history). The ability to analyze the decision processes of others builds self-confidence in the student, essentially empowering the student to move the focus outside of “self” when analyzing a situation or a relationship. This concept is extended by a series of involving exercises using student-selected individuals to analyze, like a favorite movie character.

LifeGoals Critical Thinking Skills Curriculum Template

FIG. 9 summarizes the key components of the LifeGoals GOOD Decision Model by the grade in which they will be taught. Gaining a complete understanding of each of the curriculum building blocks that define the decision-making model is critical to developing effective teaching skills that are consistent from teacher to teacher, especially across grade levels.
At the heart of the LifeGoals model is the belief that if our children will take a moment to step back and think before they act, they will make better decisions. By graphically showing them a method they can use to understand and analyze their own “thinking processes,” we give our children a tool to learn and develop an updateable framework or model that will greatly minimize errors in their present and future decision-making. Clearly, producing better citizens is our goal, and building character in our children is part of this process. The LifeGoals curriculum provides us the ability to deliver this critically important part of our children's education, perhaps the most meaningful gift we can ever give our children.

Goal-Oriented Option Development: The GOOD Decision Model

There are four strategic imperatives that define the development of a choice model with regard to decision-making:

1. It is imperative that we teach children to think about their future. To this end, every module of the curriculum will focus on developing the concept of time, continually expanding upon it for every age group.
2. The second key imperative is to teach children how to develop, and ultimately assess, the causal linkages between choice options and the consequences of that choice. Ultimately, the child should be able to link the longer-term consequences or outcomes to personal goals (Goal-Oriented). Lessons used in the Critical Thinking Skills curriculum rely on the child making connections, or associations, across all of the component levels of the GOOD Decision Model. That is, as the curriculum advances, children learn and re-learn the definitions of each of the components involved with the decision-making model. From self-questioning, they learn how to identify the future implications of their choice options across each of the levels in an interactive fashion (Option Development)
Goal-Oriented Option Development defines the GOOD Decision Model.
3. The third imperative and the principal goal of the. GOOD Decision Model is to provide the foundation for character development by enabling the child to construct a complete decision network for any choice situation that s/he may encounter. Once a child can work with the decision-making model as a unified whole, the GOOD Decision Model will reinforce in the child that it is in his/her best interest to select the choice option that helps him/her achieve his/her own personal goal. The exercises or lessons taught include how to deal with complex situations, like drug use or sexual behavior, or even to explain, after the fact, why a particular choice was not so good. Perhaps more importantly, the ability to “mentally rehearse” and prepare for potentially problematic life-situations is a significantly differentiating positive for this “choice understanding and elaboration” decision-making approach.
4. The fourth imperative involves the basic psychological and philosophical perspective of the GOOD Decision Model. Simply put, this model focuses solely on linking the right choice to one's own personal goal, and not on determining what the goal ought to be. Certainly, goal-related discussions will emerge in the classroom, but the philosophical belief of this model is that the most appropriate and beneficial discussions concerning a child's specific goals should take place at home with the child's parents.
In summary, the premise of the GOOD Decision Model is that a teaching framework for decision-making will enable students to discuss choice-goal conflicts in an open, constructive atmosphere. The express assumption of the GOOD Decision Model is that young people can learn to think clearly if they are taught a good, logical framework for assessing choice options, especially in the context of their own personal goals.

Teaching Approach

Cooperative Learning, Decision Mapping, and Trade-off Framing

Teaching the LifeGoals Critical Thinking Skills curriculum involves making decisions, starting with the teacher. This curriculum is intended to emphasize flexibility. Which lessons are selected, the order of lessons taught, and the teaching methods to be utilized are decisions to be made by the teacher, given his or her individual classroom situation. The common ground is the underlying decision-making theory, which can be (and should be) explained in a myriad of different ways. There are recommended teaching methods, primarily focusing on a combination of cooperative learning and developing a diagrammatic summary of the decision process. The cornerstone of the GOOD Decision Model is the development of the choice map and familiarizing students with its meaning.
The following sections overview these key conceptual areas. Importantly, a general description across all elementary grades is reviewed so that teachers can understand the entire process/model, and will thereby have the ability to adopt other ideas as well as alternative ways of explaining these concepts in their lessons.

Curriculum Overview

As will be seen in the individual grade lessons, the first two years of the LifeGoals curriculum is intended basically to provide a background for the concept of choice along with defining the concept of choice options. This is extended to both positive and negative defining implications or distinctions of the choice options. Stories and poems are used, along with shorter scenarios, to provide the contexts for discussion of the related concepts of choice and decision-making. Students are focused on developing an understanding that life is full of choices, and they must define what options are available for each choice situation. In addition, the consequences of these options are defined, both the positive and negative.
Starting in grade 3, the concept of trade-off (to be discussed in more detail later) between the longer-term definers of choice options, outcomes, will be integrated into the curriculum. It is this dual understanding of (i) the longer-term, higher-level definers of choice (both positive and negative), in combination with the (ii) appropriate trade-off to be assessed that is the theoretical basis upon which the curriculum is grounded. The translation of outcomes (grade 3), to personal goals (grade 4), and then to driving forces (grade 5), for both the positive and negative consequences, defines the higher levels at which the trade-off will be discussed and evaluated.
In the second semester of grade 6, the LifeGoals decision-making paradigm is extended outside of individual choice situations to those choices made by others, ranging from media characters to historical figures. Understanding the decision-making behavior of others is critical to developing self confidence and the ability to deal with peer pressure, which is often times the determining factor in difficult choice situations that our children face.

Teaching Orientation: Cooperative Learning

The primary teaching orientation of the LifeGoals curriculum involves “cooperative learning,” which means:

- Students use teamwork and pro-social behavior to accomplish their common tasks or learning activities;
- Students are positively working together in small interdependent groups;
- Activities are structured so that students need each other to accomplish their common tasks or learning activities;

OR

- Students are working in small groups independently on the same activity.
  This classroom “cooperative” teaching orientation combined with a graphical summation (GOOD Decision Model Graphical Summary) of the decision-making process at the end of every class serves to (a) reiterate and reinforce the concepts discussed by the various groups, (b) yield a common framework the students can build upon from year to year, (c) build a “pictorial” representation that is more easily remembered by the students, and (d) offer a decision-making framework that can be used in class when analyzing individual behavioral situations.

Teaching Orientation: Methods

The three forms of teaching LifeGoals detailed below are typically utilized during the same lesson with the younger students. That is, students are divided into small groups representing the different approaches to teaching the GOOD Decision Model. The teacher determines the groups, defines the task, appoints a leader and monitors their progress as the class progresses. The results of the group activity are reported back to the class for teacher-led discussion. The methods are identified for the different groups with a corresponding outline of the steps to be implemented.

Group 1: Role Playing

- Utilize situation concepts based on real-life scenarios
- Allow students time to quietly discuss what they will do to role play their situation
- Role play the situation using different choices
- Students explain each choice based on the GOOD Decision Model for their grade level Discussion: Ask part or all of the class which choice option they would choose, and why.

Group 2: Illustrations

- Use arts and crafts materials to illustrate each real life scenario theme
- Display students' creations on a bulletin board
  Discussion: Have students explain their illustrations and give the reasons underlying their choice of subject matter.

Group 3: Story Web/GOOD Decision Model Mapping

- Repeating the “choice situation” and/or sharing another related real life scenario with the group
- Create a Choice Web based on the situation, effectively summarizing the output of the cooperative learning groups
- Use Choice Mapping—reinforcing the choice definitions (by interacting with students and continually questioning their ideas and understanding) and summarizing their responses in a graphical format on the board
  Discussion: Ask part or all of the class which choice option they would choose, and why.

Why Cooperative Learning?

As we know, cooperative learning is a generic term for various small group instructional procedures. Students work together on academic tasks in small groups to help themselves and their group mates learn together. And, by virtue of the fact that multiple approaches to cooperative learning can be incorporated into the same lesson, serves to greatly increase the likelihood that all members of the class will gain an understanding of the key learning objectives. This is achieved by:

- providing a shared cognitive set of information across students
- motivating students to learn the material
- ensuring that students construct their own knowledge
- providing formative feedback
- developing social and group skills necessary for success outside the classroom, including positive interaction across members of different cultural groups

Structured Learning Team Group Roles

When putting together groups, you may want to consider assigning (or having students select) their roles for the group. Students may also rotate group roles depending on the activity.
Potential group roles and their functions include:

- Leader—The leader is responsible for keeping the group on the assigned task at hand. S/he also makes sure that all members of the group have an opportunity to participate, learn and have the respect of their team members. The leader may also want to check to make sure that all of the group members have mastered the learning points of a group exercise.
- Recorder—The recorder picks and maintains the group files and folders on a daily basis and keeps records of all group activities including the material contributed by each group member. The recorder writes out the solutions to problems for the group to use as notes or to submit to the instructor. The recorder may also prepare presentation materials when the group makes oral presentations to the class.
- Reporter—The reporter gives oral responses to the class about the group's activities or conclusions.
- Monitor—The monitor is responsible for making sure that the group's work area is left the way it was found and acts as a timekeeper for timed activities.
- Wildcard (in groups of five)—The wildcard acts as an assistant to the group leader and assumes the role of any member that may be missing.

Teaching Issues and Notes: The GOOD Decision Model

There are three fundamental issues or directions that must be reinforced in every lesson. First, the choice scenario must be both realistic and entertaining. We must capture the attention of the child. This is done by (a) tailoring the situation to the environment (rural vs. urban, etc.) and the ethnicity of the class, and (b) taking on your best story teller voice and embellishing the existing “choice situation” story where you feel you can add to the level of involvement on the part of the class.
Second, all choice-related terminology must be continually reinforced. For all grades, but primarily first and second, translate the concepts of the choice model in any way the students will best comprehend these ideas. It is in no way intended that the terms, which define the model, necessarily be used verbatim in the classroom. They are simply the common lexicon that teachers will use when learning or discussing the model. Teachers know their students and are best qualified to find ways to best explain these concepts of choice. Over time, the “best practices” of teachers defining the elements of the choice model will be compiled and summarized as part of the curriculum training.
In the initial assessment of the curriculum, the following teaching issues seemed to present themselves on a regular basis, and therefore represent the common core of developing a “child's teaching lexicon” for explaining the choice model.

- Students have a hard time distinguishing between a distinction and a consequence. A distinction is the defining words or labels that correspond to both poles (+ and −) of each choice option. Sometimes the distinctions are consequences, and they can be identified as such. This happens because the children are providing the label, and they will think of it at the consequence level. Trying to separate the labels for choice options (distinctions) from consequences is desirable whenever possible, however.
- Many children think that consequences, the effect or immediate result that will likely take place if a choice option is selected, are always negative. The teacher must redefine, emphasize and continually reinforce that consequences are both positive and negative.
- Outcomes are a conclusion or result reached through a process of thinking about what could happen in the future, as a logical result of the consequences. It may be described as a longer term consequence. To illustrate,


	[consequence]	“What will happen now?”
	[outcome]	“Given (consequence), what
		will likely happen next (in
		the future time frame)?

- A goal is the result or achievement toward which effort is directed. It is the desired personal end that drives decision-making, or, more specifically, it is the “why?” a choice option is seen as desirable.


	[goal]	“What is your intent, why is
		that important?”
		“What is your
		aim . . . ambition . . . ideal?

- Driving force is a term that is not likely to ever be used with students. As discussed, it is a theoretical component of the decision-making model. As such, it represents the—level drivers of choice. Said another way, driving force represents the personal reasons why we want to achieve our goals, or even the “why?” underlying the choice of our goals.


	[driving	“Why is (goal) important to
	force]	you?”
		“Why do you want to achieve
		this (goal)?”
		“What motivated you to
		choose this (goal)?”

Understanding the concept or notion of trade-off is the basis to understanding the fundamental reason underlying why children make the “not right,” typically short-term-oriented decision. First, trade-off involves a contrast between two higher-order level elements (consequences, outcomes, goals or driving forces) depending upon their maturity level and/or age. This simple fact remains that it is not the choice options that are the real things we choose between or among. Rather, it is the higher-level choice option-defining elements that govern why we choose what we do.
For children, however, the skill of identifying these more abstract, in-the-future decision-driving elements is not fully developed. The initial focus of the LifeGoals curriculum is on identifying these higher-level elements and understanding how they drive the choice process.
Secondly, research using the GOOD Decision Model permits us to understand exactly why children make the choices they do, specifically why they make the not-so-good choices we see. Analysis of children's decision-making has uncovered two key facts. The most obvious is that children focus on the shorter-term horizon. LifeGoals addresses this, as mentioned above, by focusing upon and defining the higher-level definers and drivers of choice, and providing lessons that force the children to identify these higher-level elements.
The not-so-obvious fact involves the realization that children in their choice process mistakenly contrast two different defining elements of their choice options. That is, children compare a positive distinction (+) of one choice option to the negative distinction (−) of the other choice option. This is because no two choice options in reality are equally preferred a priori. That is, one option initially is more desired by the child. This results in defining the most preferred option in terms of its positive pole, or consequence. And the less preferred choice option is defined in terms of its negative pole, or consequence. This biased contrast between positive of one option and negative of the other means the positive one will virtually always win out. Put simply, this learning now provides the basis to construct and teach a decision-making curriculum that will effectively change the way children think, and ultimately behave.
This completely new understanding of the reason children err in their decision-making is the critical breakthrough that provides the basis for actually affecting the behavior of children. By understanding the reason children err, we can teach them a process to avoid making this “biased” evaluation. The LifeGoals Critical Thinking curriculum focuses on this task, and this is the primary reason it is effective in changing the way children think and behave. The bottom up approach of using real life scenarios with a decision making model, requiring the definition of causal implications of choice options, is the most effective way in which this flaw in our children's thinking can be addressed.
Through the lessons, the children will be shown that this contrast, representing the flaw, is unfair, and typically yields results that in the long-term will not help them achieve their desired goals. Obviously, the fairer contrast is the positive-to-positive contrasting trade-off, which becomes the end focus of each lesson. And, once this concept can be demonstrated and understood, children will realize that it is in their long-term interest to choose the option, that in all likelihood, they did not give adequate time to think through.
When we can focus on this concept of defining and examining the appropriate, “more-fair” trade-off, which is integrated in the curriculum in the third grade, we can change the decision-making process of our children, essentially giving them adult skills at a much earlier age. This conceptual realization of the nature of trade-offs within the entire real life decision-making model is at the very core of LifeGoals, and is what serves to make it uniquely grounded, both theoretically, to deliver Critical Thinking Skills.

1a Curriculum Overview

During the first semester of first grade, students will be introduced to the definition and concept of choices. This will be accomplished through stories and poems that are read aloud to the class, and then the choices made by the characters in these stories and poems will be discussed as a class.
By the end of the first semester, students should be able to recognize a situation where a decision has to be made and identify different choice options involved in that situation.

Definitions:

Choice Context: A situation where a choice has to be made.
Choice Options: Alternatives or possibilities generated internally or externally. More simply put, the choice or choices that the student lists.

Lesson Plans:

Teachers will read stories, many from classic literature, that involve the children. These highly entertaining and involving stories will enable students to see examples of choices being made by the different key characters.
Individual lesson plans for the stories that illustrate the concept of choice have been included as a guideline to help assist in-group discussions. The lesson plans represent examples of context situations and two of the positive choice options for that situation. There are a variety of different ways that these GOOD Decision Model pathways can be utilized when teaching students about making choices. Books, games, videos, role playing, and class speakers are just some of the methods that can assist in teaching students about decision-making and choices. It has been found extremely useful to reinforce the concept of choice in the everyday classroom environment, in particular, when dealing with undesirable behavior. Asking the child what his or her choices are at the time the behavior is being exhibited does this. Significant changes in classroom behavior have been attributed to using this simple technique.

Learning Activity: Example

Included is an example of a learning activity that is used to help facilitate teaching of the concept of choices.
Teachers talk to their students about the concept of choice. Choice is defined for them.
Students are asked if they can think of a time when they have had to make a choice. Choices mentioned with the class are discussed and summarized on a bulletin board of choices that the students can identify with. At the end of the term, the list of choices is organized by where (school, home or community) the choice situation occurs. Further choice-type classifications could include the person one is with, or the time of day. A reward scheme to recognize the largest student contributors to the list is advised. This can be used as a group or class exercise.
By the end of the term, 100 choices is an expected number to have on the choice board. Reviewing this list on a regular basis serves well to reinforce the large number of choices the child is faced with everyday.
Curriculum 1a5—Choice “Perseverance: The Rabbit and the Turtle”

Overview

This lesson will help students begin to understand the concept of choice and choice context while exploring the idea of “perseverance.”

Objectives

- The students will discuss and learn what it means to make a choice.
- The students will begin to comprehend that everyone has choices as demonstrated by the characters in this story.
- The students will become aware that hard work pays off in the end.

Materials

- Manila paper
- Crayons/art supplies

Procedure—(A) Group Discussion

- 1. Teacher asks the following questions: “Can you think of a time when you may have made a bad choice? What happened? What do you think would have been a better choice? Why?”
- 2. Teacher reads Lesson story 1a5 “The Rabbit and the Turtle” to the class. Ask the children to listen very closely to what happens.

The Rabbit and the Turtle

(An adaptation of Aesop's Fables as translated by George Fyler Townsend)
It was a bright, sunny summer day in the forest. The birds were singing and happy. The grass was green and the trees were blowing in the wind. The animals were out enjoying the summer day. Up on the hill was a mother Fox, watching her children play.
Prancing happily down a path was a Rabbit. Coming very slowly along the same path, from the other direction, was a Turtle.
When they met, the Rabbit laughed at the Turtle. The Rabbit made fun of the short feet and slow pace of the Turtle.
The Turtle said, “I'm in no hurry, I'm just enjoying the day.”
The Rabbit said, “It can't be any fun going that slow, you can't get anywhere at that slow speed.”
The Turtle replied, “Though you may be swift as the wind, I will beat you in a race.” The Rabbit laughed out loud, believing losing a race to the Turtle was impossible.
The Rabbit asked, “Are you serious about this race?”
“Yes,” said the Turtle, “And, would you like to race for something, say, a bunch of carrots?”
“Sure” replied the Rabbit. He couldn't believe his luck! It would be easy to beat the Turtle, he thought, and he would be given fresh carrots to eat after his victory.
“Okay,” said the Turtle, “I will meet you tomorrow and I will beat you in a race.”
The Rabbit and the Turtle agreed that the mother Fox would choose the course for their race and determine the finish line. They agreed to both bring a bunch of carrots and meet the next morning to race.
That evening, both the Turtle and the Rabbit gathered up a big bunch of carrots to bring to the race. The Rabbit knew he would not need his, because he was certain to win, but he promised, so he collected them anyway. That evening, the Rabbit looked at the big bunch of carrots he collected, and began nibbling on them. He ate and ate, until they were all gone.
As they had agreed, the next morning both the Turtle and the Rabbit were ready to race. The mother Fox had marked a long racecourse, over three miles long. The Turtle brought his carrots, but the Rabbit did not, for he had eaten them all the night before. The Rabbit promised the mother Fox, that if he lost, he would go get a bunch of carrots for the Turtle the next day. They agreed, and the mother Fox started the race.
The Turtle started at his slow, steady pace. The Rabbit pranced down the path, showing off, ever increasing his speed, and laughing at how slow the Turtle was moving. The Rabbit ran ahead, but the more he ran, the sicker he became. The carrots he had eaten most of the night had made him sick. The Rabbit decided to lie down and rest a minute until he felt better. While lying down, he closed his eyes and fell asleep.
At last waking up, the Rabbit raced to the finish line, to find that the slow Turtle, who had never stopped, had won the race. And the Fox reminded all those who had watched, that “slow and steady wins the race.”

- 3. Teacher asks if the children understand what this story is about. Additional questions might be as follows: “Who can tell me what happened to the Rabbit?” Raise your hand if you think the Rabbit was wise to race that day. How about the Turtle? Why? How many think it was a bad choice for the Rabbit to take a nap? Why?
- 4. Discuss choices and what it means to make a choice. (Teacher writes on the board in large letters—CHOICES. On the left under the word CHOICES write THIS and on the right under the word CHOICES write THAT.) The Rabbit and the Turtle each had choices to make. Should they race each other or not race? Should they eat the carrots before the race or save the carrots? Should they rest during the race or keep moving?

Procedure—(B) Situation Card: “Perseverance: The Rabbit and the Turtle”

Divide the class into three cooperative learning groups. Or, choose one activity for the entire class to participate in.

Claims

What is claimed is:

1. A computational system, provided on a communications network, having at least one computer together with both a display and data storage operably connected thereto, for processing user data, comprising:

A selection means including the at least one computer, for selecting one of a plurality of different factual contexts for performing the operations (a) through (h) following by the at least one computer configured to perform predetermined computer programmatic instructions for performing the steps (a) through (h), wherein each of the factual contexts describes a corresponding situation within which a participant is presented with one or more choices for one or more possible behaviors for performing in said factual context, and wherein each of the factual contexts is provided as input to the computer programmatic instructions when these instructions are performed by the at least one computer;

(a) presenting the one factual context to a user via by the at least one computer upon retrieval by the at least one computer of the one factual context from the data storage, wherein the one factual context resides in the data storage, the one factual context describing a situation wherein one or more possible behaviors are available to the participant of said one factual context;

wherein the one factual context has associated therewith in the data storage

a plurality of choice option data items, distinct from the one factual context presented, describing choices of behavior for the participant, of the one factual context, for behaving in the corresponding situation, wherein the choice option data items include first and second different choice option data items,

wherein in response to the presenting of the one factual context to the user in operation (a), the operations (b) through (g) following are performed:

(b) requesting, via an output of the at least one computer, the user to specify a first collection of one or more of the choice option data items for identifying a behavior for the participant to perform in the one factual context, the requesting step (b) provided by the computer programmatic instructions performed by the at least one computer, the first collection including the first and second choice option data items;

(c) storing the first collection in the data storage;

(d) requesting, from an output of the at least one computer, the user to specify a second collection of the result data items corresponding to at least some of the choice option data items, the requesting step (d) provided by the computer programmatic instructions performed by the at least one computer;

(e) requesting, from an output of the at least one computer, the user to specify a third collection of one or more goal data items that are relevant to at least some of the choice option data items, the requesting step (e) provided by the computer programmatic instructions performed by the at least one computer;

wherein each of the one factual context, the plurality of choice option data items, the plurality of result data items, and the plurality of goal data items reside in the data storage prior to an initial performance of the steps (a) through (e) for the user;

(f) requesting, by the at least one computer, data identifying a corresponding reasoning from the user for each of the first and second choice option data items, the requesting step (f) provided by the computer programmatic instructions performed by the at least one computer;

wherein for each of the first and second choice option data items, the corresponding reasoning therefor includes data identifying a user reason in favor of the user selecting the choice option data item, and data identifying a user reason not in favor of the user selecting the choice option data item;

(g) receiving, by the at least one computer, data identifying a selected choice option data item of the first and second choice option data items, the selected choice option data item chosen by the user as having a preferred one of the possible behaviors over one of the possible behaviors for the other of the first and second choice option data items, the receiving step (g) provided by the computer programmatic instructions performed by the at least one computer; and

(h) determining, by the computer programmatic instructions, when the instructions are provided with additional reasoning from the user as to why the selected choice option data item is selected instead of the other choice option data item, a score or assessment of a proficiency of a decision making skill of the user;

wherein the step of determining the score or assessment is dependent upon the computer programmatic instructions determining whether the additional reasoning includes either (h-1) or (h-2) following:

(h-1) data indicative of the user having performed one of (i) and (ii) following:

(i) a comparison of: for the selected choice option data item, the user reason in favor of selecting the selected choice option data item, and for the other choice option data item, the user reason in favor of selecting the other choice option data item; and

(ii) a comparison of: for the selected choice option data item, the user reason in favor of selecting the selected choice option data item, and for the other choice option data item, the user reason not in favor of selecting the other choice option data item;

(h-2) no data indicative of the user having performed a comparison of: (i) the reason in favor of the selected choice option data item or the user reason not in favor of the selected choice option data item with (ii) the reason in favor of the other choice option data item, or the user reason not in favor of the other choice option data item; and

wherein the score or assessment is indicative of a higher user proficiency when the additional reasoning includes the data indicative of a performance of (h-1)(i) above instead of (h-1)(ii) or (h-2);

wherein the score or assessment is used for identifying a difficulty or defect.