try concept maps, many articles and tools are available at Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition IHMC. you may use the concept maps to monitor the learning patterns. It is not straightforward, but it is possibile to track the changes in the knowledge acquisition.

cmaps tries to represent the actual relations between the concepts. studying these relations may lead to some answers. I have a technological point of view to the issue here. What I am proposing here is a possible aid to what you are asking for. have a look here http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ you may find something useful

just to add... you may ignore this... you can also use consequence mapping. It guides thinking using concept maps to a final consequence... it allows the merge of creative and critical thinking together. I've done a paper on it if you are interested - but the idea of using consequence mapping was for promoting discussion in classroom. It probably could be extended to discussing higher - order thinking situations.

Dear Micah, Concept maps are built by learners. Instead of writing the knowledge in sentences, they are supposed to focus on the relations between the concepts. In cognition as I read and assume also, the more connections between the concepts the more understanding you may have.

Dear Amd,

I am more concerend more about the technical side, so I dont have a very deep knowledge in"implicit cognition research".

Concept maps can also be elicited via pairwise pathfinder ratings. The down side is that by providing the words for the relatedness ratings you force terms into someone's mental model of the device/system.

See the relevant article below.

Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 88–96. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.83.1.88

Wow! This is an intense discussion. I think both the question and the resulting semantics underscore the need for new definitions of what 'thinking' (and learning) fundamentally is, then, and only then, will you find the correct measurement of it. There is a really great quote from an article I am using in writing my dissertation that says: (paraphrase) 'are we measuring what we value, or do we value what we measure?' This discussion highlights that quote explicitly. First --what is 'thinking'? From my understanding of N-sci it is merely the association of impulses from one neural template in the brain to another neural template in the brain. How do we measure it? HA! Sooo many factors here: the object of the task, the brain centers being invigorated by the task, extraneous 'noise' during thinking processes that spike unrelated pulses, etc. etc. However, the two best (most affordable, portable, non-invasive) ways to measure 'thinking' in a N-sci context would be a) EEG and b) fNIRS. I have also developed an in vivo, noninvasive way to measure neurogenesis with classroom applications (which indirectly is also part of the thinking process, although LTP is more directly part of the thinking process) during my dissertation work using two protein biomarkers. If they increase you know they have learned. However, such tests cannot illuminate WHAT they have learned, nor can EEG or fNIRS tell you WHAT they are thinking about; merely, that they are thinking about something and this can be correlated to ERPs in certain brain regions to approximate critical thinking, creative thinking, etc. from cognitive psych...

I also want to add --this is a great discussion with some truly knowledgeable people.

hi ..everyone thanks for your valuable remarks ...but my point is that if there any valid /standardized tool/test to measure thinking.except neurological test like ERPs or EEG etc. We can measure thinking dispositions to access thinking pattern of that particular individual ...somewhere the level of thinking could also be ascertained through some tests (social science research methods)

Hi is this an animal or human study? There are quite a few tests that can be conducted on rodents that test their cognitive ability as well as learning and memory

The study is focused on school going students.

It seems that you simply need to use a Test of Non-verbal intelligence...Perhaps the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM)...to measure creative thinking. Then you could use a logic test to measure critical thinking, perhaps a standardized math test or something similar, probably the California Critical Thinking Skills test (CCTST) is best. Creative thinking is a heavy right-brain activity. Critical thinking is probably more logic centered and left brained. You also might try the following method:

test 1: RSPM

test 2: CCTST

test 3: Knights Tour (chess test that would measure both critical and creative thinking skills combined)

Group 1: Chess players

Group 2: gifted/talented students

group 3: Normal students

group 4: at-risk/special education students

Study design: cross sectional

Methods: all groups take all tests at same times on specific days, then compare results.

If you could get a grant from the university, or business, would be great to add some kind of brain scan, i.e. EEG, PET, fMRI, or fNIRS.

Q's: are the centers of activation in the brain the same for all groups on intelligence (RSPM), critical thinking (CCTST), and combined (Knight's Tour)? Which group has better right brain skills, left brain skills, or both? Are there any surprising results?

Dear Kaur,

We recently have developed a Non-domain systems thinking tool that captures the level of systems thinking for individuals who engage complex problem domains. The tool has been validated internally and externally and the reliability test was .87

Let me know if you need further information.

If you take the Scenario-Survey tool, it will provide you with a profile that determines what type of systems thinker you are.

Ra'ed -- I would be interested in learning more about this. Can you send me your research?

Samuel-- Thanks for showing interest in the research. I will send you the report as soon as possible nut can you send me your e-mail address ?

[email protected]... thank-you!

Your question is excellent and actually brought up a few more. One of the difficulties in measuring thinking and learning patterns is a lack of universal definition or even agreement on what each construct adds to the learning process. This is important in order to construct or even evaluate the validity and reliability of a test. In addition, learning and thinking might be useful terms, but testing needs to be as exact as possible. For example, learning preference, learning style, and learning strategy are different constructs. The predictive validity of tests in this category is not good, although many are used (i.e. the Felder-Solomon Inventory of Learning Styles, Gregorc Style Delineator, Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire).

Since the results of tests, in general, can affect a person in many ways, it’s important that the psychometric measures meet the standards set by the AERA Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. People do use tests that are not psychometrically sound and also use tests with populations and for purposes other than intended. That is also what leads to inaccuracies and bias in testing. Having said all that, there might be instruments that I’m not aware of. I know the basics of tests and measurement, and hopefully others who have a better background in it can help. That’s the great thing about this site.

Yes there is a tool to measure an individual level of systems thinking...This tool is reliable and valid and now it is requested from several organizations 

 Thanks Mr.Jaradat...can you name one such testing tool and give some institute's /organization name from where it could be availed.i shall be grateful to you

regards,

Amandeep Kaur

Recently I interviewed a senior engineer on critical thinking skills and engineering, according to him - quote, "creative and critical thinking skills are marriage made in heaven, one can't function without the other!'. ??? I'm still exploring this issue...hope this helps?