Setting FIRE to Your Teaching
—Richard Lee, TFSC Co-Director
At this past summer’s teaching camp (Summer 1999), Connie Stack described “FIRE,” which she calls “a holistic framework for thinking about thinking.” The name “FIRE” comes from the terms “Factual, Insightful, Rational, and Evaluative.”
It started with a card game. But this was no ordinary deck. Instead of traditional suits, Connie had cards of various colors each with one word or phrase on it. There were over one hundred words or phrases, including terms such as: “Analytical,” “Conceptual,” “Accurate,” Empathetic,” “Holistic,” “Seeks Rules,” “Orderly,” and “Collaborative.” Through a long process of exchanging and ordering the cards within our hand, we were supposed to arrive at cards which we felt best described us. We found ourselves classified into four critical thinking groups according to the dominant color of the cards in our hand. There were greens, yellows, blues, and reds. For the remainder of camp we continued to refer to these categories. The greens were the “factual” thinkers, who were organized and detail-oriented (the “F” of FIRE). The yellows were more holistic persons who would seek possibilities (the “I”). The blues were reasoning-oriented, principled, and systematic (“R”). The reds were the sensitive, caring, values-driven folk (“E”). Of course we all, ideally, have some of each of these aspects of FIRE in us, but what Ms. Stack’s game brought out was that by and large, when we reflect on our strengths as a thinker, most of us find that we belong primarily in one of these groups.
As with other “teaching and learning styles” categorizations, FIRE lets teachers see the limitations of, or slant toward, their own approach to problems and encourages them to diversify their teaching and assessment strategies to use these different aspects of thinking. For example, focusing on the FIRE categories can help us frame course objectives (and objectives within units) that pick up elements of each category. Our assessment instruments, similarly, can be crafted to assess students’ ability and growth in all four areas.
In one exercise Ms. Stack led us through a case study. After we heard the details of the case, she facilitated a discussion of the scenario (which happened to be one that could come up in student counseling). What was particularly interesting was that, after we played the role of students, we reflected back and looked at how she led the discussion. We could see that Ms. Stack had managed to bring out different categories of the FIRE model at different points in the discussion. The Factual element was to focus, naturally, on getting out the facts of the case and noting carefully what information was provided. The Evaluative element came in as Ms. Stack brought out our feelings about the case and what values we thought were at stake. The Insightful aspect of critical thinking involves formulating alternative perspectives, hypotheses, and big picture explanations. Finally she brought in the Rational category, which sought arguments and strategies to deal with the problem in the case. But all this was behind the scenes. She did not announce “Now let’s work on the insightful angle.” Rather, instead of letting the discussion go in whichever way the students took it, she brought out different kinds of thinking about the case, which together made for a more complete treatment that connected with the students in diverse ways. Some campers have already told us that they have used the FIRE exercise with their students this fall.
For those who are interested, TFSC has additional material on FIRE, including a copy of Connie Stack’s PowerPoint presentation.