Empirical peer reviewed research articles
‘The language of thinking consists of natural language terms that refer to mental processes and mental products. Words like think, believe, guess, conjecture, hypothesis, evidence, suspect, doubt, and theorize form a vocabulary used to describe thinking. A rich language of thinking equips one for sophisticated metacognition. In addition, a language of thinking allows comprehending the illocutionary force behind the statements of others’ (Perkins, Jay and Tishman, 1993, p. 73).
Bruner 'ascribes an important role to language in the development of thinking: thinking leads to language, but, thereafter, language is responsible for the improved development of thinking' (Hamers and Overtoon, 1997, p.15).
ESL new arrivals who transition to mainstream schooling are disadvantaged because they cannot learn effectively in the current student-centred constructivist method. In a constructivist classroom, the environment encourages critical and creative thinking, but ESL new arrivals are further disadvantaged because they cannot understand the thinking processes because they have not developed the language of thinking. Rowe’s research supports my AR proposal of teaching the language of thinking to ESL new arrivals before they transition to the mainstream, because there the constructivist approach will be waiting for them and the culture of the ‘thinking classroom’.
Rowe (2006) argues that ‘exclusive emphasis on constructivist approaches to teaching are neither initially or subsequently in the best interests of any group of students and especially those experiencing learning difficulties' (Abstract). He supports his argument with key information from a national project designed to identify effective teaching practices for Year 4-6 students with learning difficulties in Reading and Numeracy, conducted with private, independent and government schools (Rowe, 2006, p. 1), and his own data.
Rowe’s own findings, which are based on qualitative and quantitative data indicate that Direct Instruction modes of teaching are the most effective teaching methods for children with learning difficulties, disadvantaged children and ESL children (Rowe, 2006, p. 2) Rowe explains that meta-analytic syntheses of findings from more than 500 000 evidence-based studies of influences on student learning outcomes, including teaching methods, provide support for his results (Rowe, 2006, p. 5). Rowe’s argument is about direct (or explicit) instruction, and student-centred constructivist approaches and he strongly believes that students with learning difficulties, those from disadvantaged backgrounds who do not have the ‘rich phonological knowledge and phonemic awareness upon which to base new learning, being taught under constructivist modes has the effect of compounding their disadvantage once they begin school’ (Munro, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000a, b, as cited in Rowe, 2006. p. 2)
Rowe (2006) emphasises that this is particularly the case for children from non-English backgrounds, and that constructivist approaches are the major problem. This article is important in the context of my action research (AR) and supports the urgency of direct teaching the language of thinking to ESL new arrivals. Firstly, almost all of the ESL new arrivals are disadvantaged and from low socio-cultural backgrounds and contexts, because more affluent new arrivals have generally had English instruction or tuition in the homelands and do not require a NAP. Secondly, the ESL new arrivals that qualify for the NAP are only eligible to stay for two terms, before transition into the mainstream where ‘student-centred’, inquiry and project based learning and constructivism is the current teaching method, and they are expected to have an inquiry disposition as they are placed directly into that system.
Rowe’s research explains that these children cannot cope and his data shows students’ achievement growth is much higher when direct teaching methods and intervention are used.
His findings are important in supporting my AR because we want to use direct, explicit teaching methods with the disadvantaged new arrivals, to teach them the thinking language because as soon as they enter mainstream schooling, they are confronted with an integrated, inquiry approach in the BER open learning spaces, and they are confronted with all the thinking processes without having been exposed to the language of thinking before.
As the SMR Outreach Services coordinator, I visit schools almost every day to access new arrivals and recommend the most appropriate ESL programs to accelerate English language acquisition. I see firsthand that many schools do not have ESL teachers, do not have an ESL program in the school, do not have experience of teaching ESL students, do not have an ESL curriculum and do not separate the ESL learners from the constructivist, inquiry or project based learning approach. I concede that these schools may differentiate learning for ESL students, but this differentiation is within the inquiry curriculum, not a separate ESL curriculum and ESL new arrivals who have transitioned, suddenly have to participate in the student-centred constructivist approach to learning. So, clearly, according to Rowe, they cannot and do not learn effectively, and are further disadvantaged as a result, on two fronts.
Constructivist approaches to teaching now prevail as the predominant methods throughout the Victorian schools. ESL new arrivals are still learning to speak, listen and read and write in English, so they need explicit instruction in the acquisition of basic language, for a long time (to become proficient in English can take up to seven years) after transition into mainstream schooling. They struggle with the methods of ‘constructivism’, on top of struggling with spelling, mathematical computation and word problems of numeracy, literacy and they do not understand the thinking processes domain of the Interdisciplinary strand of the VELS, because they have not been exposed to the language of thinking, or the thinking skills and tools in English.
ESL new arrivals transition to mainstream schooling after two terms in a NAP, and still need direct, explicit teaching, modelling and scaffolding and learning material in small steps. The research base for Direct Instruction (DI) is grounded in findings from evidence-based research in cognitive science (Rowe, 2006, p. 4). Rowe’s data is compelling evidence that ESL new arrivals that transition to mainstream schooling should not participate in constructivist, student-centred learning which I believe is further compounded in a ‘community of thinkers’. Since they do have to have an inquiry disposition, we can ensure that these ESL new arrivals, who do go into this system, are better able to cope. So, there is urgent justification for my project and my AR proposes to focus on the direct, explicit teaching of the language of thinking, so that they are better able to cope in the constructivist mainstream setting.
The research and quantitative data findings published by Morenc and Hogan (1976) on ‘The influence of Race and Social-Class Level on the Training of Creative Thinking and Problem solving abilities’, support my AR proposal because their data results indicate that ‘participation in the Productive Thinking Program enabled the students to improve their creative thinking and problem-solving abilities. Neither race nor social class level affected the child’s ability to increase these skills’ (Morenc and Hogan, 1976, p. 91). The data shows significant differences between the experimental and control groups and the training program had a huge impact on student improvement (Morenc and Hogan, 1976, p. 93).
The research has important justification for my AR project of direct teaching of the language of thinking processes, because although the ESL new arrivals are predominantly not of Anglo Saxon or western race, have different cultural backgrounds and disadvantaged socio-economic status, they can improve their language of thinking processes and thinking skills, if we use direct teaching methods and introduce them to the thinking domain of the interdisciplinary strand. We cannot afford any of the training programs available nationally or internationally, due to financial constraints, but the AR team is developing their own program to support and improve student performance and outcomes, prior to transition to constructivist mainstream schooling in a ‘community of thinkers’.
Shahini and Riazi (2010) introduced their ESL students to Philosophy-based Language Teaching (PBLT) as an approach to developing productive language and thinking skills. The framework that informs PBLT is informed by the theories of Matthew Lipman (2003). The study involved an experimental and control group and results revealed that the experimental group outperformed the control group by a significant percentage on both speaking and writing tasks. The significance of PBLT for ESL learners is, according to Shahini and Riazi (2010) that it enhances thinking ability through L2 instruction, and the improvement of L2 proficiency, especially productive skills through philosophical discussion. ‘The findings of the study have implications for all stakeholders in ELT and internationally’ (Shahini and Riazi, 2010, p. 170).
This study based on qualitative and quantitative data (Shahini and Riazi, 2010, p. 174 - 177) showed distinctive improvements in the control group, and has positive implications for my proposed AR project, because although we are not introducing Philosophy-based Language Teaching (PBLT) to ESL new arrivals, we are introducing thinking language. The PBLT improved productive language and thinking skills in students and therefore there can be similarities concluded, that substantiate direct teaching of the language of thinking to improve ESL new arrivals’ productive language and thinking skills.
The ideas of Waters (2006) in Thinking and language learning for ESL students, reiterates some of the statements I have made and substantiates my proposed AR project. Waters supports the importance of thinking for language learning. Waters proposes a lack of awareness about how levels of thinking can be conceptualised in ELT activities. His paper attempts to clarify the types of thinking that ELT activities can promote, and how they can be integrated in a basic learning style. Waters’ attempts to focus ‘on the possibility (and importance) of providing learners who have only a limited knowledge of English with activities that nevertheless involve creative thinking’ to improve language learning (Waters, 2006, p. 319). He provides a framework for analysing the types of thinking and uses it to illustrate how a range of thinking lessons can be incorporated into ELT lessons.
Waters (2006), in defining thinking, states that Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives is still the most important and useful categorisation available. He uses Adams-Smith’s (1981) adaptation of Bloom’s framework and further clarifies some aspects of the thinking categories and shows how they can be applied to ELT teaching. Water gives constructive ideas and suggestions for teaching thinking, using strategies and lessons for each category, clearly explaining how to teach the thinking explains how the level of thinking gradually increases (Waters, 2006, p. 325). He simplifies that language of Blooms’ and gives the students simple instructions which involve thinking. The language he uses is never complex which he argues, is crucial for learners with low levels of language who have a need for activities which are linguistically manageable but also cognitively challenging (Waters, 2006, p. 326).
The paper by Waters has implications for my AR project, because we can use these strategies and sample activities to assist ESL new arrivals to learn the language of thinking and be cognitively challenged at the same time. The ESL new arrivals have developed cognitive thinking processes in their own environments and struggle to articulate their thinking language in English.
Kathleen Cotton (1991) has written extensively on teaching thinking skills and all her research and meta-analyses of vast numbers of key documents support the findings that ‘thinking skills instruction enhances academic achievement (Cotton, 1991, p. 4). Her work is supported by exhaustive references to research by various institutions, programs and academics. Her research supports the instruction of many specific skills and techniques, including various instructional approaches to enhance thinking skills, using redirection/probing/reinforcement, asking higher order questions and lengthening wait time, amongst other suggestions of programs, institutions and training (Cotton, 1991, p.5). My AR project proposes teaching the language of thinking using many of the techniques she supports, but by unpacking the language and activities for ESL new arrivals. Cottons’ view is that thinking skills are crucial and in a ESL NAP we should be teaching the language of English, mathematics, science, ICT AND thinking, and that is what my AR proposes.
In my AR proposal I have explained the importance of the thinking domain in the Interdisciplinary strand of the VELS. I have substantiated the importance of teaching thinking skills as one of the most important elements in the learning process, by referring to evidence based research supporting this statement. Li’s (2011) findings ‘emphasise the key role of the teacher in creating, developing, managing and navigating the space for thinking by using referential questions, increasing wait-time, reducing interruptions and adopting selective repair’ (Li, 2011, Abstract).
Li’s research methodology involved using 4 different education authorities, 6 teachers and a total of 216 students from different levels in primary and secondary schools. Data collection was qualitative and 18 video-recorded lessons were transcribed and used to support findings.
Teachers are clearly developing thinking in ESL classrooms in China, but currently in the ESL NAP there is no explicit, direct teaching of thinking processes or thinking language evident in the curriculum documentation, resources data bank, term and language planners or visible in classrooms and open spaces. The fact that thinking skills are being taught in language classrooms in China has positive implications for my AR research proposal, in that it can be done, and must be done. Although there are obstacles and opportunities for developing thinking, I am justified in wanting to change current practices at my school, because Li’s research article also substantiates the importance of teaching thinking skills and reiterates the important role developing children’s thinking skills has taken in education worldwide.
Bruner 'ascribes an important role to language in the development of thinking: thinking leads to language, but, thereafter, language is responsible for the improved development of thinking' (Hamers and Overtoon, 1997, p.15).
ESL new arrivals who transition to mainstream schooling are disadvantaged because they cannot learn effectively in the current student-centred constructivist method. In a constructivist classroom, the environment encourages critical and creative thinking, but ESL new arrivals are further disadvantaged because they cannot understand the thinking processes because they have not developed the language of thinking. Rowe’s research supports my AR proposal of teaching the language of thinking to ESL new arrivals before they transition to the mainstream, because there the constructivist approach will be waiting for them and the culture of the ‘thinking classroom’.
Rowe (2006) argues that ‘exclusive emphasis on constructivist approaches to teaching are neither initially or subsequently in the best interests of any group of students and especially those experiencing learning difficulties' (Abstract). He supports his argument with key information from a national project designed to identify effective teaching practices for Year 4-6 students with learning difficulties in Reading and Numeracy, conducted with private, independent and government schools (Rowe, 2006, p. 1), and his own data.
Rowe’s own findings, which are based on qualitative and quantitative data indicate that Direct Instruction modes of teaching are the most effective teaching methods for children with learning difficulties, disadvantaged children and ESL children (Rowe, 2006, p. 2) Rowe explains that meta-analytic syntheses of findings from more than 500 000 evidence-based studies of influences on student learning outcomes, including teaching methods, provide support for his results (Rowe, 2006, p. 5). Rowe’s argument is about direct (or explicit) instruction, and student-centred constructivist approaches and he strongly believes that students with learning difficulties, those from disadvantaged backgrounds who do not have the ‘rich phonological knowledge and phonemic awareness upon which to base new learning, being taught under constructivist modes has the effect of compounding their disadvantage once they begin school’ (Munro, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000a, b, as cited in Rowe, 2006. p. 2)
Rowe (2006) emphasises that this is particularly the case for children from non-English backgrounds, and that constructivist approaches are the major problem. This article is important in the context of my action research (AR) and supports the urgency of direct teaching the language of thinking to ESL new arrivals. Firstly, almost all of the ESL new arrivals are disadvantaged and from low socio-cultural backgrounds and contexts, because more affluent new arrivals have generally had English instruction or tuition in the homelands and do not require a NAP. Secondly, the ESL new arrivals that qualify for the NAP are only eligible to stay for two terms, before transition into the mainstream where ‘student-centred’, inquiry and project based learning and constructivism is the current teaching method, and they are expected to have an inquiry disposition as they are placed directly into that system.
Rowe’s research explains that these children cannot cope and his data shows students’ achievement growth is much higher when direct teaching methods and intervention are used.
His findings are important in supporting my AR because we want to use direct, explicit teaching methods with the disadvantaged new arrivals, to teach them the thinking language because as soon as they enter mainstream schooling, they are confronted with an integrated, inquiry approach in the BER open learning spaces, and they are confronted with all the thinking processes without having been exposed to the language of thinking before.
As the SMR Outreach Services coordinator, I visit schools almost every day to access new arrivals and recommend the most appropriate ESL programs to accelerate English language acquisition. I see firsthand that many schools do not have ESL teachers, do not have an ESL program in the school, do not have experience of teaching ESL students, do not have an ESL curriculum and do not separate the ESL learners from the constructivist, inquiry or project based learning approach. I concede that these schools may differentiate learning for ESL students, but this differentiation is within the inquiry curriculum, not a separate ESL curriculum and ESL new arrivals who have transitioned, suddenly have to participate in the student-centred constructivist approach to learning. So, clearly, according to Rowe, they cannot and do not learn effectively, and are further disadvantaged as a result, on two fronts.
Constructivist approaches to teaching now prevail as the predominant methods throughout the Victorian schools. ESL new arrivals are still learning to speak, listen and read and write in English, so they need explicit instruction in the acquisition of basic language, for a long time (to become proficient in English can take up to seven years) after transition into mainstream schooling. They struggle with the methods of ‘constructivism’, on top of struggling with spelling, mathematical computation and word problems of numeracy, literacy and they do not understand the thinking processes domain of the Interdisciplinary strand of the VELS, because they have not been exposed to the language of thinking, or the thinking skills and tools in English.
ESL new arrivals transition to mainstream schooling after two terms in a NAP, and still need direct, explicit teaching, modelling and scaffolding and learning material in small steps. The research base for Direct Instruction (DI) is grounded in findings from evidence-based research in cognitive science (Rowe, 2006, p. 4). Rowe’s data is compelling evidence that ESL new arrivals that transition to mainstream schooling should not participate in constructivist, student-centred learning which I believe is further compounded in a ‘community of thinkers’. Since they do have to have an inquiry disposition, we can ensure that these ESL new arrivals, who do go into this system, are better able to cope. So, there is urgent justification for my project and my AR proposes to focus on the direct, explicit teaching of the language of thinking, so that they are better able to cope in the constructivist mainstream setting.
The research and quantitative data findings published by Morenc and Hogan (1976) on ‘The influence of Race and Social-Class Level on the Training of Creative Thinking and Problem solving abilities’, support my AR proposal because their data results indicate that ‘participation in the Productive Thinking Program enabled the students to improve their creative thinking and problem-solving abilities. Neither race nor social class level affected the child’s ability to increase these skills’ (Morenc and Hogan, 1976, p. 91). The data shows significant differences between the experimental and control groups and the training program had a huge impact on student improvement (Morenc and Hogan, 1976, p. 93).
The research has important justification for my AR project of direct teaching of the language of thinking processes, because although the ESL new arrivals are predominantly not of Anglo Saxon or western race, have different cultural backgrounds and disadvantaged socio-economic status, they can improve their language of thinking processes and thinking skills, if we use direct teaching methods and introduce them to the thinking domain of the interdisciplinary strand. We cannot afford any of the training programs available nationally or internationally, due to financial constraints, but the AR team is developing their own program to support and improve student performance and outcomes, prior to transition to constructivist mainstream schooling in a ‘community of thinkers’.
Shahini and Riazi (2010) introduced their ESL students to Philosophy-based Language Teaching (PBLT) as an approach to developing productive language and thinking skills. The framework that informs PBLT is informed by the theories of Matthew Lipman (2003). The study involved an experimental and control group and results revealed that the experimental group outperformed the control group by a significant percentage on both speaking and writing tasks. The significance of PBLT for ESL learners is, according to Shahini and Riazi (2010) that it enhances thinking ability through L2 instruction, and the improvement of L2 proficiency, especially productive skills through philosophical discussion. ‘The findings of the study have implications for all stakeholders in ELT and internationally’ (Shahini and Riazi, 2010, p. 170).
This study based on qualitative and quantitative data (Shahini and Riazi, 2010, p. 174 - 177) showed distinctive improvements in the control group, and has positive implications for my proposed AR project, because although we are not introducing Philosophy-based Language Teaching (PBLT) to ESL new arrivals, we are introducing thinking language. The PBLT improved productive language and thinking skills in students and therefore there can be similarities concluded, that substantiate direct teaching of the language of thinking to improve ESL new arrivals’ productive language and thinking skills.
The ideas of Waters (2006) in Thinking and language learning for ESL students, reiterates some of the statements I have made and substantiates my proposed AR project. Waters supports the importance of thinking for language learning. Waters proposes a lack of awareness about how levels of thinking can be conceptualised in ELT activities. His paper attempts to clarify the types of thinking that ELT activities can promote, and how they can be integrated in a basic learning style. Waters’ attempts to focus ‘on the possibility (and importance) of providing learners who have only a limited knowledge of English with activities that nevertheless involve creative thinking’ to improve language learning (Waters, 2006, p. 319). He provides a framework for analysing the types of thinking and uses it to illustrate how a range of thinking lessons can be incorporated into ELT lessons.
Waters (2006), in defining thinking, states that Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives is still the most important and useful categorisation available. He uses Adams-Smith’s (1981) adaptation of Bloom’s framework and further clarifies some aspects of the thinking categories and shows how they can be applied to ELT teaching. Water gives constructive ideas and suggestions for teaching thinking, using strategies and lessons for each category, clearly explaining how to teach the thinking explains how the level of thinking gradually increases (Waters, 2006, p. 325). He simplifies that language of Blooms’ and gives the students simple instructions which involve thinking. The language he uses is never complex which he argues, is crucial for learners with low levels of language who have a need for activities which are linguistically manageable but also cognitively challenging (Waters, 2006, p. 326).
The paper by Waters has implications for my AR project, because we can use these strategies and sample activities to assist ESL new arrivals to learn the language of thinking and be cognitively challenged at the same time. The ESL new arrivals have developed cognitive thinking processes in their own environments and struggle to articulate their thinking language in English.
Kathleen Cotton (1991) has written extensively on teaching thinking skills and all her research and meta-analyses of vast numbers of key documents support the findings that ‘thinking skills instruction enhances academic achievement (Cotton, 1991, p. 4). Her work is supported by exhaustive references to research by various institutions, programs and academics. Her research supports the instruction of many specific skills and techniques, including various instructional approaches to enhance thinking skills, using redirection/probing/reinforcement, asking higher order questions and lengthening wait time, amongst other suggestions of programs, institutions and training (Cotton, 1991, p.5). My AR project proposes teaching the language of thinking using many of the techniques she supports, but by unpacking the language and activities for ESL new arrivals. Cottons’ view is that thinking skills are crucial and in a ESL NAP we should be teaching the language of English, mathematics, science, ICT AND thinking, and that is what my AR proposes.
In my AR proposal I have explained the importance of the thinking domain in the Interdisciplinary strand of the VELS. I have substantiated the importance of teaching thinking skills as one of the most important elements in the learning process, by referring to evidence based research supporting this statement. Li’s (2011) findings ‘emphasise the key role of the teacher in creating, developing, managing and navigating the space for thinking by using referential questions, increasing wait-time, reducing interruptions and adopting selective repair’ (Li, 2011, Abstract).
Li’s research methodology involved using 4 different education authorities, 6 teachers and a total of 216 students from different levels in primary and secondary schools. Data collection was qualitative and 18 video-recorded lessons were transcribed and used to support findings.
Teachers are clearly developing thinking in ESL classrooms in China, but currently in the ESL NAP there is no explicit, direct teaching of thinking processes or thinking language evident in the curriculum documentation, resources data bank, term and language planners or visible in classrooms and open spaces. The fact that thinking skills are being taught in language classrooms in China has positive implications for my AR research proposal, in that it can be done, and must be done. Although there are obstacles and opportunities for developing thinking, I am justified in wanting to change current practices at my school, because Li’s research article also substantiates the importance of teaching thinking skills and reiterates the important role developing children’s thinking skills has taken in education worldwide.