Literature Review - Introduction
The literature on thinking by educators is vast (DEECD, thinking processes, 2007):
· How we think. Dewey (1933)
· Teaching thinking skills and tools (De Bono, 1976),
· Developing cognition (Sutherland, 1992; Nickerson et al., 1985; Adey & Shayer, 2002),
· Critical thinking (Richard, 1995),
· 16 Habits of Mind (Costa and Kallick, 2000),
· Thinking strategies (Perkins 1995, Cam, 2005),
· Cultivating thinking dispositions and behaviour (Ritchhart, 2001, 2002),
· Philosophy-based Language Teaching (PBLT) Lipman, 2003),
· Creating a culture and environment for good thinking (Cam, 2005),
· Questioning for thinking (Harpaz & Lefstein, 2000),
· Developing a thinking curriculum (VCAA, 2005, PoLT, 2005) and
· Designing thinking classrooms and a thinking schools (Golding, 2005).
· Philosophy for Children Model (Lipman, Shar and Oscanyan, cited in Wilks, 2004).
Educators like Guy Claxton, Art Costa, Karen Gallas, Robert Marzano, Jamie McKenzie, Debbie Miller and Carol Dweck, to name a few, have also been influential in the field of Thinking.
Institutions specialising in teaching Thinking, and programs available are already vast and increasing rapidly, worldwide. For example:
· The various projects of the Visible Thinking Team at Project Zero at the Harvard Graduate School of Education which use ‘Visible Thinking routines to facilitate deep learning,
· Futurelab and Microsoft’s collaboration on teaching thinking skills, and various innovations prompted by technology-driven changes in the nature of work and the implications of this for student learning. The Enquiring Minds programme was a three-year research and development programme, run by Futurelab and funded by Microsoft,
· The Thinking Together Programme, developed by Wegerif, Mercer and Dawes,
· International Networking for Educational Transformation (iNet) is an international network of schools, organisations and individuals who are committed to transforming learning through innovation,
· FastForward based on the research by Norman Doidge (2007), which is a reading and learning intervention that applies neuroscience principles of brain plasticity to help children to achieve their potential. It also develops cognitive and language and thinking skills,
· The Intel-lect program in Israel (Harpaz, 2000), which is based on teaching and learning in a ‘Community of Thinking’ and has been implemented in more than 18 schools in Israel and some schools in Australia,
· Kath Murdoch, an education consultant, focuses on thinking within the inquiry units, Amanda Dressing and Karen Green’s Inter@act Program also caters to Habits of Mind, Multiple Intelligences, co-operative learning, thinking tools and metacognition. Many share a common goal of helping students develop thinking dispositions that support thoughtful learning by making thinking more ‘visible’ (Hattie, 2010).
Internationally, there are too many to mention here, but research generally shows improvements in achievement and comprehension for students of all ages who participate and learn about Thinking. Of the approaches available, we will focus on the ‘direct’ skills approach:
“Thinking is best developed within a culture of thinking”...providing direct instruction in thinking processes; and encouraging practice of those thinking processes through interaction with others...communities of learners...students surrounded by a rich language of thinking are more likely to think deeply about thinking...the culture of a classroom can teach lessons about thinking by giving us good models of thinking” (DEECD, 2007).
The AR team will focus on a ‘direct’, explicit ‘Thinking skills approach’ (Teaching of thinking) by unpacking language. The ESL new arrivals will be introduced to the language of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences and the dispositional dimension of thinking (Teaching For Thinking) using Costa and Kallick’s (2000) 16 Habits of Mind. ‘Fostering thinking encourages students to think with full involvement, and to find the joy of thinking’ (Harpaz, 2005, p. 13).
Harpaz (2005) on approaches to teaching thinking, explains the foundational elements of good thinking and the patterns of teaching them. He defines three approaches and states that the ‘understanding approach’ is most effective in the school context and can incorporate the other two approaches, i.e. skills and dispositions approaches, (Harpaz, 2005, pp. 1 - 8).
The questions, ‘What is good thinking’, and ‘How is it developed’ are explored within the context of the three approaches and also compete with each other for control of the field (Harpaz, 2005, p.1).
Harpaz states that basic skills (e.g., classification, grading, and comparison) serve as a basis for higher order thinking skills (e.g., decision making, problem solving, and concept formation) are intertwined and difficult to arrange in a linear hierarchy. ‘It is true that a higher skill such as decision making requires mastery of simple skills, but even simple skills require mastery of complex skills (e.g., decision making in order to make a comparison). (Harpaz, 2005, p. 3).
Some schools of thought also recommend the ‘direct instruction of thinking processes, and encouraging practice of those thinking processes through interaction with others...’ ((Woolfolk and Margetts, 2007, pp 354 – 357).
Productive Thinking Program from De Bono’s Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) is a ‘direct’ instruction technique. The CoRT Thinking Programme represents a comprehensive approach to the teaching of thinking. It includes generative and creative thinking, operational and constructive thinking. The De Bono Institute also promotes the ThinkPlus Project which aims to teach students to think.
Direct Attention Thinking Tasks (DATT), Plus, Minus, Interesting (PMI), (De Bono, 1994), or CAF (Consider All Factors), KWHL, Think-Pair-Share (TPS) (Lyman, 1981), are examples of the direct approach. Graphic organisers, Venn diagrams, brainstorming, concept mapping and mind maps are also examples of the skills approach to teaching thinking. Michael Pressley’s Good Strategy User Model and Reciprocal Teaching and Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) reciprocal teaching approach are successful examples of ‘direct’ teaching of metacognitive skills (DEECD., 2007, Thinking).
The contribution to teaching thinking by Project Zero refers to the ‘direct’ skills teaching approach as ‘thinking routines’ (Perkins, Jay and Tishman, 1993).
Programs like The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), is an instructional model for second and foreign language learners based on cognitive theory and research. CALLA can be used in ESL, EFL, bilingual, foreign language, and general education classrooms. They teach thinking to ESL students using various strategies.
Easiteach and Inspiration are applications, both of which have been promulgated in many schools as tools to promote thinking. Easiteach is used largely by teachers in conjunction with the interactive whiteboards to develop and present interesting learning material. Inspiration is largely as a mind mapping tool. We do not have either of these programs at the ESL new arrivals’ language school.
De Bono’s (CoRT), Robert Slavin’s “Success for All”, Philosophy Based Language Teaching (PBLT) cited in Ofsted (1997) based on Lipman’s work (2003), and many other programs, cater to ESL students, but we do not have the funding or financial means available to engage the services of these external consultants, organisations or programs. The professional development action research team that has been organised within the school has identified and will implement the change processes.
Vygotsky (1978) stated that thought and language are initially separate but become interdependent during acts of communication since meaning is created through interaction. According to Vygotsky (1978), it is language that makes abstract thinking possible. From this perspective, PBLT allows its users to use language to imagine, manipulate, create new ideas, and share those ideas with others. Shahini and Raize refer to ‘Language in PBLT is thus a mental tool that each member of the social community (classroom) uses to think and it is through language and communication that abstract thinking becomes possible’ (Shahini and Raizi, 2010, p. ).
Another context which supports my AR proposal is one conducted in Melbourne in 2005. The ‘Cultures of Thinking Project’ at Bailik College in Melbourne begun in 2005 of research in the area of thinking dispositions was conducted through Harvard’s School of Education’s Project Zero, in collaboration with Ritchhart and Perkins. The focus was on the Visible Thinking approach developed as part of the ‘Innovating with Intelligence project’ to explore how a whole school can develop a culture of thinking that nurtures students, teachers, and administrators’ disposition toward thinking.
Data from Bailik College indicated that teachers developed and used a language of thinking, they made the classroom environment rich with the documents of thinking (both processes and products, they looked for opportunities for student thoughtfulness, they used thinking routines to support and nurture students thinking, they modelled and made their own thinking visible, and they sent clear expectations about the importance and role of thinking in learning (Project Zero, 2005). The AR team also wants to improve their teaching and ESL new arrivals’ learning by introducing the language of thinking.
Wegerif, Mercer and Dawes, (2010) outlines a wide range of ways that primary school children can be helped to develop cognitive, emotional and interpersonal skills as intrinsic elements of their classroom. They make a powerful case for the development of thinking skills and creativity to feature prominently within the primary classroom, although not at the expense of subject content. Wegerif et al., advocate for thinking to play a more central role in primary teaching which is inextricably linked to the ‘dialogic’ approach. Wegerif et al (2010) use empirical evidence to demonstrate the cognitive gains which dialogic classroom approaches can deliver, including the highly regarded Thinking Together programme. Alongside his theoretical analysis, Wegerif brings together a wide range of pedagogies which allow teachers and children to work in dialogic ways to enhance thinking and creativity. A link is established with De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats, which uses talk to develop creative thinking. Wegerif (2010) discusses Philosophy for Children, or P4C, an approach devised by Matthew Lipman about 50 years ago. Lipman’s P4C shares many of the aims of the Thinking Together approach. ESL new arrivals also need an introduction into the language of thinking and opportunities for oral practise within a Socratic Thinking framework.
Cultures differ in how they foster ‘open ended’ ways of thinking about a topic. Chan (1999), for example, comments that Chinese classrooms are less likely to foster creative thinking or active and critical enquiry. Therefore, ESL new arrivals may be reluctant to express opinions or voice independent thinking if that is not the cultural norm in their homeland. It is important that international education examines the ways in which different cultures elaborate and extend their knowledge, in both creative and critical ways to assist in teaching and learning.
· How we think. Dewey (1933)
· Teaching thinking skills and tools (De Bono, 1976),
· Developing cognition (Sutherland, 1992; Nickerson et al., 1985; Adey & Shayer, 2002),
· Critical thinking (Richard, 1995),
· 16 Habits of Mind (Costa and Kallick, 2000),
· Thinking strategies (Perkins 1995, Cam, 2005),
· Cultivating thinking dispositions and behaviour (Ritchhart, 2001, 2002),
· Philosophy-based Language Teaching (PBLT) Lipman, 2003),
· Creating a culture and environment for good thinking (Cam, 2005),
· Questioning for thinking (Harpaz & Lefstein, 2000),
· Developing a thinking curriculum (VCAA, 2005, PoLT, 2005) and
· Designing thinking classrooms and a thinking schools (Golding, 2005).
· Philosophy for Children Model (Lipman, Shar and Oscanyan, cited in Wilks, 2004).
Educators like Guy Claxton, Art Costa, Karen Gallas, Robert Marzano, Jamie McKenzie, Debbie Miller and Carol Dweck, to name a few, have also been influential in the field of Thinking.
Institutions specialising in teaching Thinking, and programs available are already vast and increasing rapidly, worldwide. For example:
· The various projects of the Visible Thinking Team at Project Zero at the Harvard Graduate School of Education which use ‘Visible Thinking routines to facilitate deep learning,
· Futurelab and Microsoft’s collaboration on teaching thinking skills, and various innovations prompted by technology-driven changes in the nature of work and the implications of this for student learning. The Enquiring Minds programme was a three-year research and development programme, run by Futurelab and funded by Microsoft,
· The Thinking Together Programme, developed by Wegerif, Mercer and Dawes,
· International Networking for Educational Transformation (iNet) is an international network of schools, organisations and individuals who are committed to transforming learning through innovation,
· FastForward based on the research by Norman Doidge (2007), which is a reading and learning intervention that applies neuroscience principles of brain plasticity to help children to achieve their potential. It also develops cognitive and language and thinking skills,
· The Intel-lect program in Israel (Harpaz, 2000), which is based on teaching and learning in a ‘Community of Thinking’ and has been implemented in more than 18 schools in Israel and some schools in Australia,
· Kath Murdoch, an education consultant, focuses on thinking within the inquiry units, Amanda Dressing and Karen Green’s Inter@act Program also caters to Habits of Mind, Multiple Intelligences, co-operative learning, thinking tools and metacognition. Many share a common goal of helping students develop thinking dispositions that support thoughtful learning by making thinking more ‘visible’ (Hattie, 2010).
Internationally, there are too many to mention here, but research generally shows improvements in achievement and comprehension for students of all ages who participate and learn about Thinking. Of the approaches available, we will focus on the ‘direct’ skills approach:
“Thinking is best developed within a culture of thinking”...providing direct instruction in thinking processes; and encouraging practice of those thinking processes through interaction with others...communities of learners...students surrounded by a rich language of thinking are more likely to think deeply about thinking...the culture of a classroom can teach lessons about thinking by giving us good models of thinking” (DEECD, 2007).
The AR team will focus on a ‘direct’, explicit ‘Thinking skills approach’ (Teaching of thinking) by unpacking language. The ESL new arrivals will be introduced to the language of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences and the dispositional dimension of thinking (Teaching For Thinking) using Costa and Kallick’s (2000) 16 Habits of Mind. ‘Fostering thinking encourages students to think with full involvement, and to find the joy of thinking’ (Harpaz, 2005, p. 13).
Harpaz (2005) on approaches to teaching thinking, explains the foundational elements of good thinking and the patterns of teaching them. He defines three approaches and states that the ‘understanding approach’ is most effective in the school context and can incorporate the other two approaches, i.e. skills and dispositions approaches, (Harpaz, 2005, pp. 1 - 8).
The questions, ‘What is good thinking’, and ‘How is it developed’ are explored within the context of the three approaches and also compete with each other for control of the field (Harpaz, 2005, p.1).
Harpaz states that basic skills (e.g., classification, grading, and comparison) serve as a basis for higher order thinking skills (e.g., decision making, problem solving, and concept formation) are intertwined and difficult to arrange in a linear hierarchy. ‘It is true that a higher skill such as decision making requires mastery of simple skills, but even simple skills require mastery of complex skills (e.g., decision making in order to make a comparison). (Harpaz, 2005, p. 3).
Some schools of thought also recommend the ‘direct instruction of thinking processes, and encouraging practice of those thinking processes through interaction with others...’ ((Woolfolk and Margetts, 2007, pp 354 – 357).
Productive Thinking Program from De Bono’s Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) is a ‘direct’ instruction technique. The CoRT Thinking Programme represents a comprehensive approach to the teaching of thinking. It includes generative and creative thinking, operational and constructive thinking. The De Bono Institute also promotes the ThinkPlus Project which aims to teach students to think.
Direct Attention Thinking Tasks (DATT), Plus, Minus, Interesting (PMI), (De Bono, 1994), or CAF (Consider All Factors), KWHL, Think-Pair-Share (TPS) (Lyman, 1981), are examples of the direct approach. Graphic organisers, Venn diagrams, brainstorming, concept mapping and mind maps are also examples of the skills approach to teaching thinking. Michael Pressley’s Good Strategy User Model and Reciprocal Teaching and Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) reciprocal teaching approach are successful examples of ‘direct’ teaching of metacognitive skills (DEECD., 2007, Thinking).
The contribution to teaching thinking by Project Zero refers to the ‘direct’ skills teaching approach as ‘thinking routines’ (Perkins, Jay and Tishman, 1993).
Programs like The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), is an instructional model for second and foreign language learners based on cognitive theory and research. CALLA can be used in ESL, EFL, bilingual, foreign language, and general education classrooms. They teach thinking to ESL students using various strategies.
Easiteach and Inspiration are applications, both of which have been promulgated in many schools as tools to promote thinking. Easiteach is used largely by teachers in conjunction with the interactive whiteboards to develop and present interesting learning material. Inspiration is largely as a mind mapping tool. We do not have either of these programs at the ESL new arrivals’ language school.
De Bono’s (CoRT), Robert Slavin’s “Success for All”, Philosophy Based Language Teaching (PBLT) cited in Ofsted (1997) based on Lipman’s work (2003), and many other programs, cater to ESL students, but we do not have the funding or financial means available to engage the services of these external consultants, organisations or programs. The professional development action research team that has been organised within the school has identified and will implement the change processes.
Vygotsky (1978) stated that thought and language are initially separate but become interdependent during acts of communication since meaning is created through interaction. According to Vygotsky (1978), it is language that makes abstract thinking possible. From this perspective, PBLT allows its users to use language to imagine, manipulate, create new ideas, and share those ideas with others. Shahini and Raize refer to ‘Language in PBLT is thus a mental tool that each member of the social community (classroom) uses to think and it is through language and communication that abstract thinking becomes possible’ (Shahini and Raizi, 2010, p. ).
Another context which supports my AR proposal is one conducted in Melbourne in 2005. The ‘Cultures of Thinking Project’ at Bailik College in Melbourne begun in 2005 of research in the area of thinking dispositions was conducted through Harvard’s School of Education’s Project Zero, in collaboration with Ritchhart and Perkins. The focus was on the Visible Thinking approach developed as part of the ‘Innovating with Intelligence project’ to explore how a whole school can develop a culture of thinking that nurtures students, teachers, and administrators’ disposition toward thinking.
Data from Bailik College indicated that teachers developed and used a language of thinking, they made the classroom environment rich with the documents of thinking (both processes and products, they looked for opportunities for student thoughtfulness, they used thinking routines to support and nurture students thinking, they modelled and made their own thinking visible, and they sent clear expectations about the importance and role of thinking in learning (Project Zero, 2005). The AR team also wants to improve their teaching and ESL new arrivals’ learning by introducing the language of thinking.
Wegerif, Mercer and Dawes, (2010) outlines a wide range of ways that primary school children can be helped to develop cognitive, emotional and interpersonal skills as intrinsic elements of their classroom. They make a powerful case for the development of thinking skills and creativity to feature prominently within the primary classroom, although not at the expense of subject content. Wegerif et al., advocate for thinking to play a more central role in primary teaching which is inextricably linked to the ‘dialogic’ approach. Wegerif et al (2010) use empirical evidence to demonstrate the cognitive gains which dialogic classroom approaches can deliver, including the highly regarded Thinking Together programme. Alongside his theoretical analysis, Wegerif brings together a wide range of pedagogies which allow teachers and children to work in dialogic ways to enhance thinking and creativity. A link is established with De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats, which uses talk to develop creative thinking. Wegerif (2010) discusses Philosophy for Children, or P4C, an approach devised by Matthew Lipman about 50 years ago. Lipman’s P4C shares many of the aims of the Thinking Together approach. ESL new arrivals also need an introduction into the language of thinking and opportunities for oral practise within a Socratic Thinking framework.
Cultures differ in how they foster ‘open ended’ ways of thinking about a topic. Chan (1999), for example, comments that Chinese classrooms are less likely to foster creative thinking or active and critical enquiry. Therefore, ESL new arrivals may be reluctant to express opinions or voice independent thinking if that is not the cultural norm in their homeland. It is important that international education examines the ways in which different cultures elaborate and extend their knowledge, in both creative and critical ways to assist in teaching and learning.