Moving
from understanding to productive thinking: implications for practice
(Book:
Frame of Thinking, year: 2005, by: David Moseley Vivienne Baumfield
Julian Elliott Maggie Gregson Steven Higgins Jennifer Miller Douglas
Newton, page: 296-297)
Overview
This
chapter reviews the potential contribution of the various frame-
works, models and taxonomies presented in the book and summarises a
number of issues which have arisen. It examines how various
taxonomies can inform and support differing aspects and areas of
education. It will summarise some problems inherent in classification
and theoretical models of thinking. We highlight evidence from
meta-analysis to show that thinking skills approaches can be very
effective, especially those targeted at the skills of metacognition
and self-regulation. Turning to matters of theory, we note a degree
of rapprochement between cognitive, constructivist and some recent
behaviourist formulations. However, we do not believe that it has
been established that meaningful learning can take place only when
there is a low level of teacher direction (Hattie, 2002). We point
out that a great deal of educational practice is based on sets of
widely accepted but usually untested beliefs, values and assumptions.
Finally, we out- line the value of a practical four-category
framework (information gathering; building understanding; productive
thinking; strategic management/reflective thinking) that has arisen
from our work in this field.
Thinking
, learning and teaching
Everyone
who is involved in learning needs to have some understand- ing of its
nature and purpose. A framework for understanding thinking and
learning can be used at different levels; for example, as a general
guide to the formulation of a mission statement or in formulating
specific learning objectives and precise assessment items. When a
theoretical framework is used consistently and explicitly, it is
likely that communication within an educational or training context
will be enhanced, as well as communication with the outside world.
This should therefore be of direct benefit to teachers and learners
as well as others involved such as parents, employers, policy-makers
and the educational research community.
There
are a number of subject disciplines which have as their focus the
study of human beings. These include philosophy, psychology,
sociology and anthropology, where almost every aspect of human
behaviour is of potential interest. Geographers and historians are
clearly interested in a broad spectrum of human behaviour and we
could add other disciplines to the list. The point is that in the
humanities, just as much as in the sciences, there are benefits to be
obtained through collaboration and this too requires a shared
language about how people think and learn. It is certainly possible
for a thinking skills framework to be drawn up for each subject area,
but if this were done, the differences would probably lie only in the
detail. In our view, many benefits would flow from the
interdisciplinary development of a common framework, especially if
care were taken to avoid the use of the kind of esoteric or abstruse
language which tends to maintain artificial boundaries between
traditional academic subjects.
Understanding
thinking and learning is important not only in academic study, but
also in professional and vocational courses and in working
effectively with younger learners. Some kinds of teaching have
traditionally included the philosophical study of theories of
knowledge, but most have not included any study of theories of
learning. However, it would make good sense for thinking and learning
to form the core of such studies, associated with another subject of
choice in which human behaviour is the focus. An under- standing of
thinking and learning frameworks should inform the planning of
appropriate curricula for all kinds of learning, in order to ensure
that they are realistic and achievable.
0 comments:
Posting Komentar