Moving from understanding to productive thinking: implications for practice

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.