Productive thinking		183
Domains addressed:		Presentation:		Contexts:
•	cognitive	•	clear and accessible	•	education
•	affective		writing
•	conative
Broad categories covered:		Theory base:		Pedagogical stance:
•	self-regulation	•	refers explicitly to	•	emancipatory
•	reflective thinking		Paul, Ennis and Lipman		role of teacher
• productive thinking			and echoes Dewey		who should model
			in her emphasis		critical thinking and
			on enquiry and		provide a range
			habits of mind		of rich contexts
					in which learners
					can exercise judgment
				•	does not agree with
					the teaching of
					isolated skills or
					general heuristics
Classification by:		Values:		Practical illustrations
•	type of	•	induction through	for teachers:
	intellectual		education into the	•	limited examples
	resource		public tradition		in Bailin’s work, but
			of enquiry and		colleagues have
			cultural		produced a companion
			critical practices		volume with classroom
					strategies

Some issues for further investigation

•To what extent do the approaches privilege particular forms of thinking, particularly logical reasoning, to the detriment of other traditions?

•What is the place of scholarship and tradition in critical and productive thinking?

•Can these theorists be placed on a continuum from individualism to social responsibility?

•Can (and should) programmes for critical and productive thinking be divorced from culturally specific, normative views of what constitutes ‘good thinking’?

184Frameworks for Thinking

•Do the differences between some of the approaches outweigh any similarities, the contrast between de Bono and Lipman or Bailin for example, and so challenge the parameters of this family?

•What are the similarities and differences between a psychological and a philosophical treatment of critical thinking (Halpern and Paul, for example)?

•Does any treatment of creative thinking include important features which are not found elsewhere?

•How do conceptualisations of tools differ from conceptualisations of abilities?

•What does reflection add to good thinking?

•What moral judgments are implied by the lists of dispositions provided by different authors?

•Which of these frameworks is the most analytic and which the most intuitive – and why?

•How far have we progressed in developing appropriate, rigorous assessments of critical and productive thinking?

•How do you explain the wide take-up of certain frameworks and not others?

5

Frameworks dealing with cognitive structure and/or development

Introduction
This family group consists of a set of frameworks that are less easily
contained within a single defining category. All but two (Belenky, and
King and Kitchener) were developed by psychologists, but they differ
considerably in aims and epistemological assumptions. Some were
developed by interpreting interviews and questionnaires, while others
reflect the content of psychometric test batteries, especially intelli-
gence tests. Some deal with thinking across the lifespan, while others
are specifically concerned with how adults think. Finally, the frame-
works differ to the extent that they emphasise genetic or environ-
mental influences. What ties them together, however, is that they are
predominantly concerned with the nature of cognition; its structure
and development.
The influence of psychological theories about thinking and learn-
ing extends across disciplines and can be recognised in the fields
of instructional design and productive thinking which are covered
in Chapters 3 and 4. Here we draw attention to some major figures
in academic psychology, some of whom (like Piaget and Gardner) have
had a major impact on educational theory and practice. Others
have had relatively little impact, perhaps because they have pursued
ideas for their own sake rather than being constrained by political
correctness or fashion.
One subgroup of authors (Carroll, Guilford and Gardner) focus
on identifying what constitutes ‘intelligence’. Carroll and Guilford
employ factor analytic techniques to identify underlying components
of intelligence tests, but come up with very different results. Carroll’s	185

186 Frameworks for Thinking

examination of large numbers of datasets supports the central beliefs of ‘g’ theorists (Carroll, 2003); in contrast, Guilford identifies as many as 180 subcategories. Gardner shares Guilford’s belief in a multifactorial conception of intelligence, but eschews the psychometric approach, contending that there are many forms of intelligence that conventional tests fail to examine.

A second set of frameworks (Piaget, Perry, King and Kitchener, Koplowitz) is concerned with the development of thinking through increasingly more complex phases or stages. While employing rather different definitions, frameworks and methodologies, they draw upon the disciplines of both psychology and philosophy in examining ‘personal epistemological development and epistemological beliefs: how individuals come to know, the theories and beliefs they hold about knowing, and the manner in which such epistemological premises are a part of and an influence on the cognitive processes of thinking and reasoning’ (Hofer and Pintrich, 1997, p. 88).

The father of this approach was Piaget, whose theory of ‘genetic epistemology’ was a powerful counter to the contemporary stranglehold of behaviourism (Hofer and Pintrich, 1997). Piaget’s stage approach to development was an inspiration for theorists working in many domains of human functioning. Koplowitz’s theory has a strong Piagetian basis but extends consideration of cognitive development into adulthood. However, Perry’s theorising, based upon two longitudinal studies of epistemological development in college students, also had a major impact in the US. Perry’s focus on male college students was followed up by Belenky’s examination of women’s ways of knowing (Belenky et al., 1986) and Baxter Magolda’s examination of the beliefs of both men and women (Baxter Magolda, 1987; 1992). King and Kitchener’s stage model of reflective judgment is also underpinned by epistemological concerns and reflects the influence of both Piaget and Perry (King and Kitchener, 1994).

Demetriou, a neo-Piagetian, draws upon psychometrics, information processing, stage, and sociocultural approaches in formulating a complex model of the developing mind. As we note in our evaluation of his model, he draws upon a diverse range of theorists, both from this and other families: Piaget, Carroll, Gardner, Sternberg, and Marzano.