Seven all-embracing frameworks	295

Some issues for further investigation

•What are the similarities and differences between the different treatments of knowledge?

•What evidence is there that perceiving and remembering are seen as processes in which meaning is constructed?

•Do any of the authors present the interplay of cognition and emotion as a holistic, dynamic process?

•Which, if any, of the new technical terms used by these authors are illuminative?

•Does any framework include important features which are not found elsewhere?

•Which framework presents the most helpful account of problemsolving?

•Which frameworks best accommodate creative thinking and which are themselves creative?

•How do the frameworks differ in dealing with the development and power of attitudes and dispositions?

•Are there any substantive differences between these authors in their understanding of self-regulation?

•Are any of these frameworks incompatible with the others or with parts of others?

•Which of these authors have also developed models of cognitive or learning style and how do such models relate to those considered here?

•Which frameworks are influenced by developmental stage models of human cognition and how are these influences apparent?

•What kinds of moral judgment are implicit and explicit in the various frameworks?

•Which of these frameworks is the most mechanistic and which the most humanistic – and why?

7

Moving from understanding to productive thinking: implications for practice

Overview

This chapter reviews the potential contribution of the various frameworks, 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 outline 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	296