Moving from understanding to productive thinking	297

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 understanding 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.

How are thinking skills classified?

Altogether, we identified a total of 16 different kinds of principle that were used in the frameworks we have evaluated to classify thinking

298 Frameworks for Thinking

and/or its outcomes. As can be seen from the evaluative summaries, most frameworks are structured by only two or three principles and none by a comprehensive set. We list the principles used in all 42 frameworks in the present handbook under four main headings as follows:

Domain

•area of experience

•subject area

Content

•types of objective

•types of product (including knowledge products)

Process

•steps/phases in a sequence or cycle

•complexity

•level in a hierarchy

•type of thinking or learning

•quality of thought/action

Psychological aspects

•stage of development

•structural features of cognition

•nature and strength of dispositions

•internalisation of learning

•orchestration and control of thinking

•degree of learner autonomy

•level of consciousness.

It was no surprise to find that the most comprehensive frameworks (according to the number and range of principles they embody) are members of the all-embracing and instructional design families. We found ten frameworks which are based on a selection of principles from each of the generic categories: domain, content, process and psychological aspects. Five of these are the all-embracing frameworks of Romiszowski (1981), Wallace and Adams (1990), Jonassen and Tessmer (1996/7), Hauenstein (1998) and Marzano (2001a; 2001b).

Moving from understanding to productive thinking	299

Four more are the instructional design frameworks of Gagne´ (1965; 1985), Williams (1970), Hannah and Michaelis (1977) and Gouge and Yates (2002). Demetriou’s (1993) integrated developmental model of the mind also belongs in this category. It is worth noting that Bloom’s overall taxonomic achievements would qualify him for membership of this group, if we were to take into account his work in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains.

The all-embracing frameworks are more likely than others to include some coverage of the affective and conative domains as well as cognitive skills. The more recent frameworks also include an explicit treatment of metacognition.

Several instructional design frameworks also extend beyond the cognitive domain, but members of this family are distinctive because their purpose is to categorise different kinds of learning objective and subject content or how far knowledge and skills are internalised.

Our examination of the classificatory principles used in the critical and productive thinking frameworks showed that the presence or absence of reflective and metacognitive processes and of dispositions with conative and affective features are often highlighted (as in the frameworks of Ennis, Paul and Lipman; see Chapter 4). However, there are some frameworks which are limited to the cognitive and metacognitive domain; such as Allen, Feezel and Kauffie (1967). Another feature of critical thinking frameworks is that (apart from valuing progress toward better critical thinking) their authors do not specify different kinds of objective (e.g. global or specific, short-term or long-term).

Among the frameworks dealing with cognitive structure and development there are some in which classificatory principles from only one category are used (such as Belenky et al., 1986, Koplowitz, 1987 and King and Kitchener, 1994). Again, within this type of framework, with the exception of Guilford’s (1956) products dimension, different types of objective or outcome are not identified.

As at least 16 different kinds of principle have been used to classify thinking skills, it is most unlikely that a comprehensive and manageable framework can be constructed which uses all of them: a hypertaxonomy or ‘meta-taxonomy’ perhaps. It is perhaps for this reason that Romiszowski (1981) presents three separate models: a categorisation of knowledge; a skill cycle; and a schema of skill categories. Romiszowski, Gagne´ (1965; 1985), Hannah and Michaelis (1977),