300 Frameworks for Thinking

Hauenstein (1998) and Marzano (2001a; 2001b) all come close to providing comprehensive coverage of thinking and learning in all areas of experience, but each have their own weaknesses and cannot be regarded as complete solutions for general use as they stand.

We did not therefore find one framework which can be recommended for widespread application as a way of giving purpose and structure to the experience of teaching and learning. At one stage we thought that we might be able to recommend Marzano’s new taxonomy of educational objectives above all others (Marzano, 2001a and 2001b). His framework has two main advantages. It is built on psychological theory, and has been used to classify the outcomes of educational interventions in a very extensive meta-analysis (Marzano, 1998). However, there are certain problems with Marzano’s approach. Firstly, we do not believe it is helpful to distinguish as strongly as Marzano does between the self system and the metacognitive system, since we see these as being in dynamic interaction. Secondly, Marzano’s set of knowledge utilisation categories omits reasoning and creative thinking. Thirdly, in his first three cognitive categories, he defines some terms in ways which diverge from common usage and from the wellknown meanings in other taxonomies.

We can identify three complementary frameworks which together provide comprehensive coverage. Pintrich’s framework of selfregulated learning (see page 235) best conveys the meaning of strategic and reflective thinking, using a variation of the familiar plan-do-review cycle. Halpern (1997) provides a popular productive thinking framework (see page 140), accompanied by resource materials designed for school and college use (Halpern 2002). Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) updated and extended revision of Bloom’s taxonomy (see page 49), which can be used with any age and ability group, provides a vocabulary for describing specific knowledge and skill objectives. It covers basic thinking skills as well as single processes which, especially when combined, constitute productive thinking.

Using thinking skills frameworks

There are many ways in which the use of thinking skills frameworks can support teachers in their practice and be built into both teacher

Moving from understanding to productive thinking	301

training and further professional development. Teachers need regular opportunities to reflect on their own learning and style of teaching. Without such opportunities, they will not be prepared to engage learners in similar discussions. Thinking skills frameworks can help to provide the necessary lexicon of thinking and learning, to develop a common language applicable across subject areas.

Elsewhere in this book we have referred to the use of thinking skills frameworks in the planning of instruction, in teaching, in assessment, and in the alignment of all three. This is clearly one of the most valuable functions of these frameworks. Planning can be done at several different levels, but it is the teacher who has, on the basis of formative and summative assessments, to make constant adjustments while teaching in order to facilitate learning. The skills required cannot be learned from textbooks alone, but are undoubtedly capable of development and fine-tuning using models and frameworks which make some aspects of thinking more explicit. The teacher’s job is to ensure that learning takes place, and as teachers develop expertise, their constructs about teaching and learning become more sophisticated. Being able to discuss those constructs within a community of practice and in relation to theory-based frameworks makes a teacher not only a learner, but a practitioner–researcher. Indeed there is evidence that this kind of professional enquiry is in itself an effective way to support more effective teaching (Fennema et al., 1996; Franke et al., 1998).

It is not just teachers, but learners who need to develop a mature understanding of thinking and learning, especially in contexts where learners have to take a large share of the responsibility for their own progress. They need to consider not only their immediate needs, but the possible value of ‘transferable skills’ (the thinking that underlies key skills initiatives, for instance). Good communication, effective working with others and a commitment to improving one’s own learning and performance are clearly valuable qualities. They can be developed in many ways, not just through formal education and training. As Lipman (1991) argues, it is far from clear that the best way to develop an intrinsic interest in thinking and learning is through prescribed activities. Lipman advocates the community of enquiry approach to thinking and learning, through philosophical discussion

302 Frameworks for Thinking

of issues of concern to a group. Yet even here, participants need to understand the theoretical framework within which the community operates.

Another use of a framework for understanding thinking and learning is as a research and evaluation tool. For example, Vermunt and Verloop (1999) write persuasively about congruence and friction between learning and teaching. They suggest that ‘congruence’ exists both when either teacher direction is high and student self-regulation low, and when student self-regulation is high and teacher direction low. A theory-based framework of approaches to learning like the one produced by Vermunt (1996) can lead to new ways of assessing psychological and pedagogical aspects of learning environments. It then becomes possible to relate what are presumed to be indicators of quality to outcome measures. There is a serious lack of evidencebased information of this kind, without which any inspection or quality assurance regime lacks credibility.

Which frameworks are best suited to specific applications?

Two of the complementary frameworks identified above (Halpern, 1997 and Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001) are written in a particularly accessible style. There is continuity between Bloom (1956) and Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) in that David Krathwohl was a member of Bloom’s original team. In fact, teachers can still learn a lot from Bloom’s famous book, which was written with college students in mind and shows few signs of its age. It has the advantage of being very concise and well written. Pintrich’s framework of selfregulated learning can be understood in tabular form, but does need a more accessible exposition.

These three frameworks are, however, not the only ones that can help teachers acquire what we have called a ‘lexicon of thinking and learning’. An outstanding professional resource is Costa’s Developing Minds (2001), which contains chapters by Baron, Ennis, Marzano, McTighe, Paul, Perkins, Presseisen and Tishman, among others. This enables practitioners to select and develop ideas from these perspectives and grapple with the vocabulary and language that each perspective promotes. Those wanting an off-the-shelf practical

Moving from understanding to productive thinking	303

framework, expressed in simple language and designed to be understood by learners as well as teachers, will find that the TASC model (Adams and Wallace, 1990) goes a long way towards meeting their needs.

We believe also that the following frameworks can help the reader better understand thinking and learning (which is not to say that all the original sources are accessible): Baron, Carroll, Gardner, Guilford, Hannah and Michaelis, Jewell, Koplowitz, Lipman, Quellmalz, Presseisen, Romiszowski, Sternberg, Vermunt and Verloop, Wallace and Adams, and Williams. The work of Gardner, Presseisen, Sternberg, Wallace and Adams and Vermunt is readily available and particularly relevant for teacher educators.

If the subject of thinking skills, especially critical thinking, is approached from a philosophical perspective, the frameworks of Ennis, Lipman and Paul can be usefully compared and contrasted. An indepth but also very practical psychological perspective on critical thinking is provided by Halpern (1997). As Sternberg’s earlier work on critical thinking is available only on microfiche (1986), we recommend the latest edition of his general textbook on cognitive psychology (2003a). For understanding developmental perspectives on critical thinking, King and Kitchener’s (1994) book is the best source, with Perry (1970) and Belenky (1986) providing both historical and theoretical context.

For instructional design purposes, we have highlighted Anderson and Krathwohl’s revision (2001) of Bloom’s taxonomy (1956). Readers who want a comprehensive treatment of instructional design should consult Jonassen, Tessmer and Hannum (1999). In addition, we suggest that consideration be given to the frameworks developed by Romiszowski (1981), Hannah and Michaelis (1977) and Hauenstein (1998). These all deal with psychomotor and affective learning objectives (as well as cognitive ones) and are concerned with stages in the development of understanding as well as with the end result. If the focus of instructional design is creative thinking, the most useful frameworks are those of Gouge and Yates (2002) and Williams (1970), while the work of Halpern and Lipman is also relevant.

Of all the authors we have reviewed, Marzano is noteworthy for translating research findings into teaching recommendations, framing