308 Frameworks for Thinking

including 147 studies at college level, using the categories and subcategories from his new taxonomy of educational objectives. Marzano’s overall conclusion (1998, p. 135) was as follows:

The effective teacher is one who has clear instructional goals. These goals are communicated both to students and to parents. Ideally, the instructional goals address elements of the knowledge domains as well as the cognitive, metacognitive, and self-system. Even if the instructional goals focus on the knowledge domains only (as is frequently the case in public education), the teacher still uses instructional techniques that employ the cognitive system, the metacognitive system, and the self-system. Perhaps, above all, the teacher understands the interrelationships among the knowledge domains, the cognitive system, the metacognitive system, and the self-system, and uses that understanding to make the myriad of instructional decisions that occur in a single lesson.

In which areas is there extensive or widely accepted knowledge?

Theorists and taxonomists who categorise thinking skills do so on the assumption that the terms they use have meaning: in other words, that there are at least some skills, abilities or dispositions which are recognisable in different contexts. The question as to how far people are able to make use of those skills, abilities and dispositions in new situations, especially when learning is required in addition to preparedness and recall, is one requiring an answer based on experience, not theory. In our view, empirical research has amply confirmed that thinking and learning skills can be taught in such a way that the skills can successfully be applied in different (albeit usually closely related) areas.

We refer here to two relevant meta-analyses. In each of these, a thinking skills framework was used to categorise the results; and in both cases, it was found that interventions directed at metacognitive thinking skills were highly effective.

Hattie, Biggs and Purdie (1996) confined their interest to 271 effect sizes in 51 ‘learning skills interventions’. They found that ‘unistructural’ approaches (interventions directed at single-skill outcomes) were the most effective, with a large mean effect size of 0.83. Among the

Moving from understanding to productive thinking	309

most effective unistructural interventions were those addressing memory and reproductive performance. However, ‘relational interventions’ with ‘near transfer’ were also highly effective, the mean effect size being 0.77. The authors say (1996, p. 105) that relational interventions ‘are integrated to suit the individual’s self-assessment, are orchestrated to the demands of the particular task and context, and are selfregulated with discretion’. Relational interventions frequently have a metacognitive emphasis and include a small number of attributional retraining studies with a mean effect size of 1.05. Using ‘structural aids’ (with a strategy emphasis) was also moderately effective, the mean effect size being 0.58. Overall, in line with the weight of previous research, transfer effects were larger with ‘near’ than with ‘far transfer’. Hattie, Biggs and Purdie also found that the mean effect size for selfdirected interventions (0.70) was higher than for teacher-directed interventions (mean effect size 0.44).

Marzano (1998), found that college students responded just as well as school pupils when data from more than 4000 studies were aggregated. He confirmed Hattie, Biggs and Purdie’s finding (1996) that techniques designed to be used by students led to significantly better results than those designed to be used by teachers. Although there was enormous diversity in the intervention studies selected by Marzano, ranging from a focus on specific skills (such as memorisation) to the use of disposition-monitoring strategies, he made the following claim (1998, p. 127) about the importance of metacognition:

instructional techniques that employed the metacognitive system had strong effects whether they were intended to enhance the knowledge domains, the mental process within the cognitive system, the beliefs and processes within the self-system, or the processes within the metacognitive system itself.

Overall, Marzano found that interventions which engage either the self system or the metacognitive system lead to better knowledge outcomes (by six and five percentile points respectively) than those which are directed only at the use of cognitive skills. Nevertheless, there are some types of very effective intervention at the cognitive skill level. These are interventions which address: experimental enquiry; using analogies; comparing and contrasting; idea representation; and the storage and retrieval of knowledge.

310 Frameworks for Thinking

We can summarise these meta-analyses by saying that there is powerful empirical evidence that thinking skill interventions can be very effective at all levels, but especially if they are directed at metacognition, self-regulation and what may be termed ‘value-grounded thinking’. Their effectiveness is likely to be greater if they are used for learner self-regulation rather than coming fully under teacher control. However, well-focused interventions at the cognitive level can also be very effective. These include interventions with a focus on experimental enquiry and idea representation, as well as approaches to study support such as using cues and questions to aid retrieval. Our own more modest work in this area reaches similar conclusions (Higgins et al., 2004).

In which areas is knowledge very limited or highly contested?

In our evaluations we have commented on the explicit and implicit value systems communicated by each theorist. There is considerable diversity among these and many philosophically and morally contested areas. Here we will not enter into debates which cannot be settled by research evidence, but will simply note the main areas of contention.

First, there are diverse views about the nature of knowledge and about how to access and use it. The power which people can exercise through thinking and communication also occupies many writers, who take positions ranging from various forms of elitism (intellectual, sociocultural or spiritual) to an egalitarian concern for human rights. There are also distinct moral and ethical belief systems – with some writers taking a pragmatic, technological view about the possible social and economic benefits of improved thinking; some espousing the values of a liberal–humanistic tradition; and others having a strong belief in rationalism.

We have also commented on a spectrum of views about nature and nurture and about individual freedoms and state control. Finally, opinions differ widely about which aspects of thinking should be taught and how they should be taught.

Of the contested issues listed above, those in the previous paragraph are, to varying degrees, open to systematic enquiry and research. The last of these (the nature and nurture debate) has been researched more

Moving from understanding to productive thinking	311

than the others. For example, Pederson, Plomin and McClearn (1994) found substantial and broadly similar genetic influences on both general and specific cognitive abilities. Several studies have shown that genetic factors influence personality traits rather less than cognitive abilities (Loehlin, 1992). What is not known about thinking and learning is how far genetic influences impose limits on achievement when motivation is high and good-quality personal and environmental support are provided.

Most teachers accept that it is a core part of their role to take account of individual differences in learners, whether in terms of goals, preferences, ability, aptitude, or style of thinking and learning. There is no doubt that teachers are attracted by the idea that better results may be achievable if they capitalise on individual strengths, such as Gardner’s multiple intelligences. However, in researching this area, there is a serious methodological difficulty in trying to control for the catalytic effects of enthusiasm on the part of those who take up novel approaches.

Just as the evidence base on the best ways to meet the individual needs of learners is weak, little is known about how to support teachers in being more effective in ways which respect their own individual differences and build on personal strengths. Apart from differences in the nature and extent of teacher direction and the facilitation of independent learning, teachers differ in other ways; for example, in creativity, in how they respond to a prescriptive curriculum, in their interest in abstract thinking, and in ‘emotional intelligence’.

There is wide acceptance among psychologists and educators of the idea that thinking in individuals and groups is shaped through interpersonal interaction. Cognitive psychology is compatible with constructivist conceptions of learning and with the importance of person–situation interactions. As we have seen, theorists such as Pintrich and Vermunt see contextual factors as being highly important in relation to self-regulated learning. The sociocultural contexts in which learning takes place are also generally considered to exert powerful influences, even within the behavioural tradition. For example, Strand, Barnes-Holmes and Barnes-Holmes (2003, p. 105) suggest ‘that advances in our understanding of choice behavior and verbal behavior