Development

Thinking for Learning Foreword

Alistair Smith

In March 2001 this question appeared on the Swiss National Census form,

'In which language do you think?'

A good question, and not one which we would see on a UK Census form. Does the language of your thought indicate the nature of the thought? Simon Percival tells the story of the bilingual teenager with a French mother and an English father. Asked about her thinking, she pointed out that if she wanted to think coolly and rationally she thought in English like her father. If she wanted to think emotionally and with feeling she thought in French like her mother.

Is there a language of thinking? If so, can that language be taught? How should it be taught? By whom? When? Do we know all the languages of thought? Are there more? Why is there such an interest now? Is there such a thing as a thinking skill? What about a thinking classroom? A thinking school?

The emergence of interest in thinking skills
In the UK there has been an unexpected growth in interest in 'thinking skills'. The term 'thinking' is now common parlance in the UK learning community in a way that was unfashionable ten or more years ago. We now have Local Education Authority posts advertised for 'Thinking Co-ordinator KS3'. Perhaps we shall shortly see the emergence of Head of Thinking posts in schools with attached responsibility points. The underground movements around Philosophy for Children, Somerset Thinking Skills and CASE have suddenly emerged, blinking, into the full stare of the country. Why is there such an interest now?

We have a one size fits all education system where teachers struggle heroically to differentiate, to built in continuity and progression and to assess against a battery of levels. Yet at the same time, we know more and more about the individuality of learning. Recent challenges to orthodox views regarding intelligence have left us believing that, rather than be an inherited lump, determined by genetic inheritance, it may well be modifiable, that it may evidence itself in multiple ways and at different developmental stages: perhaps it could even be taught.

We have an emerging fascination with neuroscience. Professors of neurology have become media personalities. The science tells us of the complexity, plasticity and adaptability of the human brain. It now shows us how new cells can in fact be grown. It demonstrates how neural structures are modified throughout the life span by experience.

Educationalists have re-discovered constructivism and, in particular Vygotsky's very early work on scaffolding and proximal development. Constructivists argue that one only understands information relative to what one already understands, meaning being constructed from our own experiences.

Perhaps most significantly there is an impatience amongst professionals and, dare it be said, even amongst some politicians, with a content curriculum and a recognition that an obsession with 'knowing' will betray us in the future when it's the 'learners' who will prevail. The political tension is self-evident. Societies change. Every considered view based on meaningful evidence points to the fact that learning requires active engagement. Children need to be stretched and challenged. Cramming with content squeezes out the active engagement. However, to actively engage means involving, it means independent decision-making and it means electing through choice. A content curriculum by its very nature is at odds with this. A preoccupation with end testing has the same effect. Summative assessment squeezes out formative, and yet it is formative assessment - learning as you go - that works.

Emerging, and alternative models, of teaching and learning have recently secured the interest of the educators and generated much debate. None more so than the accelerated learning model. It has its critics but even they would acknowledge it has done a job in getting a community discussing the nature of learning and the paucity of some of our inherited models. It has played a part in clearing the ground for work on thinking skills and formative assessment. We now have national projects with popular appeal that focus on learning about learning. At the same time thinking from business and research communities has begun to shape the educator's interest: emotional intelligence, collaborative learning, coaching and mentoring.

What are thinking skills?
Is there a language of thinking? If so, what are the languages and are there skills that go with the languages? Can a process that is cognitive be described as a skill? The term is ambiguous. How do I demonstrate the skill? At what point ought it to emerge? Should such a skill, displaced from its context, be given value? We are told by the old and the sage that, ''there are many ways to skin a cat'. No doubt there are and no doubt I could develop my skills as a cat skinner', but should I be doing this anyway?

The language of thinking has common points. Researchers such as McGuiness and Schwartz and Parks acknowledge the difficulty in isolating a set of 'skills' but nevertheless offer a range which includes:

• Sequencing and ordering information
• Sorting, classifying, grouping
• Analysing, identifying relationships
• Comparing and contrasting
• Making predictions and hypothesising
• Drawing conclusions
• Distinguishing facts and opinion
• Bias and reliability
• Generating ideas and brainstorming
• Cause and effect, fair tests
• Defining and clarifying problems
• Thinking up solutions
• Goals and sub-goals
• Testing solutions, evaluating outcomes
• Planning and monitoring
• Making decisions
• Setting priorities
• Pros and cons
• Reflecting on one's own thinking

As with all languages, they are only genuinely useful within a context. Although the above list could be said to supply us with all the essential grammar, it's when we have to use it, retain it and transfer it that it works its magic. Can we take these skills or 'language elements' and organise them into families? This would be akin to mapping a family such as the different European languages. We can organise the thinking skills approaches into three families. They could be:

1. The teaching of specific skills outside of a domain

• Instrumental Enrichment (Feuerstein/Sharron)
• Somerset Thinking Skills (Blagg)
• Top Ten Thinking Tactics (Lake)

2. The teaching of skills within a subject domain

• CASE/CAME - Cognitive Advancement in Science/Maths Education (Adey/Shayer)
• Thinking through Geography (Leat)

3. The teaching of thinking skills across domains

• ACTS (Activating Children's Thinking Skills)
• Infusion of Thinking into Subject Content (Schwartz and Parks)
• CORT (De Bono)
• Philosophy for Children (Lipman/Fisher/Murris)
• De-briefing (Leat and others)
• Accelerated Learning (Smith/Rose)
• Multiple Intelligence (Gardner)

Is there overlap between the languages? Do the thinking skills approaches have similarities? Of course they do, otherwise we have major problems! They are all, in their own way and with their own philosophical and pedagogical approach trying to develop some of the language units or skills described in our list above.

Can thinking skills be taught - is it worth the effort?
It has to be more than an act of faith that thinking can be taught. The current research evidence as to how and when and for what duration is confused and, I would argue, contaminated by poor controls. We await independent research which acts on tight controls and has a set of meaningful outcomes to measure against. Much of the research is conducted by those who are promoting their own programmes. It is insufficient to say that improvements in GCSE scores arising from a thinking skills approach means that there are concomitant and permanent improvements in thinking. The GCSE exams measure a different set of qualities. Some say that, in its current form, it is largely a memory test. How do we measure transferability?

With a heavy investment in teacher development for some of the thinking skills programmes - as much as 8 working days over 6 terms - one would expect a significant return but what we get is often patchy. Gains in self-esteem, behaviour, risk-taking, collaboration, listening and questioning skills and reflective thinking are all notoriously difficult to measure. This doesn't mean the journey isn't worth it but before you set out know the pros and cons. Here are a few:

The evidence for the teaching of thinking skills

• some evidence of success with children in profound learning disadvantage (IE)
• the proponents argue for general transferability of skills
• acquisition and retention of thinking skills offer a lifelong learning advantage
• proponents (of IE) argue it is possible & desirable to separate skills of thinking from the content or domain
• some evaluations show improvement in related academic performance (CASE)
• some small scale experiments show improvement in idea generation (CORT)
• it leads to improvement in the professional knowledge of teachers
• it is what successful teachers do!
• successful prototypes exist and are in place

The evidence against the teaching of thinking skills

• the definition of thinking skills remains problematic
• the narrowness of definitions of thinking skills do not ally to breadth of interpretation of 'intelligence'
• insufficient evidence of transfer across subjects or domains
• the more general a skill, the less useful it is
• teaching thinking skills does not necessarily develop dispositions towards their use
• some evaluations of 'successful' programmes are insufficiently objective
• thinking skills can be too readily positioned as a 'bolt-on' activity
• successful prototypes have worked in 'favourable' learning environments

How and when should thinking skills be taught?
This book, Thinking for Learning, succeeds because of its honesty in proposing a plural approach. It scans the horizon, starting with local based research in Northumberland, and concludes there is no one way that sticks out as being exceptional and which every teacher must follow. The two obvious models are those which support specific programmes and those which support infusion.

School circumstances vary, and, in some instances an off the shelf package is what is needed. In other cases it may be possible to infuse problem solving, higher order thinking and more reflection into and across subjects. This is a bit like the nozzle on your shower. Do you narrow the flow of water so concentrates in a spurt onto a narrow spot on your back? It hurts a bit for a while, but it isn't half invigorating. Or do you open up the flow so it disperses over a wider area? It's less intense, less focused, hits more of your body. but is less fun. Is there a right answer? No, it depends on the outcomes you seek. Thinking For Learning helps you make the decision.

Looking at the evidence from Thinking For Learning and other sources, certain broad pointers emerge as to how and when to develop formal thinking approaches. Here are some

• start early - neuroscience talks of sensitive periods for neural development where structures are beginning to be laid in place for life starting and ending early
• begin broad then narrow - Philosophy for Children encourages teachers to model Socratic dialogue in the context of broad choices and decisions faced by characters in novels
• root the skills in context - this means that we may develop the skills in our out of a subject discipline but we always de-brief for transfer and use in different contexts
• put the spotlight on metacognition - encourage learners to share and evaluate their thinking within, throughout and after the experience: Accelerated Learning proponents call this pole-bridging
• encourage and plan for co-operation and shared decision-making
• become a coach, a mentor and a model for the practices you espouse
• encourage dialogue to develop listening and questioning skills
• develop process sensitivity - explain why you are doing what you are doing and encourage learners to do the same: share the skills
• use a range of technologies - including computers - but expose the learning models and methodologies as you do so (many learners 'scratch and sniff' on computers - they do not test themselves on challenging cognitive activities)

I would thoroughly commend Thinking For Learning to you. Mel Rockett and Simon Percival have undertaken a large task in describing the language of thinking skills and how the various families relate to each other.

Alistair Smith

Details of Thinking for Learning are available on the Alite website.