1
A RECENT HISTORY OF TEACHING THINKING
Steve Higgins
Introduction
There have always been arguments about what the terms âteaching thinkingâ (Sternberg & Berg, 1992) and âthinking skillsâ mean since they first came into vogue in the late 1970s (McGregor, 2007). Indeed some argue that the concept of teaching general thinking or thinking skills is misguided, while others focus on its utility in the classroom to provoke more complex thinking and to help teachers develop appropriate pedagogies to support learnersâ development (Higgins & Baumfield, 1998). A host of different programmes and approaches have advocated teaching thinking skills. See Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith (1985) for an account of developments, particularly in North America through the 1970s and the early 1980s and Hamers, van Luit, & CsapĂł (1999) for a European perspective up to the turn of the century, or McGregor (2007) for more recent developments. One way to understand the development of teaching thinking is to start with the influence of three key individuals who exemplify the different strands of teaching thinking in schools. Each has pioneered a different approach, and their ideas have influenced and inspired other programmes and approaches over the last 60 years. Subsequently, as teachers have adopted these ideas, and as researchers have explored their effects, there has been a cross-fertilisation of ideas, with increasing emphasis on the impact of different approaches so their inclusion can be justified in an increasingly scrutinised curriculum. At the same time there have been criticisms about the focus in teaching thinking and about the development of skills and capabilities and how this relates to curriculum content and knowledge in particular.
Reuven Feuerstein and Instrumental Enrichment
After World War II, young people flooded into Israel. Many of them suffered traumatic experiences and alienation from anything which could be described as a coherent cultural inheritance. On intelligence and standardised tests many of these youngsters scored so badly as to appear ineducable. Rather than simply accept this conclusion and deny any chance of recovery, Reuven Feuerstein devised ways of finding out:
⢠exactly what cognitive functions they were deficient in,
⢠how they could be helped to develop these functions,
⢠what was each individualâs potential for learning.
Feuerstein developed a set of techniques that helped these learners succeed on subsequent tests. These methods were termed âdynamicâ, in that they were studying changes in the process of learning, as opposed to âstaticâ traditional assessments. He argued that this process was much more likely to predict how someone might learn in the future (Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman, & Miller, 1980; see also Feuerstein, Jensen, Hoffman, & Rand, 2014). The complex diagnostic instrument which he and his colleagues developed was called the Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD). It measures an individualâs intellectual change, known as âcognitive modifiabilityâ (Sharron & Coulter, 1994). Twenty different tasks or âinstrumentsâ were devised, to tackle different underlying difficulties involving 200â300 hours of interaction. As the whole process is an enriching one, the programme was labelled Instrumental Enrichment. Feuersteinâs ideas have influenced work on teaching thinking: his innovative theory of mediated learning in particular which led to the development of dynamic assessment (Haywood, & Lidz, 2007; Tzuriel, 2001) and more broadly, his cognitive, task-based approach supported by teacher mediation: for evidence impact see Romney and Samuels (2001). The instruments do not contain specific content or knowledge so are both additional to and separate from the traditional school curriculum, though Feuerstein & Falik (2010) argue that structural cognitive teaching should be seen as a separate and distinct curricular intervention.
Matthew Lipman and Philosophy for Children (P4C)
Another important pioneer, in what in the United States is termed the Critical Thinking movement, is the American philosopher, Matthew Lipman. Originally a university philosophy professor, Lipman was unhappy at what he saw as the poverty of thinking in his students (Lipman, 2003). He became convinced that something was wrong with the way they had been taught in school when they were younger. They seemed to have been encouraged to learn facts and to accept authoritative opinions, but not to think for themselves. He therefore founded the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC) at Montclair State College, New Jersey, in 1972. Since then and until his death in 2010, he and his colleagues developed material for use in schools, to help young people to think. One of Lipmanâs basic convictions is that children are natural philosophers, and view the world with curiosity and wonder. That is all that is needed as a starting-point for enquiry, which can legitimately be termed âphilosophicalâ. The Philosophy for Children (P4C) programme (Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyan, 1980) rests on certain assumptions, such as that discussion skills precede and form the basis for better thinking. Through engaging in group dialogue and a âcommunity of enquiryâ, children can become more effective thinkers.
The IAPC has produced a number of novels, into which strange and anomalous points have been woven. As a class reads a page together, the text encourages them to raise questions. These queries form the basis of guided discussions. The teacher does not try to control what questions are asked, since it is the childrenâs curiosity which needs to be tapped to promote active participation and learning. The text steers the childrenâs questions into certain areas, suitable for exploration, and the novels provide a model of philosophical enquiry, describing fictional children engaging in argument, debate and discussion.
The adoption and impact of P4C has been worldwide, in countries from Australia (Splitter & Sharp, 1995) to Iceland (Sigurborsdottir, 1998) and in other subjects such as science (Sprod, 1998). It has been developed for younger children, through Teaching Philosophy with Picture Books and Storywise (Haynes & Murris, 2011; Murris, 1992; Murris & Haynes, 2001). Other school-age programmes draw on the âcommunity of enquiryâ approach (Fisher, 1996, 1998; see also the work of the Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education (SAPERE) and Naji & Hashim, 2017). An interest in philosophical ideas, as opposed to psychological ones, predominates and the approach sees its lineage through Lipman to the work of John Dewey. This âcommunity of inquiryâ approach has also expanded and influenced the development of online learning in universities (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2010). For an overall synthesis of impact see Trickey & Toppingâs review (2004). P4C is usually taught as a separate set of lessons, additional to the school curriculum or replacing other lessons. In some adaptations of P4C teachers select a text with specific subject content (such as understanding in science), or to develop speaking and listening skills (Jones, 2008).
Edward de Bonoâs thinking tools
Edward de Bonoâs key contribution has been in developing a range of widely and easily applicable thinking tools which have captured popular imagination, accompanied by considerable commercial success. One of the first of these was Lateral thinking in 1967: solving problems with an indirect and creative approach, involving ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic (de Bono, 1970). He has developed a range of other popular approaches, such as âSix Thinking Hatsâ, which is perhaps the most widely known. This is a tool for group discussion and individual thinking involving six coloured hats, with each hat representing a different kind of thinking. Six Thinking Hats and the associated idea of âparallel thinkingâ aim to provide a way for people to plan their thinking in a more detailed and explicit way. Throughout his writings (e.g. 1970, 1992, 2010), de Bono stresses the importance of consciously practising certain strategies in order to become a more effective thinker. His CoRT (Cognitive Research Trust) materials refer to âthinking toolsâ, which are made easy for children to remember, with acronym titles such as PMI (Plus Minus Interesting) or CAF (Consider All Factors). He claims his tools are based on his understanding of the brain as a self-organizing system and that he has updated and developed his thinking tools as knowledge of the brain has developed (Dudgeon, 2001). However, his work has also been criticised from an academic perspective as lacking theoretical coherence (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999) and empirical validation (Moseley et al., 2005). Despite these criticisms his work remains internationally influential and widely used.
De Bono differs from the other approaches, on at least the following two counts. First, his theory of how the human mind works has tried to remain consistent with developing knowledge of how the brain functions and his tools and ideas are based on these inspirations. Second, he is more concerned with innovation and creativity than developing or proving psychological or educational theory.
Approaches such as Tony Buzanâs Mind Mapping (2006) or Alistair Smithâs Accelerated Learning (e.g. Smith, Call, & Baton, 1999) follow de Bonoâs inspiration and use information about the brain to inspire teachers and learners to adopt specific techniques. Other brain-based approaches have found the gap between neurological research and prac...
