thin<ing for learning M EL CKET & S I M ON PERCIVAL This page intentionally left blank The authors would like to thank the following for providing help and materials in producing this book: Allendale First School Allendale Middle School Blyth Community College Byrness First School Cheshire Local Education Authority (Peter Greenhalgh) Department for Education and Skills The Discovery Project Dukes Middle School Haydon Bridge High School Hempnall First School, Hempnall, Norfolk Hipsburn First School Kenton High School Kinsale Avenue First School, Norwich Larkman First School, Norwich Norfolk Education Advisory Service (Helen Banks) Northumberland LEA Paulsgrove Primary School, Portsmouth Portsmouth City Education Department Prudhoe Community High School Ryles Park High School, Macclesfield St Benet Biscop RC High School, Bedlington Stobhillgate First School Teacher Training Agency (TTA) Thinking Skills Research Centre, University of Newcastle (Vivienne Baumfield) Thomas Tallis School, Greenwich Tuckswood First School, Norwich Wylam First School Continuum International Publishing Group The Tower Building 11 York Road London SE1 7NX 80 Maiden Lane Suite 704 New York NY10038 © Mel Rockett and Simon Percival 2002 ISBN 1 85539 096 5 The rights of Mel Rockett and Simon Percival to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with Sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publishers. This book may not be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise disposed of by way of trade in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published, without the prior consent of the publishers. Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders of materials reproduced in this book. The publishers apologise for any omissions and will be pleased to rectify them at the earliest opportunity. Managing Editor: Janice Baiton Design: Neil Hawkins - Network Educational Press Ltd Illustrations: Trevor Bounford - bounford.com Contents Foremord 6 by Alistair Smith Rcknoiiiledgements 11 Chapter 1 Thinking 13 Chapter 2 Thinking pupils 41 Chapter 3 Thinking teachers 77 Chapter 4 Thinking schools 101 Chapter 5 Thinking about change 159 Dppendices Hppendix fl Tuckswood First School 187 Appendix B Allendale First School 190 Appendix C Byrness First School 192 Appendix D Kinsale Avenue First School 197 Appendix E Hempnall School 198 Appendix F St Benet Biscop School 200 References 203 Further reodino ond resources 206 Top ihinhing uiebsifes 209 Index 211 Foreword The Accelerated Learning Series attempts to pull together new and innovative thinking about learning. The titles in the series offer contemporary solutions to old problems. The series is held together by the accelerated learning model which, in turn, is underwritten by an informed theoretical understanding. The term 'Accelerated Learning' can be misleading. The method is not for a specific group of learners, nor for a given age range, nor for a category of perceived ability. The method is not about doing the same things faster. It is not about fast-tracking or about hot- housing. It is a considered, generic approach to learning based on research drawn from disparate disciplines and tested with different age groups and different ability levels in very different circumstances. As such, it can be adapted and applied to very different challenges. The books in the Accelerated Learning Series build from the Accelerated Learning Cycle. The cycle starts by attending to the physical, environmental and social factors in learning. It proposes the worth of a positive and supportive learning environment. It then deliberately attempts to connect to, and build upon, prior knowledge and understanding whilst presenting an overview of the learning challenge to come. Participants set positive outcomes and define targets towards reaching those outcomes. Information is then presented in visual, auditory and kinesthetic modes and is reinforced through different forms of intelligent response. Frequent, structured opportunities to demonstrate understanding and to rehearse for recall are the concluding feature of the cycle. In March 2001 this question appeared on the Swiss National Census form, 'In which language do you think?' A good question and not one that we would see on a UK Census form. Does the language of your thought indicate the nature of the thought? The authors tell the story of a 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 G Thinking for Learning FOREWORD 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 build 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, intelligence 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 one's 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 engage actively 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 7 Thinking for Learning FOREWORD 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 also Schwartz and Parks acknowledge the difficulty in isolating a set of 'skills' but nevertheless offer a range that 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: I The teaching of specific skills outside of a domain Instrumental Enrichment (Feuerstein, Sharron) Somerset Thinking Skills (Blagg) Top Ten Thinking Tactics (Lake and Needham) 2 The teaching of skills within a subject domain CASE/CAME - Cognitive Acceleration in Science/Maths Education (Adey and 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) 8 thinking for Learning FOREWORD CORT (De Bono) Philosophy for Children (Lipman, Fisher, Murris) De-briefing (Leaf 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 fought? Is if 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 that 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 eight working days over six 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 and 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 9 Thinking for Leaning