This following list of strategies and thinking skills was used as a checklist against which the unit was assessed for the presence of the New Basics’
Productive Pedagogies (Education Queensland, 2000). Below are the Pedagogies along with examples of their use in the unit.
Strategy Example of use
Higher order thinking Anderson’s/Bloom’s Taxonomy
Deep knowledge Study of one structure through a variety of activities Substantive conversation Use of philosophical inquiry at each level
Designing a thinking curriculum
Strategy Example of use
Metalanguage Students taught about structure of unit grid and aware of its purpose
Knowledge integration Final task requires use of a range of intelligences to complete satisfactorily
Background knowledge Students write about a structure significant to them Connectedness to world Talk by a visiting architect about real building processes Problem based curriculum Final Rich Task, though most tasks were problem based Student control All activities negotiated with students
Engagement Students enjoyed all activities
Explicit criteria Negotiated with students before each task
Inclusivity All students participated equally
Narrative Not in evidence
Citizenship Final structure designed for benefit of community
This unit, then, can reasonably claim to use a comprehensive range of both productive pedagogies and thinking curriculum aims. Not only are students taught to think at a variety of levels, a skill they will require for the future, but they are also encouraged to be the kind of caring and community minded citizens that we need for this future.
Bibliography
De Bono, E 1996, Serious Creativity, Harper Collins Business, London.
Education Queensland 2000, New Basics Project Technical Paper, http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/
Education Victoria 1995, Curriculum and Standards Framework 11.
Gardner, H & Hatch, T 1989, ‘Multiple Intelligences Go to School’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 18, No. 8, pp. 4–10.
Gardner, H 1993, Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice, Harper Collins, New York.
Herrmann, N 1996, Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument, Herrmann International, Sydney.
Lipman, M, Sharp, A & Oscanyan, F 1980, Philosophy in the Classroom, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Pohl, M 2000, Learning to Think, Thinking to Learn, Hawker Brownlow Education, Melbourne.
Education Queensland, http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics
Wilks, S 1995, Critical and Creative Thinking: Strategies for Classroom Inquiry, Eleanor Curtain Publishing, Melbourne.
Crying Out Anthony Nguyen Year 7 St Bede’s College
Boab Tree Sarah Higgins
Grade 5 Stanley Primary School
Designing a thinking curriculum
08
Negotiating a thinking skills curriculum in Year 8
David Reynolds
Princes Hill Secondary College
Abstract
The need to develop a unit combining Year 8 Society and Environment and English classes provided Reynolds with an authentic purpose and the motiva- tion to draw together approaches used to promote higher order thinking. Kate McArthur, a student teacher he was supervising, indicated an interest in the area, so the planning of this unit occurred as a collaborative process. Together they assessed theoretical principles, identified the needs of the students, estab- lished key conceptual goals for student learning, and wrote appropriate assess- ment criteria. Once the broad outline was in place, reflective learning and adaptation occurred as the unit progressed.
Introduction
The overall aim of the unit of work for Year 8 students was to develop deep thinking about an issue or problem, so the curriculum not only had to provide opportunities for building complex understanding, but also had to engage and sustain motivation and interest. The need for engagement of students is well documented as a key issue in middle years’ teaching. Its absence indicates that a gap exists somewhere between learner, curriculum, teacher and learning envi- ronment. This meant that the unit had to be based upon a sound understanding of the means to connect these elements.
This unit draws on principles that underpin the design of numerous recent examples of middle years’ pedagogy and are an adaptation of progressive and revisionist theories. This includes the rediscovered social and cultural impera- tives of Vygotsky’s learning theory and recent understandings revealed by brain research incorporated into Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory.
It is also important to acknowledge the influence of John Dewey’s view of the social and democratic context and purpose for schooling. Dewey’s
concept of the person was that each individual possessed intrinsic value, and institutions such as schools should exist as a means subordinated to this end.
Dewey’s educational method was based on the notion that thinking is prob- lem solving and that when designing curriculum the individual’s purpose for the learning should be the starting point. His conception of the learning process was one of beginning with the whole and then proceeding to the component parts. He asserted that learning occurs most effectively when learners are engaged in a process of solving problems that are practical in the sense of having real capacity to improve society. From this it follows that students need to be involved with learning that is not divided from the world outside the classroom.
In grounding the following curriculum plan on the progressive approach of Dewey we intended to maintain rigour. We wanted to provide students with explicit and structured learning in critical thinking skills and to measure this attainment in an objective and consistent way.
Students need to engage in a curriculum that results in thinking of high intel- lectual quality and which pursues a genuine purpose. We sought to move away from a traditional textbook approach that provided students with a predictable pattern of work and often disconnected and superficial thinking activities.
Newmann and Wehlage (1996) described worthwhile and significant achieve- ment to be authentic intellectual work only when based on three criteria:
• first, the construction of knowledge—the development of knowledge through verbal, written or other demonstrations of cognitive work,
• second, disciplined inquiry—building upon existing knowledge in a given field and elaborated communication that embody this knowledge, and
• third, value beyond school—the achievement must have personal, aesthetic or utilitarian value beyond school.
The unit we designed satisfied each of Newmann’s categories.
We accepted the thesis that knowledge interconnects (particularly when it is acquired at a deep level) in an interdisciplinary manner and planned to cover the conceptual and disciplinary areas of Society and the Environment and English. However, we were concerned that one of the key motivating elements of the unit should be its basis in the prior knowledge and concerns of the students. Beane argued that what engaged young people was the need to answer powerful questions:
When the curriculum of the school engages young people in seeking answers to powerful questions about themselves and their world, and when knowledge and skill are used for this purpose, the learning that takes place is an authentic human activity Designing a thinking curriculum
requiring no tricks, gimmicks, or tests for ‘motivation’. But more than this, they find that such activity inevitably and naturally raises possibilities for genuine valuing,
cooperating, thinking and acting.
(Beane, in Stevenson & Carr, 1993, p. viii).
It was for this reason that the starting point for this unit was the students themselves. We took great heart from the attempts of teachers such as Mike Muir (1998) who applied the approach developed by Brodhagen, Weilbacher and Beane (1992). Muir dedicated substantial class time to establishing curricu- lum content that was based genuinely upon what was relevant to the students.
Furthermore he followed Beane’s tenets and provided them with opportunities for varied, extensive and in-depth work.