Gouge and Yates’ ARTS Project taxonomies of arts reasoning and thinking skills

informing this approach are those of Piaget (1950) and Vygotsky (1978) [which also underpin the well-known CASE and CAME cognitive acceleration programmes in science (Adey, Shayer and Yates 1995) and mathematics (Adhami, Johnson and Shayer, 1998)]. Gouge and Yates (2002, p. 137) describe how three taxonomies were devised, using basically the same framework ‘in order to provide a consistent structure for designing a programme of intervention lessons’ for pupils aged 11–14.

In essence, Gouge and Yates have produced a framework for classifying the reasoning skills involved in creative thinking. They state (2002, p. 137) that creativity ‘requires mental discipline, previous experience and a firm grounding in knowledge’, and see dangers in the notion that the arts are all about ‘fun’ and free expression.

Three Piagetian levels of cognitive demand are used: concrete, concrete transitional and formal operational thinking. These are said to correspond with Peel’s (1971) restricted, circumstantial, and imaginative comprehensive stages of adolescent judgement. Although ‘formal operation thought can begin to develop at about the age of 12’, Gouge and Yates claim (2002, p. 137) that even by the age of 16, few adolescents are ‘deductive, rational and systematic’ in their thinking, able to ‘reason about hypothetical events that are not necessarily in accord with their direct experience’. Their aim is to accelerate adolescent cognitive development beyond the level where pupils can only ‘make simple assumptions and deductions to offer imaginative explanations’.

Five reasoning patterns are common to all three taxonomies, but a sixth pattern (narrative seriation) is used in the taxonomy for drama. The common 3 5 matrix, within which sets of educational objectives are located, is illustrated in table 3.10.

The six reasoning patterns are based on unpublished work by Fusco (1983). They are not ordered by any principle and no claim is made as to their comprehensiveness. A summary is provided below:

•classification – the ability to group or order attributes or objects by one attribute or criterion

•frames of reference – dealing with relativity of thought by attempting to reconcile conflicting information and reach closure

114Frameworks for Thinking

•symbolic reasoning –the use of a wide range of visual and auditory symbols to create imagery and perspective and to communicate ideas

•critical reflection – the development of judgment, from restricted to imaginative and comprehensive forms

•intention, causality and experimentation – the act of making, including hypothesising and trialling

•narrative seriation – the ability to sequence and re-sequence actions to create a narrative and to manipulate components to give multiple meanings and layers of complexity.

Each cell in the taxonomy framework contains between two and four educational objectives. The distinctions between the Piagetian stage levels are expressed in several ways, including the number of variables or viewpoints involved, the level of abstraction and the use of argument to support diverse interpretations. Here is an illustrative example for the reasoning pattern classification, taken from the taxonomy for music:

Concrete: identify similarities and differences in music; for example, mood and pace.

Concrete transitional: compare and contrast pieces of music using more than two variables simultaneously.

Formal operational: make rich comparisons of two or more pieces of music, identifying multiple variables such as context, style and instrumentation.

Gouge and Yates do not move beyond a Piagetian framework into a conception of ‘post-formal’ or ‘post-logical’ thought, although they do acknowledge that it is not always possible to arrive at firm conclusions on artistic matters. The overall impression is that they have tried to bring an analytic scientific perspective to bear on the creative arts in ‘an attempt to deconstruct the neglected aspects of critical thinking which practising artists use intuitively, and which they usually have difficulty in articulating’ (2002, p. 138).

Cognitive acceleration is based on the five pedagogical principles, with reasoning patterns being the focus of each lesson. These principles are as follows:

Table 3.10. The common framework used in the ARTS reasoning taxonomies

Concrete

Concrete

transitional

Formal operational thinking

1.cognitive conflict within Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal development’

2.social construction of knowledge with teacher and peer mediation

3.preparation (including establishing a shared language) and ‘bridging’ (creating links to facilitate transfer to other domains of experience)

4.metacognition (thinking about one’s own thinking)

5.reasoning patterns (in this case, the six patterns listed above).

Evaluation

Gouge and Yates have extended to the creative arts an established cognitive acceleration approach which was first developed for science and mathematics teaching. This appears to give pride of place to an analytic reasoned approach and the ability to handle complex abstractions in an area where other values (such as emphasising concrete experience and emotional resonance) often prevail. At the same time they include types of thinking and expression which are well established in the creative arts, notably imagery and narrative. Their initiative is intended to be a challenge to teachers ‘to restructure their attitudes and behaviour as mediators of cognitive development’ (2002, p. 138).

Some will undoubtedly welcome this approach, seeing it as providing a respectable and rigorous academic framework which can be used

116 Frameworks for Thinking

to defend the creative arts against attack by philistines. Others will feel that qualitatively different kinds of thinking are important in artistic expression and that formal operation thinking is too closely allied to traditional conceptions of working memory and intelligence. Some may see it as being inimical to creativity.

It remains to be seen how teachers will respond to cognitive acceleration in the arts. It lays down a challenge to those who believe that spontaneity is all and knowledge and skills relatively unimportant. It may well stimulate theorists and practitioners to achieve a new synthesis between the affective, motivational and cognitive aspects of their practice.

Summary: Gouge and Yates