304 Frameworks for Thinking

these within the structure of his new taxonomy (Marzano, 1998, 2001a). His is a pragmatic approach to pedagogy. In contrast with Lipman and Paul, neither Marzano nor Anderson and Krathwohl seem to call for radical transformation of educational practice.

Developing appropriate pedagogies

A wide spectrum of views about what constitutes effective pedagogy is represented in the work we have evaluated. Theorists usually have preferences about ways of encouraging good thinking, meaningful learning and deep or strategic approaches to study. For example, ten Dam and Volman (2004) argue that, as one of the main purposes of critical thinking is to learn how to resist social injustice, more attention should be paid in schools to the political nature of issues which ‘relate to the world, to students’ own position and that of others and to students’ opportunities to influence this position’ (2004, p. 373). They argue for a social constructivist critical pedagogy but see value in a wide range of methods (e.g. fishbowling and creative controversy) thought to enhance critical thinking.

All theorists agree that learning and thinking are active processes in which new connections are made and the value of applying thinking in meaningful real-life situations is widely supported. If strategic and reflective thinking are to be developed, learners need to be in situations where they have opportunities to use that kind of thinking. However, it would be unwise to assume that thinking skills can only be developed in particular kinds of learning environment that are advocated by certain theorists or are fashionable at the time. Again the flexibility of the TASC approach is a positive feature, since it was designed to be used in very diverse cultural and educational environments.

Vermunt and Verloop (1999) place approaches to learning and instruction on a continuum between teacher-regulated and studentregulated, and point out that there may be differences between pedagogical practice and beliefs, and student conceptions of learning and their ability to regulate it. The continuum of theoretical positions in the work we have reviewed ranges from Gagne´ (1965; 1985) and Ausubel at the teacher-regulated end to those like Feuerstein (1980),

Hannah and Michaelis (1977) and Romiszowski (1981), who favour forms of ‘guided discovery’, to those like Lipman and Paul who advocate learner-centred approaches. Learner empowerment through the social construction of knowledge is strongly valued by Belenky et al. (1986), King and Kitchener (1994), and Jonassen and Tessmer (1996/7). Gardner and Vermunt believe in the importance of tailoring instruction to meet group and individual needs. Vermunt, in common with very many other theorists, emphasises process over content in much of his writing, arguing that self-regulation rather than the accumulation of knowledge, is the key to lifelong learning. The only theorists to deal adequately with what teachers and learners can do to improve the acquisition and retention of knowledge and skills are Halpern and Wallace and Adams. We believe this to be a neglected but still very important area.

In the actual practice of teaching, it is possible for a teacher to keep a simple framework in mind, as a means of monitoring the kind of thinking expected of students. This is especially important in the process of questioning and when discussing a topic with a class, group or individual. The simple four-category system developed in this project (see below) is very suitable for this purpose. Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) six process categories (remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate, create) can also be used in this way. Many teachers find they can readily internalise Gardner’s seven (or more) kinds of intelligence (see p. 206) in order to monitor learning activities in those terms. The ‘3Cs’ of critical, creative, caring thinking, which are derived from Lipman and used by Jewell (1996) are also easily memorised and applied, as are the eight phases of problem solving in the TASC ‘wheel’.

However, we do not wish to give the impression that any of the 3Cs are easy. As Petty argues for creative thinking, there is a lot of ‘perspiration’ involved. One example of a highly complex framework which we believe to be of great value is Altshuller’s TRIZ. Our brief description and evaluative summary of this theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) (1996; 1999; 2000) does not do it justice. It is now taught in a number of universities in the UK and has been widely taken up in many countries where technological innovation is valued. It has the unique quality of organising creative thinking. Although coming

306 Frameworks for Thinking

up with inventive solutions to practical problems still depends on analogical thinking and looking for patterns, the task is much simplified by applying Altshuller’s ‘algorithmic’ procedures. These are the result of many years of systematic data gathering and his analysis of existing patented solutions.

Other applications of the frameworks and models

Consultancy (whether in educational or business contexts) is another area in which frameworks of thinking and learning are widely used. We have not attempted to identify all the frameworks that inform practice in this field, many of which are models of learning styles rather than thinking skills. Others (e.g. Senge, 1990) are simply sets of problem-solving heuristics. We mention here three particular frameworks. One of the early rational problem-solving approaches was the Kepner–Tregoe (Kepner and Tregoe, 1965) tenets of effective decision making – rational thinking. Koplowitz (1987) has applied his theory of stages in adult cognitive development in business settings and argues that better decisions are made when people move beyond logical analysis to more systemic and holistic ways of thinking. Although it was not devised with consultancy applications in mind, Vermunt and Verloop’s categorisation of learning activities (1999) appears to us to be highly applicable as a way of understanding how learning develops (or not) in any organisation.

Assessment is another major area in which thinking skills frameworks, especially those dealing with educational objectives, are extremely relevant. As Ennis recognises, the assessment of critical thinking is a problematic area, despite being one in which he is personally involved (Ennis and Millman, 1985; Ennis and Weir, 1985). We believe, however, that the most useful framework for developing the quality of assessment is the SOLO taxonomy of Biggs and Collis (1982). This has the merit of being easily communicable to students. Examples of relevant work in the appropriate subject area can be presented to students to illustrate each of the five SOLO levels. Students can also assess such pieces of work (including their own).

When it comes to the assessment of personal qualities and dispositions, especially as displayed in group situations, further problems

arise. However, these are not necessarily insuperable. The lists of dispositions produced by the following authors may be helpful in this context: Baron (1985), Ennis, Halpern, Jewell (1996) and Paul. Costa and Kallick’s (2000a, 2000b) 16 ‘habits of mind’ and the seven dispositions put forward by Perkins, Jay and Tishman (1993) as the basis of their dispositional theory of thinking are also worth considering. Costa, Kallick and Perkins (2000) address the topic of assessing and reporting on ‘habits of mind’ (a phrase originally coined by John Dewey, 1938).

Thinking skills frameworks are also valuable in research and evaluation. Pintrich is a good example of a researcher who developed ways of assessing learning, aided by his theoretical framework of selfregulated learning. Sternberg is another, with his triarchic theory of successful intelligence and his claim that ‘triarchic teaching’ is more effective than traditional approaches (2002a). Vermunt and Verloop’s (1999) categorisation of learning activities and Vermunt’s broader framework for understanding approaches to learning (1996) have led them and other researchers to find ways of assessing psychological and pedagogical aspects of learning environments. Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment (IE) intervention programme (1980) is typically evaluated using closely related cognitive measures from the Learning Potential Assessment Device (Hattie, Biggs and Purdie, 1996; Romney and Samuels, 2001). Demetriou’s (1993) developmental model of the mind could usefully be tested out in more countries. In fact, all thinking skills frameworks can be used to generate research questions.

Finally, meta-analysis can be structured by using categories from thinking skills frameworks. This makes it possible to compare the effect sizes produced by different types of educational intervention. It was in this way that Hattie, Biggs and Purdie (1996) were able to evaluate the effects of learning skills interventions on student learning. They did so by using the SOLO taxonomy (Biggs and Collis, 1982) to categorise interventions as being unistructural, multistructural, relational or extended abstract. They also compared ‘near transfer’ with ‘far transfer’ effects. We believe that future meta-analyses should build on this kind of approach.

Marzano’s (1998) meta-analysis was broader in scope and larger in scale than any other we have found. Marzano categorised all studies,