Thinking and curriculum

Andy Begg

Abstract

This article aims to prompt discussion about thinking in the school curriculum. It begins with a brief exploration of thinking, in which the difficulty of defining and classifying thinking is acknowledged. The notion that the brain is a complex “living” and emerging system is at the core of this. A Justifcation for emphasising thinking in education follows. Some thinking-focused strategies currently being used in schools are described and critiqued. These include those across, within and extra to curriculum. The next part is concerned with aspects of thinking to be considered when developing or changing curricula, including some possible steps to improve the change process.

Exploring thinking

It is interesting to wonder about situations and to consider whether thinking is involved in each, and when it is, what forms of thinking are involved, and whether they are significant to education. Consider the following: Solving a mathematics problem, following a recipe, doing the dishes, writing a story, remembering a past event, feeling sorry for someone, watching a sunset, listening to music, and breathing.

All these involve conscious, subconscious or unconscious brain processing, but whether they involve thinking depends on how one defines thinking—in particular, whether only conscious brain processing should be considered in that definition. For me, it seems difficult to separate conscious and nonconscious thinking. Nonconscious thinking can be made conscious with the development of awareness (which itself can be considered to be a form of thinking).

Thinking within education more often has a focus on the critical, creative or metacognitive. While these might provide starting points for trying to define thinking, it is difficult to categorise situations, such as those above, in terms of these forms. Thinking is not limited to these forms, and the different forms often overlap in any single activity. I would like to define thinking as the continuous multitask processing that is inherent in every aspect of our existing, knowing and doing while we are alive. I do appreciate, however, the practicality of a definition of thinking for education that limits it to the conscious aspects of such processing.

Traditionally, from a theoretical perspective, the brain has often been compared to a machine with inputs and outputs. From a systems approach, it is more appropriate, as Minsky (as cited in Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991) explains, to consider the brain as using its processes to change itself—which means that the processes cannot be separated from the products. For example, brains make memories, which change subsequent thinking. Such a view of the brain makes no mention of representation, and reflects “operational closure” in which “the results of its processes are those processes themselves” (Varela et al., 1991, p. 139).

Thinking also links with philosophy and its three cornerstones: being (ontology), knowing (epistemology) and acting (ethics). Some philosophers give these different weightings, but I see them as interrelated aspects of thinking that are all relevant in the domains in which we function (for example, the physical, personal, social, ecological and abstract domains). I concur with the statement that “to live is to know” (Maturana & Varela, 1987, p. 174), and, for me, this implies that living/being, knowing/learning and acting/doing are all inseparably linked with thinking.

One can extend my notion of thinking and ask, “Does an animal, plant, a stone and the world itself think?” Philosophers such as Spinoza saw thought as an inherent aspect of substance (Stevenson, 2005, p. 163) and this notion has appeal for many deep ecological philosophers (Naess, 2008, pp. 230–251). For me, it is not only people who are in a state of being, knowing and acting (and I consider animals and plants to be complex, emerging “living” systems that are self-organising, comprised of subsystems and nested within bigger systems such as cultures and societies) but it is whether they think or not that is problematic. My view is that more is needed than just traditional views of thinking when considering the school curriculum. I see a need to include personal, social, cultural and ecosystem thinking.

Justifying thinking in education

While we think all the time, and we learn to think without being taught to do so, our thinking skills can be improved. If this is seen as desirable, then considering it from an educational perspective requires a change of focus within schools. Such a change needs to be justified from numerous perspectives in order to convince policy makers and educators to support the changes. These perspectives could include: The aims of education; theories about learning; the purpose of education; and the nature of traditional school learning areas (or subjects).

Aims of education

As a young high school teacher in New Zealand, I was impressed by the aims of education that the teachers’ union developed. These were (Munro, 1969, p. 1):

The highest value is placed on:

–&;&;&;&;the urge to enquire

–&;&;&;&;concern for others

–&;&;&;&;the desire for self respect.

I interpret these in a richer way now than I did when teaching, but they continue to remind me that in education we are concerned with three interrelated areas of growth—intellectual, social and personal. Each of these relates to numerous forms of thinking. The intellectual area involves critical thinking, logical reasoning, creative thinking and metacognitive thinking, and includes the development of intuition and awareness. The social area includes these and empathetic thinking, ethical thinking and cultural (and language) understanding, and this list may be extended to include ecosystem thinking. The personal area includes these together with contemplative, introspective, emotional and, possibly, spiritual thinking. However, each individual teacher needs to consider which of these forms of thinking are within their comfort zone in their classroom and their school.

Numerous educational systems, including New Zealand (see Ministry of Education, 2007), now include competencies as part their curriculum documents. Typically, thinking is one such competency; others relate to areas of personal and social growth. However, the implementation of most curriculum documents, despite having included aims and competencies, makes little attempt to focus teaching (and assessment) on these aims and competencies. The focus tends to continue to be on the content of each learning area. Consequently, we find ourselves in a situation where teachers need to reinterpret curriculum documents in ways that assist them to meet these goals. I suggest we put pressure on the assessment industry to make assessment tasks more appropriate to this broader task.

Theories about learning

In the second half of last century, there was a shift from behaviourism to various forms of constructivism across many countries. Theories based on complexity and complex emerging systems are now beginning to influence education. When behaviourism was prevalent, learning areas were spilt (analytic thinking) into small parts, and each part was focused upon as a behavioural objective that could be taught and assessed. Each small part usually involved an aspect of subject knowledge or a specific observable behaviour (usually procedural)—thinking was rarely mentioned, presumably because it was too hard to assess.

With the change to constructivism, more emphasis was placed on learners making individual and/or social/cultural “sense” of their experiences. Learners were encouraged to construct personal knowledge “schemas”, but curriculum documents and assessment systems continued to be organised around specific objectives that were to be assessed with all students having been expected to construct the same meaning.

Within complexity theories there is an acceptance that the learning process is very different for different learners, that prior learning (knowledge, process, understanding/thinking) is very important and that topics are rarely learnt in neat, logical progressions, as implied by learning objectives listed for “levels”. Of course, theories about learning, like all theories, are not truths; but while no theory has all the answers, every theory must provide part of the picture to have some basis for existing.

Purpose of education

Much of the recent rhetoric in westernised countries discusses education as being concerned with “human capital” and preparing students so that they might contribute to national economic growth.

An alternative view offered by Dewey (1897) was that education is a process of living and not a preparation for future living. From this perspective, education might focus more on topics that students wish to investigate now. Students do want to find out about many things, and such investigations can provide opportunities to develop thinking skills. Focusing on what students wish to investigate does not stop teachers introducing new topics or concepts to stimulate learning. When beginning such a topic, teachers can ask the class what they already know about the topic and what things they might wish to learn more about in order to make the learning more relevant to their interests. Emphasising thinking does not detract from learning facts, and in this regard Dewey is purported to have said: “We can have facts without thinking but we cannot have thinking without facts.”

Nature of traditional school subjects

In traditional education, school subjects (or learning areas) were taught as though “knowledge” (or knowing) was most important. This was reinforced by assessment that concentrated on the recall of factual knowledge, with “factual” usually meaning what the teacher regarded as true. More recently, there has been increased emphasis on skills and processes (or doing). Sometimes, this is interpreted as only applying knowledge to familiar situations and, only occasionally, to unfamiliar situations. Thinking (or understanding) is a third dimension to be considered alongside knowing and doing. We know it occurs, but it is not often emphasised. I see teaching and learning not focusing on thinking separately, but knowing, doing and thinking as intertwined. Note that I have used verbs rather than nouns to describe the three dimensions of subject/content areas; this is because I am concerned with processes more than products, with coming to know rather than knowledge, and doing rather than knowing about skills. I see a need for assessment to focus on all three dimensions. In this, I believe that formative assessment is the most important form of assessment in its conceptualisation as metacognitive thinking.

Thinking in schools

While thinking has been taken for granted in education, yet not overly emphasised, a number of initiatives and practices are being implemented in schools to promote thinking. These include crosscurricular, within-curricular and extracurricular initiatives.

Thinking across the curriculum

A focus on thinking across the curriculum can involve a variety of projects as part of learning/teaching approaches. One way is to include individual or small-group investigations, within which a choice of topic is allowed, and have the projects draw on many modes of thinking. It is interesting to note that, while such research projects are reasonably common with young students in some countries, they are rare in the last few years of high school (although this is changing in New Zealand), even rarer at undergraduate level, yet reappear as the pinnacle of postgraduate education in the form of doctoral research.

Other approaches to thinking across the curriculum fit with the development of inquiry-based classrooms. One is “habits of mind” (Costa & Kallick, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d), which includes generic and subject-specific “habits”. Another is the “infusing thinking” initiatives (see, for example, Lipman, 2003; Swartz, Costa, Beyer, Regan, & Kallick, 2008) in which numerous thinking skills are introduced across a range of topics. In these initiatives, sometimes the approach is left to the teacher, in others templates are provided to scaffold the development of skilful thinking to enrich the learning. Other approaches emphasise dispositions (Tishman, Jay, & Perkins, 1993) or multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983).

While all of these have valuable contributions to make to what we do in schools, one concern I have is that some of these approaches emphasise the use of graphic-organiser templates to scaffold the initial learning of thinking strategies. While these may be useful starting points, I fear that some teachers, used to following a text-based curriculum, see these as the whole approach. I would prefer teachers and students to think of these templates as starting points that can be modified and developed to fit different situations; that is, to use them in conjunction with creative thinking.

In classes where one teacher teaches all learning areas, or in programmes where the curriculum is holistic, these thinking approaches tend to be across all curriculum areas. In high schools with specialist subject teachers, unless the whole staff decides to adopt the thinking approach, the across-curriculum approach is at best an across-subject approach.

Thinking within the curriculum

By “thinking within the curriculum” I refer to specific thinking subjects or programmes being introduced, rather than thinking being infused into other school subjects. A range of such programmes exists, and De Bono’s name is associated with some of these (for example, De Bono, 1982/2006).

A specific thinking subject is philosophy. In some instances this is a watered-down version of Philosophy 101 as taught in many first-year university courses, where students learn “facts” about what philosophers think. A preferable version involves philosophising; that is, doing/applying/thinking philosophy. Such courses include the French Baccalaureate compulsory philosophy course, the International Baccalaureate “Theories of Knowledge” course and others with names such as applied philosophy and P4C (Philosophy for Children). A well-known influence in philosophy for children is Lipman (see, for example, lipman, 2003; Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyan, 1980). Many writers also provide ideas about such courses (see, for example, Cam et al., 2007; Fisher, 2003; McCarty, 2006). For the International Baccalaureate course, a useful text is Woolman (2006).

A third alternative focuses on “contemplative thinking” and is gaining popularity in some North American schools (see, for example, Kinder, 2008; Stewart Lawlor & Parry, 2007). These courses focus on developing awareness through meditation or mindfulness techniques, and follow a long tradition in Asia where many young children learn such techniques within religious education.

Extracurricular thinking

Extracurricular activities are optional activities that supplement the traditional/formal school curriculum. Such activities fall into three main categories: Guidance, pastoral or administration time with the classroom teacher; optional clubs and activities (usually lunchtime or after school); and various forms of school camps and associated camp activities.

Some teachers organise class meetings or thinking circles to discuss administrative and guidance matters, along with other items suggested by students. Such “meetings” can be used as wet-day lunchtime activities, and with young children may be a focus of what has been called “mat time”. It takes time to establish such forums and their ground rules, and their success depends on the collective decisions being influential. Typically issues discussed arise from current concerns of the class. Thinking circles are similar to the “talking” circles that some indigenous people have, where people sit in a circle and a topic is discussed. In talking circles sometimes a “talking stick” is used, and passed from one speaker to another, with only the holder of the stick having the right to speak. The stick is passed round the circle so that everyone has an opportunity to speak, though they may pass if they do not wish to say anything. The stick may move round the circle more than once to give people an opportunity to introduce new ideas or disagree with a previous speaker.

Schools often have a range of optional club activities, and thought can be given as to how developing thinking could be part of these activities. Some can focus on aspects of thinking (for example, philosophy, debating and inventors’ clubs), while others can be more general but still have a focus on aspects of thinking (for example, reading circles, chess clubs, drama groups and orchestras).

In New Zealand, schools often organise camps, and while these usually focus on physical/outdoor activities, some teachers attempt to balance these with camps that have activities with a less physical emphasis. Outdoor camps can emphasise developing awareness of self and the environment, while thinking or philosophy camps can provide a way of encouraging and experimenting with thinking. In addition, all camps need activities in the evening and while travelling to and from the camp, and there is an opportunity to put a focus on thinking as well as on enjoyment at these times.

Valuing current initiatives

There is considerable value in all three of the approaches discussed above; however, I have some minor concerns with each. An across-curricular approach can be too generic and not mention subject-specific thinking skills. The within-curriculum initiatives where thinking or philosophy are treated as subjects can lead to the development of thinking skills, but these also need to be taught and used within other subjects, as thinking does not belong to one subject alone. Not all students participate in optional extra-curricular activities, and this can limit the opportunities to develop thinking within these activities. However, these approaches and combinations of them are to be commended as they represent a deliberate move by schools and teachers to encourage and emphasise thinking; thus all are part of a desirable curriculum development process.

Broadening thinking

The aims of education focus on three areas of growth (intellectual, social and personal), and each area has three aspects (being, knowing and acting/doing). These areas and aspects are interrelated and offer opportunities for numerous forms of thinking to be developed. I believe that we need to take a broad view of education in New Zealand and decide what forms of thinking relate to our aims and competencies, and to the learning areas we teach. Doing this is likely to lead to identifying the forms of thinking that deserve more emphasis. Opportunities to accomplish this goal then need to be provided.

For me, the process of considering the aims, competencies, learning areas, related forms of thinking and the role of curriculum is a key part of teacher thinking (and thinking about thinking). This needs to be done by groups of teachers, and not just by a central curriculum development team, especially when the emphasis is new. In fact, the process is as important as the product, and both should be ongoing. With this in mind I offer table 1 as a stimulus—not just as a starting point, but as a possible format and checklist that can be amended and expanded. Some of the forms of thinking have obvious connections with learning areas, some relate to numerous subjects, but all are likely to help teachers extend their exploration of thinking within their teaching.

TABLE 1 SOME FORMS OF THINKING

In the ideal situation, I see thinking as becoming an integrated part of every topic in the school curriculum rather than an add-on. While we know thinking occurs, it needs to be made explicit and be a major focus of teaching/learning/assessment alongside the current knowing/doing (or knowledge/skills) focus. This means that we need to reconceptualise teaching and learning areas to shift the emphasis onto aspects of thinking related to both the topics being taught and the aims of education. Such a major aim, the achievement of a thinking curriculum, will take some years to attain. While this process has been started, it needs to be encouraged through the initiation of further projects in individual schools, and opportunities for the wider sharing of experiences.

Looking ahead

I am not advocating thinking at the expense of knowing or doing, but a better balance between these three seems to be required. We need to analyse each learning area to ensure that all key elements are considered— some of the thinking skills will be specific to particular areas and some will be more generic. From such an analysis learning activities can be designed and trialled. Teachers who have been infusing thinking into their programmes are in a good position to lead this initiative, and at the same time extend their views of thinking even further.

In seeking change, curriculum officials often believe that if the official curriculum is changed and teachers attend a few days of professional development courses then the desired changes will occur. This belief is flawed. Changing education is a complex task. Curriculum development and professional learning are not the only influences on change: Others include research, reflection, theory, policy, resources and assessment (Begg, 2008).

To achieve a thinking curriculum there is a need to work on many fronts. Perhaps the most difficult of these is assessment. Although an official curriculum change legitimates action, change is a slow process that requires teachers to think about their beliefs and consider the suggested changes, to see some value in the proposed changes, to develop confidence with the changes and to change their view of what is of prime importance in their work. The change process takes time; and is usually more successful and more lasting when teachers are involved in determining both the need for the change and the rate of change.

The assessment industry appears to have had difficulty moving from a behaviourist view and adjusting to one based on constructivism. It continues to emphasise knowing (factual knowledge) rather than the individual knowledge that learners construct, and often ignores both skills and understanding/thinking. I expect this reluctance to change will continue. I see assessment, in particular formative assessment, as key. We also need more focus on self-assessment, peer-assessment and portfolio production, as these relate to metacognitive thinking.

Overall, I am excited by the thinking initiatives in education. They are important steps and potentially will move education in what I believe is a very desirable direction. The challenge now is to take the next steps and to maintain momentum with the change process; that is, to develop school curricula that integrate the important elements of each learning area so that thinking ranks alongside knowing and doing for all topics. At the same time, we need to ensure that the aims of education are addressed in a way that involves an emphasis on relevant forms of thinking. My hope is that this paper might provide some background for such a move and that some of the references (the ones marked with a †) will be useful resources to assist schools in taking steps forward.

References

Begg, A. (2008). Emerging curriculum. Rotterdam: Sense Publications.

† Cam, P., Fynes-Clinton, L., Harrison, K., Hinton, L., Scholl, R., & Vaseo, S. (2007). Philosophy with young children—A classroom handbook. Deakin West, ACT: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.

† Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000a). Discovering and exploring habits of mind. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

† Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000b). Activating and engaging habits of mind. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

† Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000c). Assessing and reporting on habits of mind. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

† Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2000d). Integrating and sustaining habits of mind. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

† De Bono, E. (1982/2006). De Bono’s thinking course. Harlow, UK: BBC Active/Pearson Education.

Dewey, J. (1897, January). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77–80.

† Fisher, R. (2003). Teaching thinking: Philosophical enquiry in the classroom (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.

† Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Kinder, R. (2008). Wellness works in schools. Lancaster, PA: Kinder Associates LLC.

† Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

† Lipman, M., Sharp, A., & Oscanyan, F. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala Press.

† McCarty, M. (2006). Little big minds: Sharing philosophy with kids. New York: Jeremy P Tarcher/Penguin.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Munro, R. (Chair). (1969). Education in change: Report of the curriculum review group of the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association. Auckland: Longman Paul (with NZPPTA).

Naess, A. (2008). The ecology of wisdom: Writings by Arne Naess. (A. Dregson & B. Devall, Eds.). Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint.

Stevenson, J. (2005). The complete idiot’s guide to philosophy (3rd ed.). New York: Alpha Books/Penguin.

† Stewart Lawlor, M., & Parry, J. (2007). ME: Mindfulness Education. Vancouver, BC: Goldie Hawn Foundation.

† Swartz, R., Costa, A., Beyer, B., Regan, R., & Kallick, B. (2008). Thinking-based learning: Activating students’ potential. Norwood, Ma: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

† Tishman, S., Jay, E., & Perkins, D. (1993). Teaching thinking dispositions: From transmission to enculturation. Theory into Practice, 32, 147–153.

Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

† Woolman, M. (2006). Ways of knowing: An introduction to the theory of knowledge (2nd ed.). Melton, VIC: IBID Press.

The author

Andy Begg is an associate professor of education at Auckland University of Technology. He has been a national curriculum development officer, written textbooks and taught high school mathematics. He has researched professional development, changing curriculum, comparative and cultural influences on curriculum and learning theory. His current interest is thinking in schools.

Email: andy.begg@aut.ac.nz