6
activity, and thus are useful as a starting point for thinking about thinking. Yet the idea that thinking is sequential or hierarchical strikes us as somewhat problematic. Consider this example: A middle school student crafting a
persuasive essay might be working at an application level right from the very beginning. She then finds she can produce particular nuanced meaning for her audience when juxtaposing word choice and getting savvy with grammatical constructs, breaking conventional rules even. As this student begins to analyze what is happening and what difference this makes in her written piece, she takes on new knowledge and skills. So what might we make of this example? Knowledge does not necessarily precede comprehension and comprehension is not always necessary before application. While a sequence and hierarchy appears clean and efficient, the way in which middle schoolers, and indeed all learners, explore is rarely linear. Learning, and the thinking maneuvers such learning involves, is multifaceted and complex — messy even at the best of times.
Another problem with the typical school approach to thinking, in addition to following Bloom’s taxonomy lock-step, is that a lot of our approaches to instruction do not actually require students to think very much at all. Many middle school classrooms bustle with
activity. On any given day, a teacher
might play some sort of game rather than provide a worksheet to capture student attention and review for a text. But the thinking necessary to turn all of such activity into deep understanding is often left to chance.
Faced with too much to do and too little time in which to do it, teachers are in a real bind. They can easily fall into a pattern of focusing much of their classroom instruction on getting students to complete tasks and assignments for points than on the development of thinking habits which leverage deeper understanding. Teachers tell students what is important to know and then have students practice that skill or knowledge. Yet in the end, little thinking is happening in these classrooms! Classroom day-to-dayness becomes a matter of work to get done, not understanding to be built. For middle school students to develop knowledge and skills in service of understanding, they must engage in the actual intellectual work needed to think with the tools, methods, and big ideas that various subject-areas offer them.
It becomes an exciting mission for teachers to take on: casting middle schoolers as explorers, not just work-completers! To help make thinking visible, give it value, and promote it at every turn, many teachers have found it is useful to reflect upon and articulate the kinds of thinking moves people in their subject area tap into to create, develop, and deepen understanding. What kind of thinking habits do those in the field regularly bring to that which they explore, long after school days have come and gone?
Looking toward the far horizon, we know that scientists regularly make and test hypotheses, observe phenomenon closely, and build explanations in the course of that which they’re trying to figure out. Mathematicians look for patterns, make conjectures, form generalizations, and construct arguments as they investigate. Historians consider different perspectives, reason with evidence, and strive to uncover complexity when examining the issues they handle. Readers, artists, linguists — they all make interpretations, seek connections, and follow-through on predictions. It’s just what they do as they set about their authentic explorations.
Creating a Culture of Thinking: Supporting Thought-
Middle School Explorers by MArk Church
co-author and team member Project Zero Making Thinking Visible
In our desire for them to explore, without a clear vision of what kind of thinking truly maters, might classrooms become places of simply “getting through the work?”
FULL
6
5