assignment task a

HMEF 5073 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

PART A

Task : Creating thinking schools to prepare learners for the future

INTRODUCTION

Throughout history, philosophers, politicians, educators and many others have been

concerned with the art and science of astute thinking. Some identify the spirit of inquiry and

dialogue that characterized the golden age of ancient Greece as the beginning of this

interest. Others point to the Age of Enlightenment, with its emphasis on rationality and

progress. In the twentieth century, the ability to engage in careful, reflective thought has

been viewed in various ways as a fundamental characteristic of an educated person, as a

requirement for responsible citizenship in a democratic society, and, more recently, as an

employability skill for an increasingly wide range of jobs. Perhaps most importantly in today's

information age, thinking skills are viewed as crucial for educated persons to cope with a

rapidly changing world. Many educators believe that specific knowledge will not be as

important to tomorrow's workers and citizens as the ability to learn and make sense of new

information. Robinson, in her 1987 practicum report stated that ‘Teaching children to

become effective thinkers is increasingly recognized as an immediate goal of education. If

students are to function successfully in a highly technical society, then they must be

equipped with lifelong learning and thinking skills necessary to acquire and process

information in an ever-changing world’1.

What comes to our mind when discussing about thinking school? Do terms such as :

Bloom’s Taxonomy, Cognition, Metacognition, Critical and Creative thinking, Infusion,

familiar and related? Though not universally accepted by theorists and program developers,

but for this present report the given terms are applicable, or somehow related.

It is hard to encompass a definition for a thinking school in one short, concise sentence. A

Thinking School is an educational community in which all members share a common

understanding and vision of the nature of the high quality learning and teaching for all pupils,

and are committed to working together to make this vision a reality. They think deeply about

their work, reflectively, critically and creatively, and spend time discussing the best ways to

co-construct both a meaningful and purposeful curriculum and associated activities, drawing

on a wide range of learning opportunities. They are committed to their own learning, keep

abreast of research, learn from each other and are open to new ideas,

1 (Cotton, 1991)


considering these carefully before deciding whether they will usefully contribute to their

vision for a thinking school.

Another definition of thinking school is ‘an educational community in which all members

share a common commitment to giving regular careful thought to everything that takes

place’. This will involve both students and staff learning how to think reflectively, critically

and creatively, and to employing these skills and techniques in the co-construction of a

meaningful curriculum and associated activities. Successful outcomes will be reflected in

student’s across a wide range of abilities demonstrating independent and co-operative

learning skills, high levels of achievement and both enjoyment and satisfaction in learning.

Benefits will be shown in ways in which all members of the community interact with and

show consideration for each other and in the positive psychological well-being of both

students and staff.’ (Burden, 2006) In short, a thinking school is a school that puts teaching

of thinking at the heart of learning.

A school which is successfully developing as a thinking community will strive to ensure that

all pupils are developing and demonstrating independent and co-operative learning skills

using a range of thinking tools and strategies. The school will generate high levels of

achievement and an excitement and enthusiasm for lifelong learning. All members of the

community will interact with and show consideration for each other, in a way as to enable the

positive psychological wellbeing of both pupils and staff to flourish. (Knapp, 2006). The

success of the approach is that schools take a whole-school approach to the teaching of

thinking. This means that thinking becomes central and explicit and all teachers and

students develop a common thinking language and toolbox.

As students move from lesson to lesson and teacher to teacher they will be using the

same tools and strategies as part of a coherent and well-planned approach. This applies to

both primary and secondary schools. Each school will identify and select specific thinking

tools which can be used across the curriculum. These tools will develop specific types of

thinking and thinking processes. The students will develop an understanding of how they

think and be able to articulate how they think. Teachers will talk about thinking with their

students.


WHY THINKING SCHOOL?

Recently in Bernama, March 13 2012, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said that

transformation of the national education system is necessary to create a younger generation

which can think and adapt knowledge to face future challenges. He said education had

previously emphasised memorisation and this has to be changed to give emphasis to the

thinking process so that students can use the knowledge gained to their advantage. "We

have to bring about an education transformation where the essence is to motivate students

to think because we want to create a generation which can think creatively, innovatively and

critically. He said this when launching the i-Think education programme at the parliament

house.

The i-Think programme is a joint venture between the Education Ministry and the Malaysia

Innovation Agency, and is aimed at instilling the capacity to think creatively and innovatively

at the level of the primary and secondary schools. Earlier this year, 10 schools were selected

to be in the pilot project to introduce the thinking process in school children.

The introduced programme not only benefits students but also educators. He said 700

teachers have been trained to handle the programme, and 10,000 pupils and students were

involved in the pilot project.2

The concepts of thinking school have big political implications for building and district-level

information management skills curricula that have been integrated with other content areas.

From a political perspective, there has never been a more propitious time for media

specialists to define and articulate the role that information management skills curricula and

programs can serve in teaching critical thinking skills. For reasons well known to educators

declining test scores, critical national reports, and improved research on teaching critical

thinking, the impetus to teach children to think critically has never been greater. As a result,

the attention of administrators and other educational decision makers is easily directed to

any vehicle within the educational setting that shows potential for delivery of a critical

thinking skills component. Since research indicates that activities for teaching students to

think critically should be incorporated into many curricular areas, no better vehicle exists to

deliver a thinking skills initiative than an information management skills curriculum that has

already successfully demonstrated its ability to function as an integral part of various other

curricular areas, such as English or known as ICTL in primary school.

One of the most pervasive myths about success in school and in life has been that it

mainly depends upon the level of a person’s IQ. For many years this was an assumption

2 (BERNAMA, 2012)


perpetuated by educational psychologists, whose first reaction was to reach for an

intelligence test in seeking to explain educational success or failure. Various government

and educational establishment initiatives underscored this approach. Efforts to identify the

so-called ‘gifted and talented’ have been largely based upon high measured IQ, whist at the

other end of the scale, a diagnosis of ‘moderate learning abilities’ has continued to be largely

dependent upon low intelligence test scores. Meanwhile, most secondary schools across the

country continue to draw upon the results of Cognitive Abilities Tests (CAT) to predict their

students’ future success or failure in public examinations.

This situation would give little cause for concern if it did not have profound implications for

children’s educational opportunities and even later life choices. And yet, countless research

studies have shown that, whilst undoubtedly a significant factor in contributing to academic

success, measured IQ contributes no more than 40% to the final outcome. Where

sociologists tend to point to socio-economic factors as playing a significant role, most

psychologists now agree that, when it comes to individual learning, motivation is the key.

Nevertheless, what remains unrecognised in many schools is that the secret of successful

learning lies at least as much in children’s motivation as in their innate ability, however that is

measured. Every experienced teacher can immediately provide a host of examples of highly

talented youngsters who failed to achieve their full potential because they lacked the

interest, the desire or simply the confidence to do well when faced with learning

opportunities. At the same time, they will be able to identify others who appeared to have

little more than average ability but who went on to do well in examinations or later life

because they believed in themselves and were prepared to work hard to achieve their

goals.3

As psychological research has increased our understanding of the motivational process, it

has become clear that our self confidence to succeed and the explanations that we give

ourselves for our success and failures play a vital part in the learning process. If we want to

understand better why children do well at school, or sometimes fail to live up to our

expectations, it would be helpful to gain some insight into their views of themselves as

learners. What we need to tap into, in effect, is their learning self-concept.4 One of the

main problems about the whole self-concept area is its very complexity. Thus, the widely

used measures, such as the American based scales of Marsh and Harter, usually contain a

large number of items in order to cover as many aspects of self-concept as possible, making

3 (Burden, 13 October 2010)



them time consuming to administer, score and analyse. Their efforts to meet standard

psychometric criteria of reliability and validity also leave little room for flexible interpretation

of any individual’s responses. Comparing total scores on such scales may be useful when

applied to large groups, but may tell you little that is meaningful about ways in which

individual respondents see themselves as learners. Also, in seeking to cover a wide range of

different self perceptions, only a few items may relate directly to one specific area.5

Dissatisfaction with those aspects of available measurement scales led to the construction

of the MALS (Myself-As-a-Learner Scale) as a means of focusing directly on school

students’ perceptions of their learning abilities6. A number of considerations were taken into

account. The new scale had to be simple to administer and score for busy teachers, whilst

containing sufficient items to ensure that different aspects of the learning self-concept were

taken into account. MALS is applicable to students between the ages of 9 and 16, provided

that suitable precautions are taken with younger and less able children to ensure that they

fully understand each item and how to respond appropriately.

One of the great advantages of the MALS is that it was designed to represent a range of

psychological theories about people’s self perceptions. These include Bandura’s notion of

self-efficacy, Seligman’s ideas about learned helplessness and learned optimism, and

Wiener’s theory of attribution. Thus we can tell from the pattern of a person’s responses

whether they are confident in their ability to succeed on learning tasks, whether they are

optimistic or pessimistic about themselves as learners, and whether they see success or

failure in learning as in their personal control or that of others. The fact that the learning self

concept appears to be open to change also reflects Carol Dweck’s ideas about static or

flexible conceptions of intelligence and how this can affect a person’s achievements.7

The nature of the association between a person’s learning self-concept and learning

outcomes is both complex and in a constant process of change. There are undoubtedly

some young children who arrive at school with both the confidence and ability to do well. For

the most part, however, children’s views of themselves as learners will be shaped by their

early learning experiences. By the time they reach secondary school, their learning self-

concepts will be well on the way to becoming quite firmly established.

THINKING SKILLS IN TEACHING



7 (C.S., 2000)


On August 14, Jon Taylor wrote a blog piece for the Guardian Teacher Network in praise

of the Socratic method, and its application in teaching. The comments on the article focused

on the lack of any form of assessment for rational thought, or the ability to assess critical

thinking as a skill within the framework of most subjects. The truth is, critical thinking and

teaching through the Socratic method have been around for years. But why are they not

used and recognised?8

One of the most overused quotes in any liberal teacher's hymn book is that the majority of

jobs students will work in their adult lives, have yet to be invented. This is often used as a

lynchpin for the teacher to justify their avant-garde teaching techniques that are politely

indulged by line managers as a harmless exercise in career development, before their

results come in under target, and they get on with the serious business of getting the

students to pass the exams. If not nationally, then locally.

By contrast, critical thinking as a subject has been around in schools for many years. It

was brought in as a replacement to the brilliantly terrible general studies in the hope that

students might get something specific and useful, rather than well, general. And with the

speed at which the world is developing, the need for the ability to rationalise argument, and

synthesising new information into a cogent, reflective and logical action is surely at a

paramount.

In assessing and revising a curricular document, one follows the steps used to develop the

document initially. Representatives of the groups originally involved in the development

should be included in the assessment and revision.

The first step in the revision process is the analysis of the overall goal statement with the

specific intent of rewording the statement, if necessary, to accommodate a critical thinking

skills emphasis and process orientation. To achieve such an accommodation, the goal

statement must address analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of information. An example of a

goal statement that meets such criteria is the student will identify, locate, utilize, analyze,

and evaluate an information source, regardless of format, to meet a specific need or to

create new information.

The second step is to review the conceptual groupings of skills to ascertain that there are

groupings that accommodate the higher-level thinking skills. For example, in addition to

identification, location, and utilization skills categories, there should be conceptual groupings

to reflect analysis, evaluation, and synthesis skills. Establishing a conceptual category of

production skills is a good method of addressing the synthesis of information. If desirable,

8 (Teachernetwork, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/17674960

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/teaching

http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network

http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/2012/aug/14/philisophical-teaching-students


some of these groupings can be combined under generalized headings, such as

"Comprehension of Information."

The third step in the curriculum revision process is the assessment of the information

management skills scope and sequence for the purpose of modification, specifically deletion,

addition, and leveling changes. Of these three possible actions, deletion is the easiest to

address. Examine the list carefully to identify skills statements that do not contribute directly

to information management. A good indicator of skills that are candidates for deletion is

failure to support any of the conceptual groupings determined in the previous step.

The next phase of the modification is the addition of skills where appropriate. Given recent

technological developments and resulting enhanced access possibilities, this phase

becomes most challenging, especially in the context of critical thinking. Several areas of

skills addition should be carefully considered, with final determination reflecting the local

situation. Specifically, skills categorized as study skills, computer literacy skills, thinking skills

and search strategy skills, including online retrieval skills, should be scrutinized to identify

those skills that directly affect a student's ability to manage information.

The fifth step in the revision process is a final examination of the scope and sequence to

ensure that skills grouped under a conceptual heading do indeed support that concept. A

break out of the conceptual groupings that deal with analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of

information will begin to address process orientation characteristic of critical thinking. Such

as breakout also becomes an effective way to communicate to administrators and teachers

how, when, and where the information management skills curriculum delivers to students

some very vital components of a critical thinking skills initiative.9

When the steps above have been completed, and all who were involved in structuring the

original information management skills curriculum have reached agreement on suggested

changes, the revised scope and sequence should be formalized by submitting it to the

curriculum approval agency at the local level. Once the revised skills scope and sequence

has been approved, mastery levels and evaluation strategies should be determined for the

added skills in accordance with local policy. In assessing mastery, it is crucial to examine the

process, including appropriate use of resources, that a student applies to complete an

assignment as well as the end product produced. Therefore, it becomes more important than

ever for librarians and subject area teachers to work as a team in determining mastery. Such

an approach is a direct application of the novice/expert dimension discussed above. In

assessing process the librarian will be looking at the student's search pattern as well as

examining actual use of resources in terms of observable elements that are or are not

9 (ASSOCIATION, 1997-2012)


congruent with those an expert might consider appropriate in seeking an answer to a similar

information related problem.

The sixth and final step in the revision process involves the analysis of existing teaching

activities, as well as the creation of activities for the added skills, to ensure that skill

statements are addressed at the appropriate cognitive levels. This enables elementary age

students to practice these thinking patterns often and in a variety of contexts. Then, as

students mature developmentally and are ready to evaluate their own information seeking

behavior, they have already practiced patterns of thinking they are now ready to apply

consciously in meeting information needs.10

Thinking skills are important because mastery of the basics in education however well

taught, are not sufficient to fulfil human potential, or to meet the demands of the labour

market or of active citizenship. Countries across the world are recognising that a broad

range of competencies are needed to prepare children for an unpredictable future. These

‘higher order’ thinking skills are required, in addition to basic skills, because individuals

cannot ‘store’ sufficient knowledge in their memories for future use. Information is expanding

at such a rate that individuals require transferable skills to enable them to address different

problems in different contexts at different times throughout their lives. The complexity of

modern jobs requires people who can comprehend, judge and participate in generating new

knowledge and processes. Modern democratic societies require its citizens to assimilate

information from multiple sources, determine its truth and use it to make sound judgements.

The challenge is to develop educational programmes that enable all individuals, not just an

elite, to become effective thinkers because these competencies are now required of

everyone. A thinking skills approach suggests that learners must develop awareness of

themselves as thinkers and learners, practise strategies for effective thinking and to develop

the habits of intelligent behaviour that are needed for lifelong learning.11

HOW TO CREATE THINKING SCHOOL?

Researchers have identified a number of teaching strategies that can be used to help

stimulate children’s thinking in the classroom12.

A. Cognitive acceleration approaches – example of Science education (CASE)

10 (ASSOCIATION, 1997-2012)

11 (Fisher, 2006)

12 (Fisher, 2006)


The following is a typical format of a CASE lesson for thinking format that builds in time for

cognitive and metacognitive discussion:

1. Concrete preparation stimulus to thinking, introducing the terms of the problem

2. Cognitive conflict creates a challenge for the mind

3. Social construction dialogue with others, discussion that extends thinking

4. Metacognition reflection on how we tackled the problem

5. Bridging reviewing where else we can use this thinking and learning

CASE lessons have also been developed for young children, called ‘Let’s Think!’ which

aims to raise achievement by developing Year 1 pupils' general thinking patterns and

teachers’ understanding of children’s thinking. During ‘Let’s Think’ lessons young children

work with a teacher in groups of six and each activity takes about 30 minutes. The session is

completely oral, with discussion based on a range of objects. At the beginning of the session

the teacher helps agree a common language to describe the objects being used. Having

established the vocabulary and the concepts involved, the teacher sets the challenge of the

activity. One popular activity in this schema is called the ‘hoop game’ when children are

required to put orange toy dinosaurs in one hoop and T-Rex dinosaurs in another hoop. The

challenge is that one of the dinosaurs is an orange T-Rex. This is very perplexing for our

preoperational children because they have to utilize two pieces of information about the

dinosaur and find a solution to the problem. The children work together as a group to come

to a solution or a number of possible solutions to solve the task. They discuss their ideas

and make suggestions. The teacher guides them, without being obvious, towards the idea of

overlapping the hoops and putting the wayward dinosaur in the intersection.

As in other discussion-based approaches children are encouraged to state whether they

agree or disagree with each other by giving a reason. For example, they are taught to say, ‘I

think… because’ or ‘I disagree with you because…’ The activities are designed as problems

to be solved thus creating a context for developing thinking . Children are given a challenge,

are required to work collaboratively ; to plan and evaluate their own and others thinking

strategies, and the teacher then gets the children to think about their thinking

(metacognition) through asking such questions as ‘What do you think we are going to have

to think about?’ and ‘How did you get your answer?’ rather than ‘Is your answer correct?’ Of

course you do not need the ‘Let’s Think’ materials to apply this teaching strategy to any area

of the curriculum.


What the ‘Let’s Think!’ approach aims to do is to accelerate cognitive development

between two types of thinking. The first type of thought is what Piaget called ‘pre-

operational’, when children still find it difficult to engage in what adults perceive as rational

thought. The next stage, which Piaget described as ‘concrete operational’, involves

manipulating at least two ideas in order to produce a third, new idea, which is what the

sessions encourage the children to do. ‘Let’s Think’ aims to accelerate the transition

between the two types of thought in order to help pupils make better sense of their learning

and improve general achievement. They do this, as you might, by ensuring their teaching

includes cognitive challenge, collaborative activity and children thinking about how they think

and learn.

B. ‘Brain-based’ approaches

Many educationalists are influenced by recent research into how the human brain works

and draw on some of the implications of this research for teachers and schools. Accelerated

Learning and Multiple Intelligence approaches all draw on these broad ideas together with

research into learning styles. The common feature is the reliance on brain research to

inspire teaching techniques in the classroom. There are many theories of learning styles.

They are rooted in a classification of psychological types and the fact that individuals tend to

process information differently. Different researchers propose different sets of learning style

characteristics, but many remain unconvinced by their claims children learn best through

using one preferred style.

For example in teaching her class to spell a word a teacher might show them how to chunk

the word into three pieces, and emphasise this by using different colours for each section of

the word and to visualise it in their heads. She might also ask them to write the word in the

air with their fingers. ‘Accelerated learning’ emphasises the importance of including a range

of learning experiences, visual, verbal and physical, in your teaching, so that children are

challenged to think in different ways.

C. Philosophical approaches

A pioneer of the ‘critical thinking’ movement in America is the philosopher Matthew

Lipman. Originally a university philosophy professor, Lipman was unhappy at what he saw

as poor thinking in his students. They seemed to have been encouraged to learn facts and to

accept authoritative opinions, but not to think for themselves. He became convinced that


something was wrong with the way they had been taught in school when they were younger.

He therefore founded the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children (IAPC)

and developed with colleagues a programme is called Philosophy for Children, used in more

than 40 countries around the world. Lipman believes that children are natural philosophers

because they view the world with curiosity and wonder. Children’s own questions from the

starting-point for an enquiry or discussion, which can be termed ‘philosophical’. The IAPC

has produced a number of novels, into every page of which, strange and anomalous points

are woven. As a class reads a page, with the teacher, the text encourages them to raise

queries. These questions form the basis of guided discussions. The novels provide a model

of philosophical enquiry, in that they involve fictional children engaging in argument, debate,

discussion and exploratory thinking.13

Stories for Thinking

Many resources have been developed in recent years to adapt Matthew Lipman’s

approach to Philosophy for Children to the needs of children and teachers in the UK; ‘Stories

for thinking’ is one such approach. The aim, through using stories and other kinds of

stimulus for philosophical discussion, is to create a community of enquiry in the classroom.

In a typical ‘Stories for Thinking’ lesson the teacher shares a ‘thinking story’ with the class.

They have 'thinking time' when they are asked to think about anything in the story that they

thought was strange, interesting or puzzling about the story. After some quiet thinking time

the teacher asked for their comments or questions, and writes each child's questions on the

board, adding their name after their question. The children then chose from the list of

questions which one they would like to discuss. The teacher then invites the children to

comment, and who agreed or disagreed with particular comments made. If children do not

give reasons or evidence from the story for their opinions then teacher asked 'Why do you

think that?' or 'Have you got a reason for that?'

When asked the value of a 'Stories for Thinking' lesson one child said: 'You have to ask

questions and think hard about the answers.' Another said: 'Sometimes you change your

mind and sometimes you don't. A third reply was: 'It is better than just doing reading or

writing because you have to say what you really think.' Teachers note that in 'Stories for

Thinking' lessons, in which they may also uses poems, pictures, objects or other texts for

thinking, the children have become more thoughtful, better at speaking and listening to each

other, at asking questioning and using the language of reasoning, more confident in posing

13 (Fisher, 2006)


creative ideas and in judging what they and others think and do and are more confident

about applying their thinking to fresh challenges in learning and in life.

D. Computers and thinking

Research shows that there are several ways in which ICT could particularly enhance the

teaching and learning of thinking skills. There is evidence that the use of computers can lead

to improved information-processing skills. ICT enables multiple and complex representations

of information, allowing learners for example to think with a richer knowledge base.

The main criticism of the computer as a tutor model is that directed computer teaching

does not allow children to be creative learners, able to think and make connections for

themselves, and so is unlikely to support the development of higher order thinking. This can

be transformed however by collaboration around ICT activities, which has been shown to

have the potential to enhance the learning of transferable thinking skills.

Effective collaborative learning still needs to be structured. Learners should be taught how

to reason and learn together before they are asked to work collaboratively with ICT, because

having to articulate and explain strategies to others is more likely to lead to transfer than just

doing things without thinking or talking them through.

Computers can help develop children’s thinking skills when used as part of a larger

dialogue about thinking and learning. But as for teacher it is our responsible to find ways to

use the computer to encourage thinking with and discussion between children.

THE EFFECTS OF THINKING SCHOOL

Some students and teachers may be satisfied to teach and learn at a level that is just

enough to get by. Training students to think critically is a slow and laborious process.

Students often have difficulty accepting teaching to a higher cognitive level because they

may be accustomed to passive learning and do not want to exert the intellectual effort to

stretch themselves mentally. Despite the difficulties, it is advantageous to promote critical


and creative thinking, and it is becoming more prevalent in classrooms.

Beechwood Primary School provides an outstanding quality of education. Its identity as a

'Thinking School' is at the heart of its work, whether it is encouraging children to think about

others or to think things out for themselves14. Staff and pupils complete independent

research and reflective learning journals that lead to high quality teaching and learning

throughout the school. Everyone is seen to learn together. One parent summarises what

many say, 'I feel my child is receiving a very special opportunity to learn about real life skills,

values, how to think and question effectively and how to prepare for a happy and successful

life.'15

Inspection reports reveal that the Thinking School approach supports children to make

good progress and learn effectively, particularly in the key skills of writing, communication

and mathematics. The children work very well in groups; in all key stages, they share and

work through their ideas effectively and are able to select from a range of thinking maps to

structure their reasoning in a logical way to develop further their mathematical thinking.16

The direct and systematic teaching of thinking including questioning skills and collaborative

learning approaches significantly contributes evidence to this aspect of an inspection. A

unique ethos of aspiration, reflection and improvement permeates the school at all levels.

Staff and pupils complete independent research and reflective learning journals that lead to

high quality teaching and learning throughout the school. Everyone is seen to learn together.

Confrontation17 in the classroom can be a good thing. When teachers raise issues that

create disagreements that lead to discussion and resolution, they are encouraging critical

thinking. To produce positive results, teachers can create materials and activities to help

students develop debating skills. A popular issue, such as banning smoking in public places,

can be posed as a way to interest students in reading, writing and discussing the topic.

Creative people are curious18 . In order for creativity to flourish, students must be open to

learning about a wide variety of issues. They enjoy learning about things they do not know

and question assumptions behind ideas and statements. They do not take things at face

value; instead, they want to know why and how. They may produce new ideas or solutions

14 (Studio, 2012)

15 (Studio, 2012)

16 (Studio, 2012)

17 (Wade, 1999-2012)

18 (Wade, 1999-2012)


because of constructive discontentment with the status quo , thereby finding new solutions

and improvement.

When teachers value students' efforts to think critically, it increases students'

confidence19 and motivates them to build critical thinking skills. Pupils must feel secure that

they can contribute in the classroom without being reproved for giving the wrong answer.

Students who interact with others in group discussions learn to use higher level thinking

skills and to become more fluent in critical thinking and more adept at analyzing, explaining

and evaluating

Self-regulated learners20 are active participants in their own learning. The process

involves critical and creative thinking skills that help them connect ideas to things they

already know, look for obscure meanings or develop deeper understanding of subjects

across the curriculum. It encourages students to choose gratifying topics that are driven by

their own ideas and interests and to proactively regulate their own learning.

When investigating on the educators/ staff, their morale is high21 and teamwork is a

strength, with excellent opportunities to work collaboratively. For example, the lead

professional for developing the school as a thinking community has provided invaluable

support and inspiration for all staff. Training as part of the ‘Thinking School’ initiative has

influenced the way in which subjects are taught with a greater emphasis on improving

understanding. There are good opportunities to share best teaching practice across

subjects. Teachers have a high degree of subject knowledge and through their commitment

to personal and whole school professional development have an excellent understanding of

how pupils’ learning styles differ and how important it is that their teaching styles reflect this.

Teachers and teaching assistants use questioning very well ( good questioning skills) to

guide children in their discussions, and by the time they leave the school, children are very

effective, independent learners. Effective questioning techniques ensured that all were

suitably challenged and encouraged to develop their thinking skills. Questioning allows

teachers to ascertain prior knowledge and also develops pupils’ higher order thinking.

Through strategies such as Habits of Mind pupils become more independent in their learning

and surer of how to improve the way they work. Also, more able children become more

challenged in their learning22.

19 (Wade, 1999-2012)

20 (Wade, 1999-2012)

21 (Studio, 2012)

22 (Studio, 2012)


Being part of a community which encourages enquiry skills has enabled pupils to discuss

debate and question their teachers and each other. Consequently, pupils not only have well-

developed speaking and listening skills but are also able to reflect, to make connections in

their learning and to think through the consequences of their behaviour and that of others. In

the best lesson, challenging and active tasks can provide pupils with real problems to solve,

And these give many opportunities to develop their thinking skills, and excellent

opportunities for them to work collaboratively.

IS THINKING SCHOOL - A MALAYSIAN CULTURE?

As Edward de Bono said in his discussion ‘Thinking about thinking’- Information is very

important. Information is easy to teach. Information is easy to test. Just observe the common

practice of teaching mathematics in Malaysia , as an example. What actually is being taught

to the students?23

I notice that our Malaysian students were only trained to accept information

without guiding them to think through the information. Teaching and learning of mathematics,

for instance are perceived by most teachers and learners as the teaching and learning of

23 (Othman, 2012)


procedures and blindly applied to solve problems. Students were not exposed to activities

such as how to analyze problems, how to compare and contrast, how to reason inductively

and other thinking skills that are necessary to develop thinking culture among learners.

Sadly said that most of the Malaysian Mathematics teachers focusing more on the

knowledge level of Bloom’s taxonomy and very little on the level

of understanding and application. What is more obvious is that, there is almost nothing being

done to develop students’ skills at the level of analysis, synthesis and evaluation which form

very important components of critical thinking.

Thus it looks as if mathematics has nothing to do with thinking, reasoning and

communication. I have view this scenario for the past 7 years of teaching, since the process

of mathematics education seem to discard the fact that teachers are supposed to educate

the students in mathematics (such as developing critical and creative thinking ) and not just

making false assumption that students are there in the classrooms to be drilled in

mathematical knowledge for the sake of passing public examinations.

Teachers of the 21st century should learn how to think critically and creatively. They

should extend their pedagogical knowledge beyond content-based approach. They should

view process-based approach as an alternative or as complementary approach in the

teaching of mathematics in order that their students could perform better in their

mathematics grade and at the same time could think skilfully. They should be more open-

minded to accept new ideas on the teaching and learning of mathematics especially when

such ideas allow their students to gain skills in thinking and problem solving.

In conclusion, it is hard to convince the heads of schools in Malaysia of the importance of

thinking as a culture in the classrooms, since most heads of schools were themselves

unclear of its importance and its relevance to the process of the learning. As a result most of

them will tend to get the advice of their teachers as to whether to allow their students to get

exposed to such program. In many cases, teachers would reject such program due to their

ignorance about the importance of thinking and metacognition in learning.

In partnership with Kestrel Education, Thinking School International is working with

Malaysian government on a major project to create thinking schools across the country.

Working with the Agensi Inovasi Malaysia, six trainers will be training teachers in ten pilot

schools during November and December prior to the pilot programme beginning in January

2012. In addition a team of Malaysian trainers will be trained to provide on-going support to

schools24.

24 (Studio, 2012)