Reading: Making Thinking Visible part 2

Following on from the previous reading…

Quite a bit about thinking routines. I would like to see some.

They mention their website: http://www.pz.harvard.edu/vt . I wonder if it’s still there?

Blah. I lost focus on the words. At the moment, they’re just rattling off a history of the development of ideas. The process is probably important, but I will need to come back to this page again, since it’s not grabbing my interest. A same since they probably spent a good long time recording this. (Page xix).

Some rhetoric: engage learners, support thinking, develop understanding and encourage independence. Is that what I am doing in the classroom?

Do I have an overall philosophy in teaching? I live by a maxim of doing the best I can, and doing the most amount of good in a place or situation that I can. I have taken on some very unsavoury roles and jobs, ones that people tend to avoid. Partly to make a difference, but also partly because of naked ambition: take the roles no one wants and you will jump up the ranks faster.

To what end though? Money is always a factor, but I think I might be doing this even without the draw of a fat pay check.

I think maybe I just want to leave things in a better state than when I found it. I think that applies to students too. I just want to put them in abetter position than they were yesterday.

So what do I man by a better position?

I think perhaps…

It’s a complicated thing.

I want students to be independent. Strong enough to stand on their own two feet when something occurs. I also want them to be integrated into whatever environment they fin themselves in. I want them to be in a position to make the world a better place themselves.

I think I want them to be like me, and go forth into the world and leave things better than how they found them. I’m rambling now. Read more.

Ah, no.

I want students to be able to deal with that which is undiscovered. To be able to prepare for that which cannot be known. To be able to stand their ground against overwhelming chaos.

That’ll do.

Next step is how to measure my actions against that goal.

Finally.

Part 1: Some thinking about thinking

Damn, we’re starting with “according to the dictionary”. I hope this is an inside joke about how high school essays start…

Is it clear that learning is a product of thinking? I know of many passively gained skills I have, up to and including typing on a keyboard. Hmm.

Good point: What is meant by thinking? The question of what kind of thinking do you want to see in the classroom is a very good one, and leads me to think about what categorise of thought there are.

We have “bad thoughts”, “sweet thoughts”, “kind thoughts”, but is the mechanism for all these the same.

Off the top of my head, there are:

• active thoughts, which we try to force our brains to do.
• passive thoughts, where ideas seem to pop out of nowhere.
• empty thoughts, which flit through the brain but vanish fairly quickly leaving no impression

Hah, I’ve literally just written a blog post on what this author is discussing with Bloom’s being over taught. Funny, but shows I’m on the right track.

I’m always sceptical of people that use the phrase “problematic”.

The point raised about Bloom’s taxonomy being hierarchical is actually not a very good criticism. I think you need a standard hierarchy to work from, to gauge levels of mastery. Where I think Bloom’s falls down is that the descriptors and levels are actually wrong. Or at least not as high utility.

For example, being creative is not adequately described. As the book notes, Bloom’s work was based from… actually it doesn’t state it. In fact the book says it’s just a theory, which raises my sceptical eye brow further. I think the writer means hypothesis, so I will now be on my guard when the author refers to research and scientific process.

Question: Surely there should now be a weight of actual practice evidence on the success of Bloom’s model? It’s been enacted in education for over 50 years… there has to be some study on its efficacy.

Got a bit of reading list from this book. Remember to check those sources (which hopefully will not be behind a pay wall).

I feel like a language game is being played here. The author is using various different meanings of Bloom’s stages to muddy the clarity of those positions. For example, where understanding is concerned; Bloom’s taxonomy refers to demonstration of understanding, as in the fact/idea can be categorised or interpreted.

I think that perhaps Bloom’s show us levels of mastery of use of an idea: you can understand a concept without knowing the fine details of it.

As Piaget points out with children (sorry no citation yet!), a game can be understood long before an explanation of the rules is given.

So… your criticism of Bloom’s is incorrect in this case.

No, I don’t like it. The idea of removing the hierarchy just means your compass is broken. You can argue the directions are wrong, but without a map you’re just lost.

Up to page 8 now. I need to go do something, but I will look back on my thoughts here after I am done.

Summary

While I agree Bloom’s Taxonomy has its flaws, the criticisms of the author are not valid, and at this stage I assume to be subjective. To be sure that what the author is saying is correct I will need to read and research the following:

• Bloom’s original Taxonomy paper.
• The citations listed in the book.
• Papers on the efficacy of Bloom’s taxonomy in the classroom/teacher training.

I also have to be honest about a concern I have. I know that deconstructing hierarchies is a left-leaning philosophy. I do not insinuate political agenda here, or anything as corrupt as Lysenko-ism. I just think I’ll need to divine out assumptions made.

I don’t see moving up and down the hierarchy as evidence that the hierarchy is wrong. Simply that you can move up and down the hierarchy, and that learning is not some ratchet system, where one level is attained ad locked into place.

Reading: Making Thinking Visible part 1

by Ron Ritchhart, Mark Church, Karin Morrison and foreword by David Perkins.

Reading for pleasure is something I’ve done in the context of fantasy books. I can’t say I’ve been into Sci-fi books despite my geek credentials, as I find the tone of those books stuffy and usually pompous.

So, now I’m reading some academic articles. Here I will record my thoughts as I go. They may well be unintelligible ramblings, but I need them to sort my thoughts. Even as I write this I’m interrupted and I will need a written record to keep my thread of thinking.

Anyway, let’s start.

Some irrelevant thing about a stranger being angry on the phone. What’s the point?

Ah, a mention about trying to work out the thinking inside someone else’s head. I wonder if this person has looked into different models of thinking, and I wonder if the models I’ve looked at will come up.

Good point about not knowing how we think ourselves, but I think the analogy of a coach on the sidelines is a bit weak. It’s more like a driver knowing how to operate the controls of a car, but not knowing the particulars of how the engine works and how the drive shaft is connected to the wheels.

Often that’s not even needed to go from point A-B, you just need to know what lever to pull and when to steer around the odd dog. Perhaps this helps the coach analogy? Requiring someone on the outside of the sports activity looking in to help out? Don’t think so… but you certainly need an engineer to know how to fix the car when it breaks down.

Ah, perhaps psychology as an underpinning for education is a bit of a dead end then. You only need someone who is good at driving to tell you how to drive. Is that what a teacher is? Someone who just knows the operations of learning well enough to guide others through it?

Potentially.

Read more.

So we should be externalising the process of thought? Perhaps not. No doubt there is value in learning how learning happens, but is it of functional utility to the student who needs to navigate around the road of education? Does that not simply shift the burden of teaching actual content, and discipline of subject to some other teacher?

Should then this be a separate subject in itself?

Honestly I don’t think so. I think underpinning every subject there is a core method or skill set for interpreting or interacting with the world. I don’t think there is a universal tool for understanding all truths yet, but I would suppose the scientific method comes close. That is why it appears to be mirrored in many subjects, where objective truths need to be discussed (like History and Geography etc.).

The stumbling block would be meanings of these truths, and the placing of values…. quantifying the emotional and cultural relevance of these effects, which I would put squarely in the domain of the humanities.

Can these two describe each other? Interesting notion, but I’ve forgotten the authors point.

Externalising the process of thought is a good tool for an educator. I don’t think it’s one for the educatee. Some of these skills and methods are best brought out as a result of combinations of workings and trials and errors, rather than active reprogramming by the person thinking.

Actually put bluntly, I don’t think you can teach someone how to think without breaking the thinking device. Again, thinking about driving, you don’t want to have to re-weld he axle to turn a corner… you much rather just turn the wheel and let the engineering do the rest. Simple awareness of knowing what the brain is doing is probably only going to interfere with normal operation, and the learning process itself.

The last few paragraphs seem to be justifications for Concept Based Learning (take a shot).

The idea of thinking with another set of ideas to explain a new phenomena is not useless by any means. i myself in this reading have gone to town on car analogies to explain the trickier ideas of a learning process. But that’s tremendously surface level. The mechanics of a car are different to the biology of learning, and psychology different to learning the highway code.

Is that what concept based learning (take a shot) is? Learning to think with analogy? That would be greatly comforting when encountering a new situation, and sits right in the Star Trekkian explanations of hard Science in the past. Ghostbusters Twinkie comes to mind as well.

But.

It is not the reality of the situation, and can lead to a false arrogance and assumed knowledge. Interesting.

I think about this in terms of Physics. I can explain a phenomena with analogy and metaphor, and students will understand the lower resolution concept of what I’m talking about. But when it comes down to the hard crunch, they flounder. They might not even realise the detail is there to be looked for.

Hm. I don’t think I understand Concept based teaching enough yet.

Okay, I’ll leave it there. In case you’re wondering we’ve just finished p the Foreword by David Perkins. This was a whole 2 pages.

We could be here a while.

I’m going to read through my thoughts now and see if there’s anything useful I can pop out.

I really have an aversion to Concept Based Learning (take a shot). I think I see it as the opposite pole to developing skill sets instead. I wonder if that makes me old fashioned, or just plain wrong. I enjoyed reading the book though.

I wish I could post the content of the book up here for discussion. I wonder if that might be allowed? Maybe an idea for later. Please let me know any thoughts or comments on my mad ramblings.

Happy teaching!