Syllabus
Activation
Presentations
Discussions

Higher Order Thinking

Years ago, I would have entitled this chapter - "Higher-order thinking skills." I started thinking about this and realized that I did not really know what that phrase meant (hence the activation task). I spent some time looking for the term in a collection of recent educational psychology texts on my shelf and found only one that provided a direct exploration of this topic.

higher-order thinking - complex cognitive processes used for problem solving (Wakefield (1996 - p.408). This author also defines the phrase by relating it to Bloom's taxonomy - analysis, synthesis and evaluation representing the higher level skills. These skills cannot be applied in a routine or mechanized way and thus depend heavily on metacognition.

Bruning et al. do not use the term higher-order, but they do refer to four advanced thinking skills in a table on page 187 - critical thinking, creative thinking, decision making, problem-solving.

critical thinking - evaluating information. As in:

  • analyzing arguments
  • differentiating verifiable facts from personal beliefs
  • evaluating the credibility of a source
  • identifying unstated assumptions
  • evaluating the logic used in reaching a conclusion
  • weigh evidence

decision making - making a carefully reasoned choice. As in:

  • seek best information available
  • evaluate information
  • determine options
  • reach conclusion

problem-solving - overcoming obstacle to reach an acceptable solution.

  • recognize problem
  • represent situation
  • select strategy
  • implement strategy
  • evaluate and repeat if necessary

creative thinking - generating a novel idea or product.

  • recognize opportunity for different view
  • generate possibilities
  • evaluate possibilities

If these skills do not seem entirely independent, in real world situations they probably are not. Differentiating them may have some value for the sake of discussion or perhaps for designing instructional activities that emphasize a particular skill.

Note that these skills are described in generic terms - i.e., they are not specific to a particular content area. With a little imagination you can probably recognize that these skills could be applied and would be valuable in many different areas. This observation leads to what I think are two interesting questions:
are their significant individual differences in these skills that span several areas - i.e., are some individuals just better problem solvers, more creative, etc. than others
is it possible to develop a higher-order skill either in isolation or in one content area such that performance would then benefit in other content areas

When your book discusses problem-solving, the book recognizes the contribution of both general knowledge and domain knowledge. General knowledge would include general problem-solving skill among other types of general knowledge. It is clear that the authors feel:

  • domain knowledge is much more important than general knowledge (see the study comparing baseball knowledge as responsible for reading comprehension)
  • domain knowledge takes a very long time to develop (they say 5-10 years, 10,000 hours - weird numbers of like this come from studies of continual improvement in cigar makers, chess experts, people who read x-rays, etc.)
  • tacit knowledge is important in expertise (those who have it can not necessarily explain what they know or how they do something). If tacit knowledge is a major determinant of expertise, this would partly explain why expertise takes so long. It would also represent a serious problem for education because education is time-limited and educators assume that explanation is important in teaching.

There is another way of looking at the issue of general vs. content-specific knowledge. Perkins and Salomon claim that we all move between general and specific approaches depending on the situation and our level of expertise. Early on, when we know little about a problem area, we rely heavily on general knowledge and general problem-solving skills. As we gain experience in an area, we need the general strategies and skills less and less.

How are specific skills to be taught?? My thinking has been influences by the following system (Jones, B. (1992). Cognitive designs in instruction. In M. Alkin (ed.) Encyclopedia of educational research (Vol. 1, pp. 166-177). New York: Macmillan.) Think of this as a continuum describing different instructional approaches.

  • stand alone - independent course focused on the process skills (problem-solving, study skills)
  • dual agenda - teaching of process skill embedded in content area instruction (writing across the curriculum, problem-solving emphasized as part of learning to program - teach "along with")
  • situated cognition (authentic tasks) - process skills and content knowledge skills "integrated by task"

All of these approaches may work - I say may because the research is pretty messy. However, the distinctions may still be useful because of efficiency. One of your readings will consider computer programming as a way to learn problem-solving (I think this would be classified as a dual agenda example). The research seems to suggest that productive classes (i.e., leading to improved problem-solving) would not just teach programming, but required that the teacher also focus on a "structured approach". In other words, the teacher was also teaching problem-solving heuristics.

My question would be - is a dual agenda approach valuable if you do not value both the domain and general skills? In other words, you may feel the development general problem solving is important, but you may not feel every student needs to spend time learning to program. In such a case, you might seek out a different dual agenda setting (learning problem-solving as part of some other content area) or perhaps invest learning time in authentic tasks appropriate to the content areas taught.

Link to Discussion Tool