A thinking curriculum

Abstract

Last time I only failed by narrowest of narrow margins. what? You walked in there, wrote, 'I am fish', four hundred times, did funny little dance, and fainted. Rimmer and Lister in Red Dwarf Abstract This article explores how schools might develop curriculum and pedagogy for understanding of rather than knowing of thinking. It suggests viewing understanding of processes through Bereiter and Scardamalia's interpretation of educational process in Popper's three-world schema. Such an interpretation leads schools to development of more purposive schema, allowing approaches to curriculum called to be aligned to pedagogy based upon structured overview of student learning outcomes, and appropriate interventions and assessment practices. Introduction The Curriculum Marautanga Project frames as key competency, result of discussion of international work by OECD Defining and Selecting Key Competencies project (DeSeCo), where is described as performance-based competency essential for a successful life and well functioning society (Rutherford, 2004; Rychen, 2002). Proficiency in frees individual from living life manipulated, and enables creation of new ideas for understanding specific world(s) of their lived experiences. The disjunction between Rimmer and Lister's differing understanding of phrase the narrowest of margins captures an educative dilemma. If proficiency in is worthy endeavour, valued goal, and self-evident virtue, and recognising strengths and weaknesses in our own is necessary for improving learning, then several questions for educators follow: How can we help students better know themselves as learners? How can we enhance self-regulation? How can we help students improve their thinking? How can we teach for understanding of rather than knowing of thinking? This article explores these important questions. I have found Popper's three-world schema, expressed in an educational context (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1996), useful for exploring ways we can teach for understanding of thinking. This schema is outlined in Table 1. Within such schema, World 3 emerges out of Worlds 1 and 2, and isolates idea of thinking. This encourages students to reflect upon thinking about thinking, with intent of enhancing metacognition and reflective practice. When students think about ideas in curriculum documents, we teach them to use processes and strategies from World 2. Schools approach World 2 through pedagogies that introduce thinking toolbox approaches to as outlined in Figure 1. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] When schools create thinking toolbox of skills and dispositions, they are for knowing of rather than understanding of thinking. To teach for understanding of schools must create World 3 learning environments where can be analysed and improved, and where pedagogies for reflection, pattern recognition, and connection, are encouraged. Students are working in World 3 when they are encouraged to think about processes and strategies in World 2, and to reflect upon how these affect understanding of World 1 ideas in curriculum documents. Wiske's (1998) framework for logic of teaching for understanding, rather than teaching for knowing, encourages us to explore these three world interpretations of through following questions: 1. What is worthy of understanding in thinking? 2. What should students know, understand, and be able to do in thinking? 3. How can we enhance understanding in thinking? 4. How can we determine what students understand in thinking? …