Higher Order Thinking

The chapter has been about where reflective practice goes from here. One of the directions is toward higher-order thinking. Most schooling, the literature argues, produces lower-order learning even though education aims at higher-order goals. Reflective practice is one of the ways teachers can begin to close the gap.

The three dimensions of critical thinking

Higher-order thinking, sometimes shortened to HOT, has three dimensions in the framework presented here.

Analysis of thinking by focusing on the parts

The first dimension breaks thinking down into its components. What are the elements of the thinking the student is doing? Concepts, evidence, assumptions, conclusions, points of view, implications. The teacher who can name the parts of student thinking can teach the parts.

Analysis of thinking by focusing on teaching quality (standards)

The second dimension applies standards to the thinking. Is the thinking clear? Accurate? Precise? Relevant? Logical? Fair? The standards give the teacher a vocabulary for assessing thinking quality, which makes feedback to students more useful.

Improvement of thinking by using what you learned

The third dimension uses the analysis to teach better. The teacher who has analysed student thinking and applied standards now redesigns instruction to develop the parts and meet the standards. This is the action layer.

The three dimensions form a working approach: take thinking apart, apply standards, use the results to teach.

The gap between goals and results

Education, as a concept, defines a set of higher-order goals. Critical thinking. Independent reasoning. Problem-solving in unfamiliar contexts. Lifelong learning. Disciplined inquiry.

But actual school learning typically produces lower-order results. Memorisation. Recall. Recognition. Surface manipulation of techniques students do not understand.

The question is how to narrow the gap. How can we make higher-order goals a practical reality?

The aspiration is concrete:

• In math classes, students learn to think mathematically.
• In history classes, students learn to think historically.
• In science classes, students learn to think scientifically.
• In general, students begin to think critically in a disciplined, self-directed way.

A teacher who hits this target has produced higher-order learning. A teacher whose students can repeat formulae and definitions but cannot use them in new situations has produced lower-order learning. The difference is real and measurable.

The teachers’ obstacle

The obstacle is that many teachers make assumptions about instruction, knowledge, and learning that are incompatible with HOT.

In short, teachers often assume students learn what to think when they know what to think; that knowledge can be given directly without students having to think it through; that quiet classes show learning; that coverage matters more than depth. Each of these assumptions deserves a careful look.

These assumptions block higher-order learning even when teachers nominally aim at it. A teacher who believes coverage is more important than depth will keep moving the syllabus along even when students have not understood. The depth never comes.

Reflective practice provides a new set of assumptions. The whole point of critical reflection is to surface and examine assumptions like these. A teacher who reflects carefully on their own teaching, with discipline and over time, can begin to notice the assumptions that block their students’ thinking.

The fix needs a long-term commitment to reflective practice because the changes are deep-seated and the resistance is real. This is not a one-term project.

The fundamental problems in schooling

The literature names the fundamental problems in schooling today as fragmentation and lower-order learning.

There is too little connection and depth.

Fragmented lists dominate curricula. Topics are listed without showing how they connect. Students learn item 1, then item 2, then item 3, without ever seeing the underlying structure that ties them together.

Fragmented teaching dominates instruction. Lessons cover individual skills without weaving them into bigger ideas. The day becomes a sequence of disconnected mini-lessons.

Fragmented recall dominates learning. Students remember facts and formulas without understanding the systems they belong to. The recall passes the test and fades.

What is missing across all three layers is coherence, connection, and depth of understanding.

Schoenfeld’s critique

The mathematician Alan Schoenfeld is cited in the literature for a sharp critique of the same problem.

Schoenfeld argues that schools too often focus on a narrow collection of well-defined tasks and train students to execute those tasks in a routine, almost algorithmic, fashion. Then schools test the students on tasks that are very close to the ones they have been taught. If students succeed on those problems, the school and the students congratulate each other on the supposed mastery of powerful techniques.

The trouble is that the success may be illusory. Students who have memorised the procedure for a specific problem type often cannot solve a problem that requires the same idea applied in a slightly different setting. The technique they appeared to have learned was not actually learned at the level of understanding.

Schoenfeld provides studies and examples for this characterisation at college, primary, and secondary levels. The pattern is widespread.

This is the lower-order trap. Students appear to be learning. They pass tests. They look successful. The actual understanding is thin. When the test conditions change, the supposed mastery disappears.

How reflective practice helps

Reflective practice is described as a cure for the kind of robotic lower-order learning that has become increasingly common across subjects.

The cure works through several routes.

Reflective practitioners can improve student performance only by improving student thinking. The shift in focus from output to thinking is the start.

They can improve thinking only by creating opportunities and incentives for students to think. Instructional design has to invite thinking, not just deliver content.

Opportunities to think exist only when teachers have time to thoughtfully redesign instruction. This is a structural condition. Teachers running on full-syllabus pressure cannot redesign.

Teachers have time to redesign only if they do not feel compelled to cover huge amounts of subject matter. Coverage is the enemy of depth.

Coverage can reduce only if the curriculum is restructured to focus on basic concepts, understandings, and abilities. This is a curriculum-level decision.

Curriculum can be restructured only if teachers and curriculum designers understand why such a focus is essential to higher-order learning. This is the deepest level: the understanding of why depth matters.

The chain runs from the deepest level (understanding the importance of depth) up to the surface (improved student performance). Reflective practice is what makes the understanding at the deepest level possible.

A teacher who has not reflected on what their teaching is for cannot decide to focus on basic concepts. A teacher who has reflected can. The reflection produces the conviction that drives the redesign.

The long-term commitment

Reflective practice produces results when teachers commit to it over years. The literature is direct about this: a long-term commitment is required.

This is because the changes needed are deep-seated. A teacher cannot decide on Monday to reorient their teaching toward higher-order thinking and have it work by Friday. The patterns that produce lower-order teaching are habits built over years of training and practice. They do not unwind quickly.

The depth of resistance that can be expected is also real. Students may resist, because the new approach asks more of them. Parents may resist, because they expect coverage and recognisable results. Administrators may resist, because the new approach disturbs the system. Other teachers may resist, because change in one classroom highlights what is happening in others.

A teacher attempting to shift toward higher-order teaching needs to expect this resistance and plan for it. The reflection that supports the shift includes reflection on how to navigate the resistance, not only on the teaching itself.

Flashcard

What is the chain of reasoning that connects reflective practice to improved student performance through HOT?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Performance improves only through better thinking; thinking improves only through opportunities to think; opportunities exist only when teachers have time to redesign; time exists only when coverage pressure reduces; coverage reduces only when curriculum focuses on depth; depth focus requires teachers and designers who understand its importance

The chain runs from the deepest understanding to the surface result. Reflective practice produces the understanding at the deepest level that lets the rest of the chain work.

Where this leaves the practitioner

A teacher reading this argument has two reasonable responses.

The first is despair. The chain is long, the resistance is real, and one teacher cannot fix the whole system.

The second is patience. One teacher can shift their own classroom over years. A few teachers working together can shift a department. A school full of teachers committed to the work can shift the whole system over a decade. The change is possible, just slow.

The reflective practice in this guide is the engine of the second response. It is what makes the patient version of change possible.