New Assumptions for Higher-Order Learning
New assumptions (21st century model)
| Assumption | What it produces |
|---|---|
| Students learn what to think only as they learn how to think | Reasoning before content |
| One gains knowledge only through thinking | Active processing |
| Education is each student gathering, analysing, synthesising, applying, assessing information | Engaged construction |
| Classes with much student talk on live issues show learning | Dialogue as evidence |
| Students gain knowledge only when they value it | Motivation matters |
| Information should be presented from the learner’s point of view | Student-centred delivery |
| Depth is more important than coverage | Understanding over syllabus |
| Correct answers may exist without understanding | Probe past performance to understanding |
| Students learn best by working together, debating, exchanging ideas | Collaborative learning |
What the paradigm shift requires
- Re-conceive the curriculum
- Re-design instruction
- Long-term evolution
- Major emphasis on philosophy
The contrast at the level of outcomes
| Lower-order | Higher-order |
|---|---|
| Multiplies misunderstanding and prejudice | Multiplies comprehension and insight |
| Discourages and limits the learner | Stimulates and empowers |
A teacher who wants to teach for higher-order thinking has to work from a different set of assumptions and then make a paradigm shift to bring those assumptions into classroom reality. The article walks through the new assumptions, the four basic changes the shift requires, and the contrast in outcomes that the two models produce.
The new assumptions
The reflective practitioner who values education focused on higher-order learning works from a different set of assumptions.
Students learn what to think only as they learn how to think. The how comes first, or the what does not stick.
One gains knowledge only through thinking. Inside this critical model of education, knowledge is the product of thinking, not its substitute. A student who has not thought about a topic does not know it, no matter how well they can repeat the words.
The process of education is the process of each student gathering, analysing, synthesising, applying, and assessing information. This is education as the work of the learner, not the work of the teacher. The teacher organises conditions; the student does the thinking.
Classes with much student talk, focused on live issues, are a better sign of learning than quiet classes focused on passive acceptance of what the teacher says. Dialogue is evidence. Silence may be order or it may be disengagement; the silent class does not say which.
Students gain significant knowledge only when they value it. Motivation is part of the learning condition, not optional.
Information should be presented so as to be understandable from the point of view of the learner, hence continually related to the learner’s experiences and point of view. Student-centred presentation, in the literal sense.
Depth is more important than coverage. Less syllabus, deeper understanding.
Students can often provide correct answers, repeat definitions, and apply formulae while not understanding those answers, definitions, or formulae. The new model assumes performance and understanding are different and probes past performance to understanding.
Students learn best by working together with other students, actively debating and exchanging ideas. Learning is social. Collaboration is part of how thinking develops.
The two sets of assumptions produce different classrooms. A teacher who has shifted from the first set to the second is teaching differently, even when the surface activities look similar.
The paradigm shift
To make the shift in assumptions a classroom reality, the reflective practitioner has to make a paradigm shift from a didactic to a critical model of education. Several basic changes are needed.
Re-conceive the curriculum
Curricula play a significant role in school life. Instruction arises from the goals and objectives stated in them. A curriculum that lists 60 topics for a term implicitly demands surface coverage. A curriculum that names 12 essential ideas to be deeply understood permits depth.
Curriculum change is hard and rarely under one teacher’s control. But where teachers have any voice in curriculum, the voice should advocate for fewer, deeper goals.
Re-design instruction
Even within a fixed curriculum, instruction can change. Teachers feel they have no time to focus on higher-order learning, and the most basic ideas in a content area can be neglected. Instructional re-design starts with deciding which ideas matter most and giving them the time they need, even if it means cutting other items.
This is the kind of decision that reflective practice supports. A teacher who has reflected on what their subject is really for has the basis for cutting low-priority topics.
Long-term evolution
The shift from a lecture-drill-recall paradigm to one focused on engaged deep-processing can be achieved only through long-term evolution. This is not a one-term project. It is a multi-year arc.
A teacher attempting the shift should plan for it as a sustained effort, not as a quick rebrand. Year one shifts assumptions and starts re-designing one unit. Year two extends the redesign to more units. Year three deepens the work and begins to influence colleagues. The change compounds.
Emphasis on philosophy
The reflective practitioner has the opportunity to place a major emphasis on a detailed formulation of philosophy. The philosophy highlights the essential role of thinking in the acquisition of knowledge and contrasts lower-order with higher-order learning.
A teacher who can articulate why this work matters has more chance of sustaining the work and persuading others. A teacher who only adopts new techniques without the underlying philosophy tends to revert when the pressure goes up.
The contrast in outcomes
The two paradigms produce different outcomes for students.
Higher-order learning multiplies comprehension and insight. Students who genuinely understand a topic see its connections to other topics, can apply it in unfamiliar contexts, and develop a confidence in their own thinking.
Lower-order rote memorisation and performance multiply misunderstanding and prejudice. Students who only recall surface content carry confused versions of ideas into the world, where the confusion produces poor decisions and reinforces stereotypes.
Higher-order learning stimulates and empowers. Students who think for themselves develop the capacity to keep thinking after they leave school.
Lower-order discourages and limits the learner. Students who never had to think for themselves leave school dependent on authoritative voices to tell them what is true.
The contrast is not subtle. The two paradigms produce different kinds of citizens.
Good teaching
The summary in the literature is direct. Good teaching focuses on high content, basic ideas, and issues taught in ways that actively engage student reflection and thought.
Three things are in this short statement.
High content. The material is substantial, not watered down.
Basic ideas and issues. Not many topics, but the foundational concepts.
Active engagement of student reflection and thought. The students are doing the work.
A teacher whose lessons meet this description is teaching for higher-order learning. A teacher whose lessons miss any of the three is teaching to the older model.
Re-conceive the curriculum, redesign instruction, plan for long-term evolution, articulate the philosophy
Curriculum drives instruction, so curriculum has to change. Instruction needs to be redesigned within whatever curriculum exists. The shift takes years, not terms. And teachers need a clear philosophy of why the work matters, both to sustain themselves and to persuade colleagues.