Teaching Assumptions and Paradigm Shift

A reflective practitioner who wants to teach for higher-order thinking has to make a paradigm shift. The shift is from the didactic model that treats education as content delivery to a critical model that treats education as the development of disciplined thinking. The article walks through the old assumptions, the new ones, and the changes the shift requires.

Why assumptions matter

The reflective practitioner can understand why a focus on basic concepts and depth is essential to higher-order learning only if they clearly understand the profound differences between two models of education.

The first model, the didactic model, confuses acquiring knowledge with memorisation. Knowledge is treated as content that can be delivered.

The second model, the critical model of education, recognises that acquiring knowledge intrinsically and necessarily depends on higher-order critical thought. Knowledge is treated as something the learner constructs through thinking.

The two models are not subtle variations on one approach. They are different theories of what education is for and how it works. A teacher who holds the first set of assumptions cannot teach for higher-order thinking, no matter what techniques they adopt. A teacher who holds the second set can.

What lies behind uncritically held assumptions

The old assumptions are widespread and often unexamined. Naming them helps a reflective practitioner notice them in their own teaching.

Students learn how to think when they know what to think. This is a content-first assumption. Tell students the content and they will figure out how to use it. The result is students who can repeat content but cannot use it.

Knowledge can be given directly to students without their having to think it through. Knowledge is treated as a transferable substance, like water poured from one container to another. The result is students who hold information without understanding it.

The process of education is the process of storing content in the head like data in a computer. This assumption flattens the human mind into a storage device. The result is teaching focused on what gets stored rather than on what gets connected.

Quiet classes with little student talk are evidence of student learning. The assumption equates orderly silence with learning. The result is classrooms designed to suppress the conversation that thinking requires.

Students gain significant knowledge without seeking or valuing it. The assumption is that motivation is irrelevant; just deliver the content. The result is students who comply but do not engage.

Material should be presented from the point of view of the one who knows. This is teacher-centred delivery. The result is presentations that make sense to the expert but not to the learner.

Superficial learning can later be deepened. The assumption is that surface coverage now and depth later is acceptable. The result is depth that never comes, because the surface coverage never settled and there is always more new content arriving.

Coverage is more important than depth. The syllabus must be finished. The result is a list of topics nominally covered and few actually understood.

Students who correctly answer questions, provide definitions, and apply formulae demonstrate substantial understanding. This is the mistake Schoenfeld identified. Surface performance is mistaken for deep understanding. The result is graduates who appear competent in tests and fail in unfamiliar applications.

Students learn best by working alone. Learning is treated as a private activity. The result is classrooms that discourage the collaboration that thinking requires.

A teacher who reads this list and recognises three or four of the assumptions in their own teaching has done useful work. The first step in changing assumptions is noticing them.

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. 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.

Flashcard

What four basic changes does the paradigm shift to a critical model of education require?

Tap to reveal

Answer

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.

Where this leaves the practitioner

A teacher who recognises old assumptions in their own work is in the right starting place. The shift is not from ignorance to enlightenment in one move. It is from unexamined assumptions to examined ones, then to gradually adjusted practice.

Reflective practice is the discipline that supports this slow shift. The models in this guide (Gibbs, Boud, Johns, Dewey, and the rest) are tools for examining the assumptions. The future of reflective practice for any individual teacher is the steady use of these tools to do this work.

Broader changes in the world are reshaping how reflective practice itself is now done.