Enhancing Higher-Order Thinking Skills amongst Elementary School
Children through Constructivist Approach
Dr.Nityananda Pradhan
Head,
P.G. Dept. of Education,
D.A.V. College, Koraput
At/PO: Koraput-764021
E-mail: npradhan17@rediffmail.com
ABSTRACT
There has been tremendous amount of interest shown to teach Higher Order
Thinking Skills (HOTS) in schools to everyone in the recent times.
Research
suggests that failure to promote higher order thinking, such as critical thinking,
divergent or creative thinking, reasoning (moral, inductive, deductive, formal,
informal), problem solving, decision making, may be the source of major learning
difficulties in elementary schools. It has been noted that there are at least two
general approaches to the teaching of thinking skills: (i) the direct instruction in
thinking or the teaching of thinking; and (ii) the use of methods which promote
thinking in curricular context, known as teaching for thinking.
Recently, a third
approach, namely, infusion approach has been identified to teach thinking skills. It
possesses the characteristics of both the methods.
Partly due to the interest to involve the students more in the teaching learning
process, yet another approach, namely, constructivist approach has been identified
to teach HOTS. It is not, however, a completely new approach to teaching,
particularly to the teaching of HOTS. This is basically an emphasis on learning
involving active construction by the learner, having as a source the learner’s own
experience, with the teacher playing a facilitator role providing appropriate situations,
tasks, and conditions. It is important to note that there are HOTS approaches, e.g.
small group discussion, problem solving strategy, questioning technique, infusion
approach that can be subsumed under constructivist approach. No one particular
approach can be said of being the best approach to teach HOTS. It is the duty of the
teacher to use the approach appropriate to the learner in the context.
It is seen that majority of our teachers at elementary school stage are using various
strategies in the name of child centered or activity centered pedagogy basically to
teach various subjects. These strategies are not extended to a level to cater for
acquiring of HOTS by the students. The focus so far has been only on the two
general approaches to teaching HOTS. To be able to use the strategies with high
potential to promote HOTS, teachers need to possess the subject matter knowledge
and pedagogical skills to combine both the teaching of content and thinking skills.
Teaching children to think critically has been perhaps the most popular fastest
growing part of the thinking skills movement. The interest probably comes from two
major sources: a combination of a growing conviction that we must have adults who
are critical thinkers and a drawing awareness that we are not achieving this result. It
is seen that students at all grade levels are deficient in Higher Order Thinking (HOT)
skills. All these situations have warranted the teaching of HOT skills in schools.
However, the big question is hot best to teach HOT skills to students so that they will
be better problem solvers and decision makers.
What is Higher Order Thinking (HOT)?
Researchers and educators have advocated many conceptions in relation to
“thinking”: critical thinking, divergent or creative thinking, reasoning (moral inductive,
deductive, formal, informal), problem solving, decision making. These conceptions
can all be subsumed under the larger construct of higher-order thinking and made
distinct from lower-order thinking (Onosko and Newman, 1994, pp.28). High Order
Thinking (HOT) is defined broadly, as the expanded use of the mind to meet new
challenges. Expanded use of mind occurs when a person must interpret, analyze, or
manipulate information, because a question to be answered or a problem to be
solved cannot be resolved through the routine application of previously learned
knowledge (Onosko, J & Newmann, F., 1994).
Lower-order thinking represents
routine, mechanistic application and limited use of the mind. This process generally
involves repetitive operations such as listing information previously learned formulae,
applying procedural rules, and other routinized or algorithmic mental activities. In a
nutshell, Higher Order Thinking is thinking on a higher level than memorizing facts or
telling something back to someone exactly the way the it was told to you. When a
person memorizes and gives back the information without having to think about it,
we call it rote memory. That’s because it’s much like a robot; it does what it’s
programmed to do, but it doesn’t think for itself. However Order Thinking, or HOT for
short, takes thinking to higher level that just restating the facts. HOT requires that
we do something with the facts. We must understand them, connect them to each
other, categorize them, manipulate them, put them together in new or novel ways,
and apply them as we seek new solutions to new problems.
Teaching HOT
No particular question or problem, however, necessarily leads to higher-order
thinking for all students. To determine the extent to which a task will involve an
individual in higher-order thinking, one presumably needs to know much about that
person’s history with the task. It is difficult to determine reliably to extent to which a
person is involved in higher-order thinking. The teaching of thinking, therefore, is
rather imprecise enterprise.
Many educators suggest that the best way to teach HOT skills is to engage in what
we predict will be challenging problems, guide student manipulation of information to
solve problems, and support students’ efforts.
This conception has following
positive features:

It assumes that any person, young or old, regardless of experience or prior
knowledge, can participate in higher-order thought.

The conception encompasses cognitive activity in a wide range of school
subjects as well as in nonacademic areas.

It does not require acceptance of particular theory of cognitive processing or
rely on a particular pedagogy.

This conception is hospitable to providing students with three important
resources of thinking that recognized widely in the literature: content
knowledge, intellectual skills, and dispositions of thoughtfulness.
(Onosko and Newmann, 1994, pp.29)
To ensure that they are enhancing HOT, many teachers rely on classification
systems or taxonomies that differentiate the levels of thought various questions elicit.
By far the most popular system of classifying questions is Bloom, Engelhart, Furst,
Hill, and Krathwohl’s (1956) Toxonomy (Marzano, 1993, pp.155). Most educators
are
aware
of
Bloom’s
six
levels
of
cognitive
processing:
Knowledge,
Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. Presumably, as
one asks questions at the “Higher Levels” of the taxonomy, more sophisticated levels
of though are elicited. Unfortunately, this assumption is not supported by much of
the research on the taxonomy.
These proper attempts to investigate one of the recent approaches, the constructivist
approach to the teaching of HOT skills. Since constructivism, among others, tells us
to pay close attention to the mental activities of the learner (Bereiter, 1994), it is
hoped that using this constructivist approach to the teaching of HOT skills will boost
the effects of teaching those skills to students.
There has been tremendous amount of interest shown to teach HOT skills in schools
to everyone, at least in the recent times. This has been the exclusive component of
the elite education in the past.
More recently, researchers have begun to
investigate how the ability and the propensity to think well are acquired and
maintained. It was Dewey who in modern times, foresaw that education had to be
redefined as the fostering of thinking rather than as transmission of knowledge.
Purkey (1970) suggested that teaching thinking helps students survive in school in
at least three ways.
(i)
By providing explicit instruction in the various operations that constitute
thinking, teachers can improve student proficiency in thinking itself.
(ii)
Such instruction can also improve student achievement in the academic
subjects.
(iii)
Instruction in thinking gives students a sense of conscious control over
their thinking.
Research suggests that failure to cultivate aspects of thinking such as promoting
Higher-Order Thinking (HOT) skills may be the source of major learning difficulties in
elementary school.
Constructivism
The latest catchword in educational circle is ‘constructivism’, applied both to learning
theory and to epistemology: both to how people learn and to nature of knowledge.
The term refers to the idea that learners actively construct their own knowledge by
connecting new ideas to existing ideas on the basis of materials/ activities presented
to them (experience).
Construction indicates that each learner individually and
socially constructs meaning as he/she learns. Constructing meaning is learning and
learning is a process of the construction of knowledge.
The constructivist
perspective provides strategies for promoting learning by all.
Although constructivists like Piaget, Vygotsky, Novak and Posner disagree on some
aspect of knowledge construction process, they all agree on the following basic
characteristics to constructivism:

Learning is not a passive receptive process but is instead an active meaning
making process.

New learning depends on learner’s previous knowledge

Learning is facilitated by social interaction

Meaningful learning occurs within authentic learning tasks

Cognition is subjective, not objective.
Piaget suggests that children construct knowledge individually whereas according to
Vygotsky, social interaction is important for the construction of knowledge. Novak
and Posner believe that classroom interaction facilitate knowledge construction.
Implications of Constructivist Approach to the Teaching of HOTS
The interest to teach thinking skills has been with educators for a long time.
Although it has been handled in many forms for a long time, it only appeared in the
explicit agenda of schooling in the recent times.
It can be noted that, the
developments in the thinking skills movement has laid the foundation for at least two
general approaches to the teaching of thinking skills:
(i)
The direct instruction in thinking which could also be termed as the
‘teaching of thinking’; and
(ii)
The use of methods which promote thinking in curricular contexts, which
could be termed as teaching for thinking.
More recently, a third approach which possesses the characteristics of both the
methods in use has been identified to teach thinking skills, and it is called the
Infusion Approach.
Infusing critical and creative thinking into content instruction
blends features of two contrasting instructional approaches that educators have
taken to teach thinking. Classroom time is spent on the thinking skill or process, as
well as on the content. In order to facilitate HOT skills in students, teachers must
create an environment in which students feel comfortable sharing their ideas,
inventions, and personal meanings. Teachers should engage in specific, powerful
practices that communicate to students the essence of thoughtfulness: that their
ideas are important and that being open to others’ ideas helps us learning (Barrel,
1991, pp.60).
Partly due to the interest to involve the students more in the teaching and learning
process and to identify yet another approach, there is a considerable amount of
interest being shown in the teaching of HOT skills using the constructivist approach.
It is not however a completely new approach to teaching and in particular to the
teaching of HOT skills. There is basically an emphasis on learning involving active
construction by the learner, having as a source the learner’s own experience, with
the teacher playing a facilitatory role providing appropriate situations, tasks, and
conditions (Becker and Varelas, 1995, in Gale and Jerry, 1995).
The instruction in the schools should be geared towards providing thoughtful learning
environments in the classrooms in the teaching of HOT skills which promote
students’ active construction of their meaning, with the teachers playing the
facilitatory role. This does not mean that the teacher has no significant role to play in
the teaching and learning in the classrooms. Rather, his role is less that of a person
who gives ‘lessons’.
However, teacher will have to overcome the conflict between
allowing children to pursue their own meaning and facilitating the construction of
meanings and procedures compatible with those of the wider society. It is important
to note that, no one particular approach can be said of being the ‘best’ constructivist
approach to teach HOT skills. However, it is the duty of the teacher to use the
appropriate approach which is both useful to the learner and which motivates he or
she to participate in the teaching and learning process.
It is also important for the
teacher to make sure that the meaning making of the students attain the higher-level
of reasoning.
Scenario of Indian Classrooms
It seems important to investigate whether there are efforts by teachers to promote
the acquisition of higher-order thinking skills by their students? Do teachers attempt
to employ approaches, strategies and techniques which have positive aspects? Do
approaches promote active students participation, allow for students’ questions and
explorations, cater for the less able in their classes so that they too could benefit
from the teaching and learning, and allow students to be part of the teaching and
learning processes including playing their part in deciding the task to be carried out?
Although better thinking among students could be a by-product of many activities.
Whether teachers are making explicit attempts to promote thinking skills in their
teaching, in line with the recent reform efforts in schools brought out through NCF2005. Also are those teachers bringing the activities in their classes to a level which
possesses distinctive features from traditional approaches to teaching, and clearly
promote higher-order thinking skills in their classrooms?
Teacher and student talk
Many teachers now-a-days claim to be practicing child centered pedagogy which
means giving primacy to children’s experiences, their voices, and their active
participation.
But it is seen that children’s voice do not find expression in the
classroom. Often the only voice heard is that of the teacher. When children speak,
they are usually only the teacher’s words. The curriculum must enable children to
find their voices, nurture their curiosity—to do things, to ask questions and to pursue
investigations, sharing and integrating their experiences with school knowledge—
rather than their ability to reproduce textual knowledge. Allowing children to ask
questions that require them to relate what they are learning in school to things
happening outside, encouraging children to answer in their own words and from their
own experiences, rather than simply memorizing and getting answers right in just
one way—all these are small but important steps in helping children develop their
understanding.
Small group discussion
The small group discussions provide opportunities for students to talk about issues
and hand. Students solve problems, clarify values, explore controversial issues, and
form and defend positions during reflective discussions.
This discussion where
students are required to synthesize and evaluate information, opinions, and ideas
has the potential to push students to the highest levels of cognition. It is seen that
much of our school learning is still individual based (although not individualized).
The teacher is seen as transmitting ‘knowledge’, which is usually confused with
information, to children, and organizing experience in order to help children learn.
In the early primary school years, a beginning has been made in the area of group
work. Projects and activities that can be carried out by groups need to become a
feature of learning in the middle and high school also. There are ways in which such
group learning can be assessed and evaluated. Schools could also consider giving
mixed age groups of children projects to do together. In such mixed groups, thee is
much that children can learn from each other, such as team work and social values.
In the company of others, one has opportunities of participating in larger tasks where
one may find a niche to contribute to, thus achieving something about one’s own
potential, and one may be bale to try out what one does not fully know. Group
learning tasks, taking responsibility, and contributing to a task and hand are all
important facets of not only acquiring knowledge but also in the learning of arts and
crafts. (NCERT, 2005, pp.18-20).
Problem solving strategy
There are certain strategies like problem solving which have the explicit potential to
promote thinking skills among students. They provide the opportunities to students
to think hard on issues to solve the problem at. Separate problem solving activities
can be designed based on students abilities, grade level and subject area. In a
language class, for example, students may be asked to read a passage about a
couple who worked at a supermarket, and where appearently robbed of the cash by
two gunmen on a stormy night at a traffic light. When they reported to the police the
next day, the constable, after listening to the story, said “well then, you’re both under
arrest. You are charged with robbery”. The students were requested to get into
group and discuss why the police constable put the couple under arrest.
The
students were asked to present their reasons to the whole class. Problem solving
activities can also be prepared where the students are asked to get into small groups
and discuss to solve a problem.
In our schools, it is observed, group work strategy is frequently used but not in
combination with problem solving strategy.
Teachers are found to relax while
students are engaged in group work.
Questioning technique
Teachers very often seem to employ this technique as a way to involve the students,
and to break the monotonous ‘rhythm’ of only they speaking in the class. This often
seems to take place when they dominate the discourse and are teaching a new
concept or introducing a new learning component.
Although the questioning
technique is often used in these classes, the question is whether the questions
asked are eliciting responses which grow out of their higher thinking processes, and
whether the responses are gain expanded to provide opportunities for students to
carry out higher-order thinking.
Schools must provide opportunities to question,
enquire, debate, reflect, and arrive at concepts or create new ideas.
Very often
teachers, in government as well as private schools, insist that all children must give
identical answers to questions.
Instead teachers should encourage divergent
answers from students so as to promote creativity among them.
Infusion approach
Teachers in Indian classrooms are expected to use the infusion approach to teach
higher-order thinking skills in their content instruction. In infusion lessons, direct
instruction in thinking is blended into content lessons. There are five steps in the
infusion approach: introduction to content and process; thinking actively; thinking
about thinking; consideration or enrichment activities; and applying thinking (Teacher
Education Division, 1994).
Majority of our teachers do not possess the ability to
teach HOT skills using the infusion approach in their classrooms. The child centered
pedagogy or activity-based pedagogy currently in vogue in Indian classrooms,
particularly at elementary level do not seem to accommodate the five steps
suggested for infusion lessons. The only thing which seems to be happening is the
first step that is the introduction of content, which is the subject content and not the
content of the thinking skills. The kind of practices in activity based/child centred
pedagogy do not suggest that there are explicit attempts to involve students in
thinking actively, metacognitive process, that is thinking about the thinking process,
or applying the thinking skill learned, which are other important steps in the infusion
lessons. There were no pedagogical steps to involve students in evaluating their
own thinking processes, like thinking about why they did or did not make a particular
decision.
Conclusion
The elementary school teachers seem to be using various approaches, strategies
and techniques in their classes. They basically seem to use these strategies to
teach various subjects which are the main foci in their teaching. These strategies
and techniques are not extended to a level to cater for the acquisition of higher-order
thinking skills by the students. However, some of the strategies have shown promise
of promoting higher-order thinking skills if teachers deliberately plan and use them
effectively in their classrooms. On the whole, it seems that the teachers lack the
understanding of the potential of money strategies in promoting higher-order thinking
skills in their language classrooms, engaging students in what could be challenging
problems, guide student, manipulation of information to solve problems, and support
students’ efforts.
To be able to use these strategies and techniques with high
potential to promote higher-order thinking skills, teachers need to possess the
subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills to combine both the teaching of
content and thinking skills.
For this, they need to be able to construct the
pedagogical content knowledge necessary to conduct the teaching and learning
processes in their classrooms.
Teachers too do not generally know about using the infusion approach which is
expected to be used by teachers to teach higher-order thinking skills in content
instruction. First of all, since they do not know about the specific steps to be used,
and also the pedagogical skills to use them in their classrooms, it is no surprise that
these infusion approaches seldom found in these classrooms.
Attempts to teach HOT skills using the constructivist approach should not be
interpreted as introducing a completely new approach to improve the teaching of
HOT skills. It is yet another approach which places a lot of importance on the role of
the students in the meaning making process.
The students’ active role in the
meaning making process will further assure the internalization of HOT skills by the
students, which is in fact the ultimate goal of teaching HOT skills. Attempts to use
the constructivist approach to teach HOT skills should be encouraged and
researched further.
More importantly, the focus so far has been only on the two general approaches to
teaching HOT skills. Even the recent effort to introduce the third approach that is the
‘infusion approach’ did not specifically handle the issue of students’ active role of
meaning construction in the teaching of HOT skills. More focus and interest in the
area of using constructivist approach to teach HOT skills will certainly contribute to
further improve this relatively new effort.
REFERENCES
Becker, Joe, & Varelas, Maria (1995) : Assisting Construction: The Role of the
Teacher in Assisting the Learner’s Construction of Preexisting Cultural
Knowledge. In Leslie Steffe, and Jerry Gale, Constructivism in
Education New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Glasersfeld, Ernst von. (1995) : A Constructive Approach to Teaching. In Steffe,
Leslie, P. & Gale, Jerry, Constructivism in Education, New Jersey,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marzano, R. J. (1993) : How Classroom Teachers approach the Teaching of
Thinking. Theory Into Practice. Vol.32, N.3, 154-160.
NCERT (2005) : National Curriculum Framework, New Delhi.
Onosko, J.J. & Newmann, F.M. (1994) : Creating more Thoughtful Learning
Environments, In J.N.Mangieri & C.C. Block (Ed.) Creating Powerful
Thinking in Teachers and Students : Diverse Perspectives. Fort Worth:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Rajendran, Nagappan (1998a) : Teaching Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Language
Classrooms: The need for transformation of Teaching Practice.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Rajendran, Nagappan (1998b) : Teaching Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Language
Classrooms in Malaysia:
The Teachers’ Dilemmas.
Inaugural
Conference of Malaysian Education Research Association, Penang,
Malaysia.
Resnick, L.B. (1987) : Education and Learning to Think. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Swartz, R., & Parks, S. (1994) : Infusing Critical and Creative Thinking into Content
Instruction, California: Critical Thinking Press.
Teacher Education Division (1994) : Kemahiran Berfikir Secara kritis dan kreatif dan
kemahiran belajar (Sukatan Pelajaran KPA Lima Semester). Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia : Ministry of Education.
Teacher Education Division (1994) : Model Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran
Kemahiran berfikir. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Ministry of Education,
Division.
Seminar on
Right of Children to Elementary Education: National Context, Policy &
Implementation Issues
Venue: Conference Hall, D.A.V. College, Koraput.
Date: January 29, 2010
PROGRAMME SCHEDULE
9.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m.
Registration
10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.
Inaugural Session
 Lamp Lighting
 Welcome and Introduction to the Seminar –
Sri P.K. Maharana.
 Inaugural Address
 Address by the Guests
 Keynote Address – Dr.N.Pradhan
 Presidential Address – Dr.H.S. Mishra
 Vote of thanks
11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.
Technical Session-I : Paper Presentation
12.30 p.m. to 12.45 p.m.
Tea Break
12.45 p.m. to 1.45 p.m.
Technical Session – II Paper Presentation
1.45 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.
LUNCH BREAK
2.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m.
Technical Session-III Paper Presentation
4.00 p.m. to 4.15 p.m.
Tea Break
4.15 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.
Valedictory