Chapter 1

Chapter
and Learning in a Community
Teaching and
Teaching
of Thinking: The
of Context
The Context

Ideas can be situated in various contexts, and each context gives them a different
know, is in the context). In this chapter I will locate
meaning (for meaning, as we know,
the framework of teaching and learning in a community of thinking within a broad
context, within a complex of ideas that will give it a deeper meaning. I will place
the idea of the community of thinking in three contexts, called the third model, the
drive. Actually, the third model, the third approach,
third approach, and the third drive.
the third drive are the general mle,
and the rule, of which the community of thinking is only
one example.

The Third
The Model
Third Model

The Third Approach

Approach

The Third
Third Drive
Drive

CoT

Haipaz, Teaching and Learning

Y. Harpaz, Learning in a Community ofof Thinking:
Thinking: The Third Model,
Model, 11
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-6940-3_1, Springer Science+Business
10.1007/978—94—007—6940—3_1, © Springer Media Dordrecht
Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
2 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

1.1 The Third

The Third Model

new model in educational thought and practice has been emerging during the past
A new
three decades, which I shall call the third model. This new model is distinct from the
two previous models —– “old education,” which is curriculum-centered (sometimes
called the “demand model”), and “new“new education,” which is child-centered (some-
The model of teaching and learning in a commu-
“support model”). The
times called the “support
nity of thinking is one variation of the third model.

1.1.1 First and

The First and Second Models

Education,, John Dewey took stock of the

1930s, in his Experience and Education
In the late 1930s,
progressive education movement, which waswas born of his
his ideas and inspiration. In his
opinion, the progressive education movement had gone the paedeocentric
gone too far in the
the prevailing “old education.”
direction while pursuing a direct confrontation with the
In opposition to every
every concept and process “old education,” the progressive
process of the “old
movement had framed contrary concepts and processes.
processes. Dewey disapproved of this
dichotomous wayway of thinking and strove toward a more nuanced approach, some
new paedeocentric education —
synthesis of traditional “old education” and the new – the
He made a brief comparison of the old,
1972).). He
third model (cf. Kohlberg and Mayer 1972 old,
new, progressive education in order to reject the
traditional education to the new,
dichotomy of his disciples, advocates of progressive education:
If one attempts
If formulate the philosophy
attempts to formulate philosophy ofof education
education implicit
implicit in the practice of the new
practice of
education, we may, I think,
education, discover certain
think, discover certain common
common principles of progres—
variety of
principles amid the variety progres-
schools now existing.
sive schools existing. To imposition from above is opposed
imposition from opposed expression cultivation
expression and cultivation
of individuality;
of external discipline
individuality; to external discipline is opposed
opposed free activity;
activity; to learning
learning from texts and
teachers, leaming through
teachers, learning through experience;
experience; to acquisition
acquisition ofof isolated
isolated skills and techniques
techniques by
drills, is opposed
drills, opposed acquisition
acquisition of of them as mean
mean ofof attaining which make direct
attaining ends which direct vital
Vital
appeal; to preparation
appeal; more or less remote
preparation for a more future is opposed
remote future opposed making
making the most of the
most of
opportunities of
opportunities of present materials is opposed
present life; to static aims and materials opposed acquaintance
acquaintance with a
world. (1938/1997,
changing world.
changing (1938/1997, pp. 19–20)
l9—20)

Here, then, according to Dewey in the cited passagepassage and in the chapter from
the main differences between the old and new kinds of educa-
are the
which it is taken, are
(Table 1.1
tion (Table 1.1).
).
As noted, Dewey sought to counteract this dualism (all of Dewey’sDewey’s thought is
marked by the effort to eliminate the prevailing dualisms in Western thought in
Scheffler
general and in educational thought in particular [see Scheffl 1974]).
er 1974 He saw it as
]). He
the embodiment of simplistic “either/or” thinking, derived from the the fact that his
disciples formulated the new education in absolute opposition to the old education.
Dewey waswas not an observer on thethe sidelines. The new
new or progressive education
grew
grew out of his thought, out of the “Copernican revolution” that he provoked in
educational thought. He proclaimed that revolution with the following words:
which is coming
change which
Now the change education is the shifting
coming into our education of the center
shifting of of gravity.
center of
change, a revolution,
It is a change, unlike that introduced
revolution, not unlike introduced by Copernicus when astronomical
Copernicus when astronomical
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 3

Differences between
Table 1.1 Differences education and new education
between old education education according
according to Dewey
Dewey
Types of education →
of education —>

Components of
Components education ↓1
of education education
Old education education
New education
Goal
Goal transmit content
To transmit content shaped
shaped make possible
To make possible personal
personal
in the past
past development
development
The character of the goal
character of fixed
Static (a fi world
xed world Dynamic (a changing
Dynamic changing world
graduate)
and graduate) graduate)
and graduate)
Content (knowledge,
Content skills,
(knowledge, skills, Formulated in the past
Formulated past Discovered and shaped
Discovered shaped by the
values)
values) imposed on the students
and imposed students learners
learners
Organization of content
Organization of content Isolated knowledge
Isolated knowledge and skills connected
Knowledge and skills connected
Knowledge
of the learners
with the goals of learners
Learning of
Learning of content
content means of
By means of drill means of
By means of experience
experience
Source of learning
Source of learning teachers
Texts and teachers Personal experience
Personal experience
Discipline
Discipline External
External Internal
Internal
Relation to time
Relation Preparation future
Preparation for the future Exploiting the present
Exploiting present
Relation of the school
Relation of Isolated from the environment
Isolated environment of the environment
Part of environment
environment
to the environment

shifted from the earth to the sun. In this case the child becomes
center shifted
center about which
becomes the sun about which
appliances of
the appliances of education
education revolve;
revolve; he is the center which they are organized.
center about which organized.
1902/1990, p. 34)
(Dewey 1902/1990,
(Dewey

“revolution.” However,
Indeed, Dewey precipitated the “revolution.” However, his successors, led by
William Heard Kilpatrick, who tried to apply Dewey’s Dewey’s concepts in the the Project
Dewey’s opinion.
Method, took it too far, at least in Dewey’s
Despite Dewey’s effort to mitigate the dichotomy between the old and new
education and to produce some synthesis between the the two, this dualism became
two, this
increasingly rooted in educational discourse. Since then every every educational theory or
approach measures itself on a scale of which one one extremity is “old education” and
“new education.”
the other is “new
Dewey sought to reduce the dichotomy between old and
Whereas Dewey and new education,
education,
construct. These theo-
more recent thinkers elaborated the dichotomy into a tripartite construct.
rists split the old education into two types education.Zvi
types of education. example, in his
Zvi Lamm, for example,
Conflicting
Confl Theories of
icting Theories of Instruction (1976), education into three
(1976), divided education “instructional
three “instructional
logics”: the “logic
logics”: “logic of socialization,” education is to
socialization,” according to which the goal of education
students to the society in which they live; the “logic
conform the students acculturation,”
“logic of acculturation,”
according to which the goal of education is to mold the spirit students in the light
spirit of students
values and truths
of values truths underlying
underlying the preferred culture; and the “logic individuation,”
“logic of individuation,”
education is to enable every
according to which the goal of education student to fulfi
every student fulfill
ll herself
(see Harpaz 20102010).). The fifirst
rst and second logics epitomize old education (the fi first
rst
model), andand the third logic
logic epitomizes new education (the second model).model).
In a similar fashion, Gary Fenstermacher and Jonas Soltis, in Approaches to
Teaching (1986), divided educational thought into three “approaches”: the “execu-
Teaching
tive approach,” according to which the teacher is the
tive the manager
manager of the classroom,
transmitting useful knowledge and skills to her students; the “liberationist
approach,” according to which the the teacher frees her students from irrational urges, urges,
4 of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community
11 Teaching The Context
Context

false beliefs, and misunderstandings by exposing them to the humanistic ideas

embodied in culture; and the “therapist approach,” according to which the teacher
supports the emotional and cognitive development of each student. The fi first
rst and
second approaches epitomize old education, and the third one epitomizes new
education.
Kieran Egan (the third and fi final
nal example of the further partition of the dichotomy
between old and new new education), in The Educated Mind (1997), divided educational
thought into three “ideas”: the the “idea of socialization,” the “Platonic idea,”
socialization,” the idea,” and the
“Rousseauian idea.” first
idea.” The fi rst and second ideas epitomize old education and the
new education.
third, new
The typologies of Lamm, Fenstermacher and Soltis, and Egan differ in various
similar.‘1
they are rather similar.
aspects, but essentially they
It is worth taking note of some lessons that these thinkers derived from their
similar typologies. Lamm, as indicated by the original Hebrew title of his book,
Instruction, believed that there were contradictions among
Contradictory Logics in Instruction, among
his logics with respect to the means of instruction but not their goals. On the level
person is someone who has gone
of goals, the educated person sufficient
gone through a suffi cient process
process
of socialization, acculturation, and individuation. That is to say, she has acquired
useful skills, codes, and behaviors and absorbed truths and values, values, and she fulfills
she fulfills
herself in the course of her life. life. However,
However, so far as means are concerned, the
other. In other words, the
patterns of instruction neutralize (contradict) each other. the educa-
influence
tional infl logic counteracts
uence of one logic educational infl
counteracts the educational influence
uence of the other logics.
Therefore, an educational institution that aims to create a cumulative educational
influence
infl uence and avoid bouncing its students back and forth between contradictory
educational logics must adhere to a single logic of education (cf. Lamm 2000, p. 92, 92,
261, 404).
In direct contrast, Fenstermacher and Soltis argued that there is a contradiction
between the two educational approaches with respect to goals, for each approach
has a different
different image of the educated person, contradiction as to means.
there is no contradiction
person, but there
In their opinion, instruction should employ all three approaches according to special
circumstances and contexts (Fenstermacher and Soltis 1986 1986,, pp.
pp. 58–61).
58—61). Egan
maintained that there was a contradiction on every every level among
among the three prevailing
ideas in educational thought and that thisthis contradiction is at the root of the crisis of
modern education. The best way this contradiction, according to Egan, is to
way to avoid this
reject the underlying structure altogether and to adopt —– what else? –— his idea, which
involves the arousal and development of the fi five
ve cognitive-cultural tools or types of
understanding –— somatic understanding, mythological understanding, romantic
understanding, philosophical understanding, and ironic understanding —– according

11We
educators who suggest
We may add other educators similar divisions.
suggest similar divisions. For instance, Israel Scheffl
instance, Israel Scheffler
er
writes about
(1964/1989) writes
(1964/1989) about “models
“models ofof teaching”
teaching” —– the impression
impression model, the insight mode, mode, and
model. William
the rule model. William Schubert
Schubert (1986) writes about
(1986) writes about “curriculum
“curriculum paradigms”
paradigms” —– the paradigm of
paradigm of
behaviorist, the paradigm
the social behaviorist, paradigm ofof the intellectual
intellectual traditionalists,
traditionalists, and the paradigm
paradigm ofof the
experimentalists.
experimentalists.
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 5

Table 1.2 The elaboration of Dewey’s dichotomy

elaboration of dichotomy into a trichotomy
trichotomy
education
The new education
Dewey
Dewey education (the fi
The old education first model)
rst model) second model)
(the second model)
Lamm
Lamm The logic The logic The logic
of socialization
of socialization of acculturation
of acculturation of individuation
of individuation
Fenstermacher and Soltis
Fenstermacher executive
The executive liberationist
The liberationist therapist approach
The therapist approach
approach
approach approach
approach
Egan
Egan The idea The Platonic idea
Platonic idea The Rousseauian idea
Rousseauian idea
of socialization
of socialization

to the students’ developmental stage. (Egan, in my fails to extricate himself

my opinion, fails
from the logics/approaches/ideas of education. His idea belongs to the the logic of
the Platonic idea.) (Table
acculturation or to the liberating approach or to the (Table 1.2
1.2))

1.1.2 Disappointment
Disappointment with First and
with the First and Second Models

As noted, John Dewey not only elucidated the concepts of the old and new new educa-
tion, but he actually created them (until Dewey invented the “new education,”
education didn’t know that it was old). In his own words, he caused the “Copernican
revolution” in education, shifting the
the center of gravity from the
the general curriculum
the advent of the
to the individual student. Since the “new education,” about a hundred
the “new
years
years ago, Dewey’s ideas (he himself was infl
ago, growing out of Dewey’s influenced
uenced by Rousseau,
Probe],
Frobel, and the other forefathers of progressive education), 2
education has vacillated
education),2education
between these poles, moving to and fro with the prevailing climate of opinion.
appears that our season is characterized by disappointment —– to one degree or
It appears
another, depending on who is disappointed —– with both models, old and new.
Of course, not everyone
everyone is disappointed. For disappointment is a product of inter-
pretation. Many believe that education according to one or another of the models —–
the “closed” schools of the first
the first model or the “open” schools of the second —– is doing
ne, and with just a bit more effort, it could do better. However,
fine,
fi side by side
However, side side with
this degree of satisfaction, there is much persuasive criticism of both educational
models. These critiques are based on ideological, theoretical, and empirical consi-
derations of thinkers and researchers as well as from direct experiences of parents,
teachers, and students. This criticism is fundamental: it applies to the very
very structure

22In
Michel de Montaigne
Essais,, Michel
In his Essais expressed rather
Montaigne expressed ideas in the late
progressive ideas
rather progressive sixteenth
late sixteenth
century, before Rousseau
nearly 200 years before
century, nearly Rousseau wrote Education, the basic
Emile, or On Education,
wrote Emile, book of
basic book of the
new education, which made
education, which made the child central, almost 400
central, and almost years before
400 years before this revolutionary edu—
revolutionary edu-
cation burst
cation world with a great
burst into the world commotion in the 1960s.
great commotion 19605. So let’s preserve ignorance
preserve our ignorance
discover that everything
diligently, lest we discover
diligently, everything has been said about
already been
has already about education.
education.
6 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

of the school, whether of one model or another, and it gives rise to widespread
of
skepticism towards and low expectations from schools.
The criticism of the two models of education can be divided into two opposing
view: (a) schools don
points of view: don’t
’t work or (b) schools work too well..
too well
Looking fi first
rst at thethe “closed” school model, with respect to doesn doesn’t work,, the
’t work
main critique is that most of the the material (knowledge and skills) that students sup- sup-
posedly learn is simply forgotten (or, more accurately, they erase it; forgetting is an
action and ignorance is acquired) shortly after they finish
they fi nish their studies, sometimes
merely hours after the examination. If, in a school where the curriculum is central,
the principal goal is imparting knowledge and skills, and students forget most of this
material over time (do you you remember how to derive sines and cosines or Newton’s Newton’s
Second LawLaw or the policy of alliances that caused World World War I?), something is simply
1?), something
not working here! And knowledge that is not forgotten lies neglected in the memory, memory,
knowledge that is of no use, inert knowledge. True, the school, apparently, has
educational goals that are more than simply remembering material –— for example,
widening horizons, developing curiosity,
curiosity, promoting lovelove of learning, refirefining
ning artistic
taste, cultivating moral sensitivity,
taste, cultivating strengthening social
sensitivity, and strengthening involvement. However,
social involvement. However,
achieved either.
those goals are not achieved either. Very often the opposite goals attained. Thus,
goals are attained. Thus,
the school based on the fi first failure in terms of its own goals.
rst model is a failure goals.
With respect to working all too well the “closed” school model argue
well,, critics of the argue
that the school is actually an effective institution. It achieves the very very goals implicit
in the curriculum —– primarily the hidden curriculum. As expressed by John Gatto
2002), schools dumb students down, preparing them to be mindless consumers
((2002),
of brands and mass media, brainwashed by political rhetoric and entertainment.
Moreover, the school forms its students’ common sense and assumptions, so that
when the time comes, they they will be loyal to the social and economic order that
oppresses
oppresses them. In addition, schools betray working class children and advance
the children of the affl affluent
uent classes, thus replicating social class stratifi stratification
cation for
the benefi of the hegemonic class (cf. Bowles and Gintis 1976
benefitt of 1976;; Giroux and
McLaren 1989 1989).). In these and other respects, schools work very well, which explains
very well,
its survivability, despite penetrating
penetrating criticism, and the failure of reforms that seek
to change it.
As to the “open” school model, with respect to doesn doesn’t work,, the critics argue
’t work argue
that free/open/democratic schools, as they they are
are called from one one decade to the next
(though there are some differences among among them), where the child is central, do not
fulfill
fulfill their motivating vision. The intellectual, emotional, and moral development,
which is meant to emerge emerge from self-regulated learning and primary motivations,
does not take place, contrary to the the promises of the twentieth-century prophets of
open Summerhill,, and other romantic educators of the
open education such as Neill, of Summerhill
1960s such as John Holt, Herbert Kohl,
1960s Kohl, Paul Goodman, Jonathan Kozol, Kozol, George
Dennison, J. B. Leonard, and Neil Postman. In many many of of these schools, as attested
by their students and graduates, an atmosphere of failure and barrenness prevails.
The main reason for the failure of the second model, so say say its critics, derives from
its core belief that there is an isolated human subject, an entity with an essential
nature distinct from society and culture, and that it is innately good. That is to say,
the child, by its veryvery nature, is curious, inquiring, creative, open, open, critical, honest,
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 7

generous, if the child is only left alone, all that goodness will
like, and if
generous, and the like, find
will fi nd
expression. The critics of the child-centered school argue argue that, on the contrary, a
child has no pure
child pure nature in two senses: pure nature because the most natural
senses: it has no pure
instincts are formed from top to bottom by society and culture (cf. Geertz, below)
and because it is also “bad” (lazy, sh, cruel, etc.), just like adults. In short,
selfish,
(lazy, selfi short, the
second model posits in thethe child what it wants to extract, and because that which is
posited is not there, it does not,
not, of course, emerge own.33
emerge on its own.
Another critique, which also strikes accurately at the principled weakness of the
second model, argues
argues that open
open education is necessarily based on manipulation,
the curriculum to suit the needs and interests of the students
since “the alteration of the
is limited by the harsh fact that most students have to be in school whether they
want to be or not” (Jackson 1968/1990,
1968/1990, p. 110). This basic manipulation necessi-
110). This
tates a further series of manipulations meant to give the feeling of
give the students the
freedom and choice where they exist.44 One way
they don’t exist. way or another, it is a fact that

3
End of
In The End Education (1996),
of Education Postman describes
(1996), Neil Postman describes the digital
digital utopia
utopia ofof Diane
Diane Ravitch
Ravitch and
others, according
others, according to whichwhich children
children will learn academic
academic subjects
subjects with great joy by means means of of the
computer,
computer, and he writes writes that it arouses
arouses “a typical
typical sense of of unreality”: children have trouble
unreality”: little children trouble
falling asleep and instead of of complaining
complaining to their parents,
parents, they solve virtual problems mathematics
problems in mathematics
friends. Ravitch,
with friends. writes, did not invent a new kind
Ravitch, he writes, kind ofof educational
educational technology
technology but a new
kind of
of child
child (pp. 39–40). Reading of
39—40). Reading of the literature
literature ofof open education
education sometimes
sometimes also arouses
arouses that
“typical sense of
“typical of unreality.” There, too, a new kind
unreality.” There, of child
kind of child is invented.
invented.
Edward de Bono tells a joke (heard in a lecture
Edward lecture at the Van Leer Institute
Institute in Jerusalem, December
Jerusalem, December
points out the basic
1996) that points
1996) weakness of
basic weakness of open education
education (he used this joke differently):
differently): A man,man,
whose limbs
whose limbs were
were all broken trafficc accident,
broken in a traffi accident, and who is in a plaster plaster cast, asks the doctor:
doctor:
“After you take the cast off, will I be able to play violin?” The doctor
play violin?” doctor answers, “Certainly.” The
answers, “Certainly.”
patient satisfaction: “Great!
patient says with satisfaction: Because I didn’t
“Great! Because didn’t know
know how before
before this.”
education, the inner essence
According to open education,
According essence ofof the child
child consists
consists ofof two components:
components: the
general and the particular.
general general component
particular. The general component is, as noted, innate. The individual
noted, innate. individual part is what what
distinguishes each child,
distinguishes authentic self. The child,
child, his authentic child, therefore, avocado: it has an inner
therefore, is an avocado: inner
kernel. according to postmodern
kernel. On the other hand, according postmodern views, which speak of of the “death of of the subject,”
onion, layer
the child is an onion, layer upon layer, culturally constructed, with no inner
culturally constructed, inner kernel.
kernel.
4One
4
One ofof the founders
founders of of open education
education in Israel
Israel analogized
analogized open education to pregnancy:
open education “There
pregnancy: “There
half pregnancies;
are no half pregnancies; when when choices
choices are limited,
limited, manipulation
manipulation appears.” example: a
appears.” He gave an example:
teacher in an open school calls the roll at the beginning
teacher beginning of of the lesson
lesson and says, “I don’t understand
understand
why Dina and Dan aren’t in class. I told them them clearly
clearly that anyone doesn’t want to come
anyone who doesn’t
doesn’t have to.” In a familiar
doesn’t familiar cartoon, aimed at progressive
cartoon, aimed child is seen asking
education, a child
progressive education, asking his
teacher: “Do I have to do what I want to do today?”
teacher: today?”
David Olson
David defines
Olson defi institution that by its essence
nes a school as an institution essence deprives child of
deprives the child of respon—
respon-
sibility for learning
sibility learning and the eagerness
eagerness to manage learning: “The goals of
manage its own learning: of returning
returning respon—
respon-
sibility learners and recognizing
sibility to the learners children’s willingness
recognizing children’s willingness to accept
accept responsibility
responsibility for their own
learning are among
learning features of
distinguishing features
among the distinguishing of modern
modern ‘child-centered’
‘child—centered’ pedagogical theories,
pedagogical theories,
but such goals difficult
goals are diffi accommodate within
impossible to accommodate
cult or impossible within the institutional
institutional obligations
obligations of of
schools” (Olson
schools” 2003, p.179).
(Olson 2003, Elsewhere he writes:
p.179). Elsewhere writes: “Although reform was often
“Although reform often justified
justified on the
basis
basis ofof the importance
importance of of self-fulfi
self—fulfillmentand
llment and personal rather than the set goals
experience rather
personal experience goals and
roles of the adult society, the school remained
roles of remained the instrument
instrument of of the state” (ibid., 186). He also
(ibid., p. 186).
states: “Although
states: education in its most
“Although education general sense may be viewed
most general viewed as any process activity that
process or activity
allows young to benefit
allows the young accumulated knowledge
benefit from the accumulated experience of
knowledge and experience of the old, the very
idea of
idea of pedagogy
pedagogy is basedbased on the premise
premise that it is the adultsadults who are responsible children’s
responsible for children’s
learning anything
learning worthwhile” (ibid., 202).
anything worthwhile” adults, not the children,
202). In short, it is the adults, children, who need need
education, and the concept
education, concept ofof the free/open/democratic
free/open/democratic school school is inherently
inherently self-contradictory.
self—contradictory.
8 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

of the closed
Critiques of
Table 1.3 Critiques closed and open school
school
Schools →
Schools —>

Critiques ↓i
Critiques Closed school (the fi
Closed school first model)
rst model) second model)
Open school (the second
Open model)
Doesn’t work
Doesn’t of the material
Most of material “learnt”
“learnt” is There is no learning
There learning in depth;
depth; there is
forgotten; there is no positive
forgotten; positive fulfillment
no fulfillment ofof the intellectual
intellectual
experience of
experience of learning
learning potential
potential
Works all too well obedience and
Prepares for obedience
Prepares Secures “a reservation”
Secures reservation” for the
consumption; reproduces
consumption; reproduces societal orders;
wealthy societal
wealthy transmits
orders; transmits
societal order
the societal order individualistic ideology
individualistic ideology

the second model fail to extricate themselves from their marginal place
schools of the
in the educational system. While the system may may not be offering these schools much
help (most such schools are are funded by wealthy parents instead), if if their motivating
Vision were to be fulfi
vision fulfilled,
lled, even partially, open
open schools would expand despite
opposition of the system and prevail over the the schools based on the first
the first model.
As for working
working all too well
well,, the critics of the second model argue
argue that free/open/
democratic schools serve affluent
serve the affl uent classes, who want to escape
escape from “closed”
schools and place their children in “nature reserves,” where they are protected from
forced consolidation and mediocre teachers. The well-to-do are not concerned that
these schools do not systematically prepareprepare their children for matriculation exams,
because their children’s future is assured. Indeed, child-centered schools transmit
individualistic and egocentric ideology of the parents to their students: the
the individualistic
individual is in the center, and the society is only a means or an obstacle on the path
of his advancement. From these and other points of view, the second model works
fulfills
too well and fulfi lls its purpose.
purpose.
To summarize these critiques of schools —– closed or open open —– from a pedagogical
view, the schools are failures, but they
point of view, they are
are a sociological success (from a
hegemonic viewpoint), which explains their persistent existence, despite criticism
sides (Table
leveled against them from all sides (Table 1.3
1.3).
).

1.1.3 Appearance of
The Appearance of the Third Model

The third model arose against the background of disappointment with the two older
models. From the vantage point of this model, thethe others are
are not contradictory.
Rather, they are essentially similar with respect to the learning, teaching, and
knowledge they
they embody.
Rogoff, the two older models are based on common basic
According to Barbara Rogoff,
assumptions regarding learning.
assumptions learning. The proposes is based on different
The model that she proposes different
education from the pendulum swings
assumptions and can rescue education
assumptions swings between control
and freedom, between the two apparently
apparently opposing models of teaching and learning:
Two ofof the models,
models, adult-run first
adult—run [the fi model] and children-run
rst model] second model]
children—run [the second instruc—
model] instruc-
tion, are often cast as opposite extremes of
opposite extremes of a pendulum
pendulum swing between unilateral control
between unilateral control
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 9

freedom […].
and freedom adult—run and children-run
[. . .]. We argue that the adult-run models are closely
children—run models closely related,
related,
in that they both involve a theoretical
theoretical assumption
assumption that learning of one-sided
function of
learning is a function one—sided
action (by adults
action adults or children,
children, respectively, exclusion of
respectively, to the exclusion of the other).
other). The community
community of of
learners instructional
learners instructional model
model supersedes
supersedes the pendulum
pendulum entirely; compromise or a
entirely; it is not a compromise
"balance” of
"balance" of the adult-run
adult—run and children-run models. Its underlying
children—run models. theoretical notion
underlying theoretical notion is that
learning is a process
learning process of of transformation
transformation of of participation which both adults
participation55 in which adults and children
children
contribute support
contribute direction in shared
support and direction shared endeavors.
endeavors. However, difficult
However, it is diffi people with
cult for people
background
background in one-sided models of
one—sided models of learning
learning (such asas many
many ofof the new parents school we
parents in school
studying) to avoid assimilating
are studying) assimilating the community
community of of learners
learners model
model to adult-run/children-
adult—run/children—
run dichotomy.
dichotomy. (Rogoff
(Rogoff et al. 1996,, pp. 389–390)
a1. 1996 389—390)

instruction, but they learn different

Students learn in all three of the models of instruction,
regarding
things regarding what is essential.
essential. What is essential, according
essential, according to Rogoff and her
colleagues,
colleagues, is the relation
relation to the acquired knowledge and to the community
knowledge community
within which learning takes place. In the adult-run adult-run model (“the industrial
industrial model
of teaching and learning”),
of learning”), the students do not have to understandunderstand the subjects
studied and their purpose,
purpose, nor do they have to show interest interest in them. Their task
is to receive know knowledge
ledge from the active teacher, who directs the process.
process.
The teacher’s agenda derives from the assumption that learning is the result of the
one-way transfer of knowledge
one-way knowledge and skills from those who possess possess them to those
who lack them (ibid., p. p. 394). The students are not partners
partners in setting the agenda.
Instead ofof participating
participating in a joint effort, their task is to perform the actions that
the teacher has planned for them. Though there is some coordination coordination between the
activities
activities of the teacher and those of the students,
students, the actions are compartmentalized,
in contrast to a situation of of cooperation
coope ration in which people’s interests
ideas and interests
intermingle
intermingle (ibid).
In reaction against Rogoff’s adult-run model, advocates of progressive education
proposed a child-run model of of instruction,
instruction, in which the children are active pro- pro-
ducers of knowledge and the intervention of adults is perceived as a potential
learning.66 In the child-run model, the
obstruction to learning. the ideal is for children to discover
reality on their ownown or in mutual cooperation with their peers.
peers. Children become
active agents in learning, and the world of adults is seen as a passive source of
material or as a source of negative infl influence
uence that is liable to destroy thethe children’s
nascent potential (ibid).
According to the the two well-established models, the process process of learning has an
one-dimensional philosophy
active and a passive side; each of them is premised on a one-dimensional
active
of teaching, in which adults and children compete for control; each is a limited and
reciprocal alternative to the other.other. “In accordance with Dewey’s call for going
beyond the dichotomy, we argue the model of a community of learners is not
argue that the
situated on the course of the pendulum; it does away away with the assumption that

5
Rogoff’s principle
Rogoff’s of participation
principle of participation is intentionally different from Vygotsky’s
intentionally different Vygotsky’s principle of internal-
principle of internal—
ization. In the process
ization. of participation,
process of participation, the subject change; what
subject does not change; what changes
changes is the degree
degree
of social activity,
of his participation in social which moves
activity, which from the periphery toward
moves from toward the center
(Rogoff 1990).
(Rogoff
6t"As
Martin Buber
As Martin Buber put it, image of
it, the image of the funnel
funnel was replaced
replaced by the image
image ofof the pump (Buber
pump (Buber
1949, p. 245). Today the prevalent
1949, image, inspired
prevalent image, of the child or of
constructivism, is of
inspired by constructivism, of the mind
mind
(knowledge) processor.
as a food (knowledge) processor.
10
10 Teaching and Learning in a Community
11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of The Context
Context

learners and teachers are on opposite sides of of the barricade and reconceives them
as mutually involved in a joint effort” (ibid., p. 396).
396).
community of
The community of learner's model is not a balance
learner‘s model "optimal blend"
balance or "optimal of the two one-
blend" of one—
approaches, but rather
sided approaches,
sided distinct instructional
rather a distinct instructional model
model based different philoso—
based on a different philoso-
[...]. In a community
phy […]. community of of learners,
learners, all participants active; no one has all the
participants are active;
responsibility community of
[. . .]. In a community
passive […].
responsibility and no one is passive of learners, children and adults
learners, children adults
together active in structuring
together are active structuring the inquiry, though usually
inquiry, though with asymmetrical
usually with asymmetrical roles.
roles.
Children and adults
Children collaborate in learning
adults collaborate learning endeavors; adults are often
endeavors; adults often responsible
responsible for
guiding the process
guiding children also
process and children also learn
learn to participate management of
participate in the management of their
their own
learning [...]. We argue
learning […]. it is consistent
argue that it consistent within
within the community
community of of learners
learners model
model for
adults under
adults under some circumstances
circumstances to provide
provide strong extensive explanations
leadership or extensive
strong leadership explanations
assist the group,
to assist children under
group, and for children under some circumstances to have
some circumstances have primary
primary responsi—
responsi-
bility. (Ibid., pp. 397–396)
bility. (Ibid., 397—396)

Taking a direction similar to that of Barbara Rogoff and her colleagues, Carl
wrote:
Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia wrote:
educational pendulum
The educational inevitably although
swings, inevitably
pendulum swings, although not always regularly, between
always regularly, between
didactic instruction
conventional, didactic
conventional, instruction and child-centered
child—centerededucation. There ought
education. There ought to be a third
third
altemative, but what
alternative, what could
could it be? Not some compromise between the other
compromise between other two, for that is
what already
what exists in most schools?
already exists schools? (1993,
(1993, p. 199)
p. 199)

Bereiter and Scardamalia propose the pendulum by taking

propose evading the swing of the
the third path or model in directing education —– the model of the research group
group or
of the knowledge-building community:
research group not also be a model
Why, then, should the research model for restructuring schooling?
restructuring schooling?
Could knowledge—building,
Could carried out in the progressive
knowledge-building, carried manner of
progressive manner of scientifi
scientificc research
research
groups, provide
groups, conduct education?
missing third way to conduct
provide the missing education? In an earlier
earlier era it was possible
possible
dismiss this idea as romantic.
to dismiss romantic. Researchers discovering or creating
Researchers are discovering creating new knowledge;
knowledge;
students are only learning what
students what is already known. however, it is generally
known. By now, however,
recognized students construct
recognized that students construct their knowledge.
knowledge. This is true if if they are learning from
learning from
books
books and lectures if they are acquiring
lectures as it is if acquiring knowledge through inquiry.
knowledge through inquiry. This is not an
article of faith (although
article of treated as such by some educators).
(although it is treated obvious implica-
educators). It is an obvious implica—
of any plausible
tion that falls out of theory of
plausible theory of knowledge further implication
acquisition. A further
knowledge acquisition. implication is
creating new knowledge
that creating learning existing
knowledge and learning existing knowledge different, as far
knowledge are not very different,
as psychological
psychological processes concerned. Thus there
processes are concerned. there is no patent
patent reason schooling
reason why schooling
cannot have the dynamic
cannot character of
dynamic character of scientifi
scientificc knowledge
knowledge building.
building. IfIf there
there are insur-
insur—
mountable obstacles,
mountable obstacles, they are more likely to be social or attitudinal
more likely attitudinal than ofof a cognitive
cognitive kind.
kind.
(Ibid., p. 200)
(Ibid.,

Hence, these authors recommend reconstructing schools on the model of the

research group “collective pursuit of meaning
community, the essence of which is “collective
group or community,
and understanding” (ibid., p. 204). The vision of children as knowledge producers
is not unreasonable or overambitious, they argue, since the human mind, by its
they argue,
nature, constructs knowledge and creates meaning.
indicationsthat
Indeed, there are indications shape, as indicated by such
that such a model is taking shape,
terms as “a community of learners,” “a community of researchers,
researchers,” “aa community 79 c4

reflective
of thinkers,” “a refl community,” and “a community of practice.”
ective community,” practice.”77 “In all these

7Grossman,
7
Wineburg, and Woolworth
Grossman, Wineburg, write: “The
Woolworth write: “The word
word community
community has lost its meaning. From
meaning. From
the prevalence of terms such as ‘community
prevalence of of learners,’
‘community of ‘discourse communities,’
learners,’ ‘discourse communities,’ and ‘epistemic
‘epistemic
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 11
11

the term ‘community’

variations, the central idea carried by the ‘community’ is that schooling should
become a collective effort to understand thethe world” (ibid., p. 210).
These, according to Bereiter and Scardamalia (ibid., pp. 210—211), are the
pp. 210–211),
characteristics
charac new educational model:
teristics of the new
1. Deep learning of subjects –
1. — preference for depth rather than coverage.
coverage.
2. The focus is on problems and not on categories of knowledge (rather than “the
“how does the heart work?”).
heart,” focus on “how
3.. Research is motivated by the
b.) the learners’ questions.
4. The main challenge
challenge is to explain Students are encouraged
phenomena. Students encouraged to develop
develop
explanatory
explanatory theories and support or challenge their theories with the relevant
relevant facts.
facts.
5. The focus is on groupgroup rather than on individual progress
progress toward shared
understanding.
understanding.
6. In place of typical schoolwork, work on aspects of the the shared task is conducted
in small groups.
groups.
7. Discussion of the subjects under consideration proceeds with great seriousness,
are expected to respond to one another.
and students are
8. Teachers contribute what they know to the discussion, but their contribution is
not decisive, since there are also other sources of information.
9. The teacher remains the the leader by virtue of being an expert in learning, but her
role changes from that of someone standing outside of the learning process process to
someone who participates in it.
Bereiter and Scardamalia claim that the assumptions of the the third model are
however, the problem is that they try to imple-
accepted by most educators today; however,
ment it within the framework of one of the more familiar models of education,
first
either the fi them: “The hard part is
the second, whichever is most familiar to them:
rst or the
to translate the notion of knowledge-building community into a form of practice
that does not downslide into one one or the other conventional form” (ibid., p. 219).
Although Rogoff and her colleagues and Bereiter and Scardamalia come from
different schools
different schoolsof of cognitive psychology,and although they
cognitive psychology, they view cognitive
cognitive processes
processes
from different angles, they all characterize the third model in similar fashion and
the older ones.
talk about it as a model essentially different from the
To demonstrate the characteristics of the third model, let us examine the three
communities of learners/researchers/knowledge builders that embody it.

communities’ to ‘school
communities’ ‘school community,’ ‘teacher community,’
community,’ ‘teacher community,’ or ‘community
‘community of of practice,’ clear
practice,’ it is clear
become an obligatory
community has become
that community obligatory appendage educational innovation”
appendage to every educational innovation” (Grossman
(Grossman
a1. 2001, pp. 942–943).
et al. 942—943). Incidentally, farther on they mock the idea ofof “virtual
“Virtual communities,”
communities,” but it
certainly possible
is certainly communities are closer to the idea of
possible that virtual communities of community
community and “living”
“living”
communities.
communities.
One source of of the concept alternative framework
community as an alternative
concept community framework to the classroom
classroom is the
American philosopher
American Peirce (1839–1914).
Charles S. Peirce
philosopher Charles invented the term “community
(1839—1914). He invented “community of of
which Matthew
inquiry,” which Matthew Lipman
Lipman borrowed developed (see below).
borrowed and developed Peirce sought
below). Peirce sought to replace
replace
model of
Cartesian model
the Cartesian of the isolated
isolated philosopher radical doubt
philosopher in radical doubt by “people
“people coming
coming together
together to
ideas and hypotheses”
serve as jury to ideas Girod 2006,
(Pardales and Girod
hypotheses” (Pardales 2006, p. 301).
301).
12
12 Teaching and Learning in a Community
11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of The Context
Context

1.1.4 of Learners
Community of Learners

The psychologists Ann Brown and Joseph Campione are are the developers of a frame-
they call community of learners, or Fostering Communities of Learners (FCL).
work they
This framework grew grew out of another framework called reciprocal teaching, which
was developed by Brown with Annemarie Palincsar in the the 1980s,
1980s, with thethe aim of
encouraging the understanding of texts by means of an “interpretive community.” community.”
processes guided in turn by the participants:
Reciprocal teaching is based on four processes
the leader opens
opens by presenting a question for the purpose
purpose of directing the examina-
tion of the text and concludes by summarizing the the argument of a section or of the
text; between these two stages, he or she
entire text; she facilitates the
the activities of clarifying
difficult
concepts or diffi passages and of predicting what will be said further on in the
cult passages
text. The framework —– questioning, clarification,
questioning, clarifi conclusion —–
prediction, and conclusion
cation, prediction,
promotes understanding of texts and guides the community on the basis of a shared
aim and rules for discussion and interpretation. Reciprocal teaching is included in a
broader framework that grew grew out of it: a community of learners.
With unreserved enthusiasm, Lee Shulman ((1997) 1997) described what he saw saw in a
classroom in an elementary school in Oakland, California, run as a community of
learners, guided by Brown and Campione, and he asked whether it was possible to
convert classes in traditional schools to communities of learners. The class that
Shulman observed was studying a unit in biology that dealt with with protected species — –
species in danger of extinction —– in the environmental context of the city city
of Oakland. This is what can be learned about a community of learners from
Shulman’s report.
The framework of a community of learners consists of four parts. The fi first
rst part
is a series of lessons called “benchmark lessons,” whose purposespurposes areare (1) to create a
common basis of knowledge, by demonstrating correct and erroneous conceptions
of learners regarding the subject being studied, and (2) to defi definene the goal of the
i.e., where the learners will be in another 15
research, i.e., 15 weeks. The goal in the the class
that Shulman observed was to present the Oakland City Council with a survey survey and
proposals, oral and written, regarding the situation of protected species within its
jurisdiction. The City Council, for its part, scheduled meetings with the young young
learners and prepared for them with full seriousness. During the benchmark lessons,
the learners formulated the questions that interested them, which they wished to
research in small, specialized groups.
groups.
The second part of the community of learners is called “research groups.” At this this
stage, which lasts for about two months, the community splits splits into small research
groups,
groups, and each group this case,
group specializes in a certain area. In this case, they specialized in
a certain species that was in danger of extinction. This process process includes reading
relevant texts (according to the method of reciprocal teaching), holding interviews
with experts in the fi field,
eld, observation, collection and processing of information,
on. From time to time, the teacher invites the groups
and so on. groups for cross-discussion and
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 13
13

further construction of a common knowledge base. In the the third part, which is called
“jigsaw,” experts each group
experts from each groups to present
group are sent to the other groups information
present the information
they have gathered and developed. The information that was collected and and devel-
oped in each of the research groups the solution of essential problems.
groups is utilized for the
The problems and solutions are presented by the learners in the framework of the
fouIth part —– the summary
fourth exhibition. In this
summary exhibition. this case,
case, the summary
summary exhibition consisted
in the presentation of the research and its conclusions to the the Oakland City Council.
striking, as you
was striking,
“What was learners classrooms, is fi
you looked at the community of learners first
rst of
all, how much the
all, the students were learning” (ibid., p. 15).15).
To gain understanding of the community of learners framework by means of
direct experience, Shulman organized his annual seminar at Stanford University, University,
which deals with research in teacher training, according to its principles. Having
experienced impressive results –— learning of a different quality —– he asked the the key
key
questions: “What are the conditions under which teachers can learn to engage engage in this
kind of teaching? Under what circumstances can teachers sustain these practices
over time?” (ibid., p. 9).
His answer is pessimistic: the average
average school cannot adopt the framework of a
community of learners because its fundamental principle is opposed to that upon upon
which the community of learners is based; the typical school school is based on the principle
of certainty, on early prediction of the processes
processes and outcomes of learning: “We
have not yet created the conditions in schools, institutions, or in teacher education
will tolerate the creation of uncertainty and unpredictability, but will
that not only will
in effect develop values that will support teachers and learners in those communities
to engage
engage in such activities” (ibid., p. 29).
Nevertheless, it is certainly possible and worthwhile, in Shulman’s view, view, to
new educational institutions —
develop new – schools, colleges, and universities —– that will
provide the conditions needed for a community of learners. learners.88
Joan Heller and Ann Gordon (1999) investigated the experimental classrooms of
Brown and Campione and summarized the differences between the the traditional,
didactic classroom and that of the the community of learners in the the following manner
(Table 1.4
(Table 1.4):
):
Brown and Campione ((1996)1996) summed up the life cycle community of learners
cycle of a community
in the following way:way: “These three key activities – — (a) research, (b) in order to share

information, (c) in order to perform consequential tasks —– are all overseen and coor-
dinated by self-conscious reflection
reflection on the part of all members of the the community. In
research-share-perform cycles of FCL cannot be carried out in a
addition, the research-share-perform
vacuum. All rely on the fact that the participants
participants are trying to understand deep
(Table 1.5
disciplinary content” (p. 293) (Table 1.5).
).

88Amnon
Karmon, Sarit Segel,
Amnon Karmon, David Koren,
Segel, David Koren, and I proposed teachers’ college
establishing a teachers’
proposed establishing college based
based
model and on the organization
on the third model of knowledge
organization of intended to develop
knowledge intended develop thinking. Karmon
thinking. See Karmon
(2006).
a1. (2006).
et al.
14
14 Teaching and Learning in a Community
11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of The Context
Context

W
didactic class versus
Table 1.4 The didactic versus a community of learners
community of learners
Classrooms →
Traditional didactic
Traditional didactic
Components ↓i
Components classroom
classroom Nontraditional intentional
Nontraditional intentional learning environment
leaming environment
Students
Students Passive recipients
Passive recipients Students as researchers
Students teachers
researchers and teachers
of information
of information
provided teacher
provided by teacher
Teacher
Teacher Provider of
Provider of knowledge;
knowledge; Model learner
Model learner and thinker;
thinker; guide facilitator
guide and facilitator
classroom manager
classroom manager
Curriculum
Curriculum Basic skills distinct
Basic distinct thinking, as basic
Leaming to learn and thinking,
Learning basic skills
order
higher order
from higher
Content
Content Broad coverage
Broad coverage ofof Depth rather
Depth rather than breadth; of basic
integration of
breadth; integration basic
fragmented
content; fragmented
content; skills in service of learning
service of coherent curriculum
learning coherent curriculum
curriculum
curriculum

/l\
Computers
Computers Drill and practice;
practice; intentional reflection
Tool for intentional reflection and creation of
creation of
programming
programming extended community
extended community
Assessment
Assessment Fact retention; traditional
retention; traditional Performance/projects/portfolio; knowledge
Performance/projects/portfolio; knowledge
testing of content
testing of content utilization processes
discovery and utilization
discovery processes

of a community
Table 1.5 The life cycle of of learners
community of learners

Reflection

Research
Research
M
H[ information ]<—>[
Share
Share
information
Consequential
Consequential
task
task
A
]

Deep disciplinary
Deep content
disciplinary content

Regarding the reflexive write:

reflexive component, the founders of the framework write:
historically an intentionally
FCL is historically intentionally metacognitive environment. The roots of
metacognitive environment. of FCL, including
including
Reciprocal Reading, Jigsaw,
Reciprocal Reading, guided writing,
Jigsaw, guided writing, guided
guided assessment, exhibitions and per—
assessment, and exhibitions per-
formances are all designed
formances designed as metacognitive occasions for students
activities, occasions
metacognitive activities, students to monitor
monitor
their own and others'
their others‘ comprehension, reflect
comprehension, and refl ect on progress classroom talk in
progress to date. The classroom
largely metacognitive:
FCL is largely understand?” “That
metacognitive: “Do I understand?” “That doesn’t
doesn’t make
make sense,” “They
“They [the
audience] can’t understand
audience] understand X without
without Y,” and so forth.
forth. (Ibid.,
(Ibid., pp. 304–305)
304—305)

Regarding the “deep

Regarding disciplinary”component,
“deep disciplinary” basic goals
component, which is one of the basic goals of the
community of learners,
community write: “One
learners, they write: “One cannot expect students to invest
expect students intellectual
invest intellectual
disciplined inquiry
curiosity and disciplined
curiosity inquiry on trivia; there must be a challenge,
trivia; there there must be
challenge, there
room to explore, delve deeply,
explore, to delve understand at ever deepening
deeply, to understand levels of complexity”
deepening levels complexity”
(ibid., p. 306). The unit of knowledge in a community of of learners must lead the
students to serious inquiry that will bring them from preliminary, naive theories to
the foundations of thethe discipline –
— according to the learners’ level of development.

The community of learners, Brown and Campione explain, explain, represents a paradigm
shift in the conception of learning that took place in the the second half of the
the twentieth
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 15
15

century —– from behaviorism to constructivism. Behaviorism sought general laws of

individual, the other,
learning that did not depend on the individual, other, the situation,
situation, or the content.
It viewed learning as a personal act, act, passive and receptive in character, whereby
behaviors were dependent uponupon external reinforcements and simple associations. In
revolution,” theories of learning began to emphasize its
the wake of the “cognitive revolution,”
active, reflective,
active, character. Learners were now seen
reflective, and social character. active constructors
seen as active
of knowledge and not as passive recipients. The focus of learning shifted from repe- repe-
tition to the need to create associative connections to understanding of disciplinary
knowledge. Psychologists who studied learning left their laboratories for “natural”
environments, including school classrooms, and they discovered the complex,
creative, situation-dependent nature of learning. On the basis of these discoveries,
educational psychologists proposed the principles of a different kind of learning,
similar to that which takes places in “real life,”
life,” outside of schools.
Ann Brown ((1994,
1994, pp.
pp. 9–10)
9—10) summed up up the principles of this different kind of
upon which the community of learners is based:
learning, upon
1. Active, strategic, conscious learning, self-motivated and directed toward a goal:
1. goal:
active learners are meta-cognitive learners, aware of their strengths and
weaknesses, who enlist appropriate learning strategies. Behavioristic learning,
the learner,”
“despite the learner,” is not effective. Effective learning derives from the goals of
the learner herself (“A purpose
purpose in mind!”) and not from the the goals determined by
authorities above her.
her.
2. The classroom as a system of “zones of proximal development”: learners develop
own pace.
at their own They are ripe for further development
pace. They different time
development at different intervals.
time intervals.
In the spirit of Vygotsky’s concept, investigation is conducted by individuals and
groups
groups under thethe guidance of a trained leader who directs development toward
development.”
the next stage, the “zone of proximal development.”
3. The legitimation of differences: personal differences are identified,
are identifi ed, evaluated,
and shaped. The educational environment encourages
encourages specialization in particular
areas and a variety of specializations enrich each separate specialization.
4. A community of discourse: higher order thinking is the product of internalized
dialogue. Establishing waysways to discuss and disagree lays the the groundwork for
individual thinking.
5. A community of action: learning depends on the the existence of a community of
learning and inquiry. Every member of the the community of learners depends on
the other members. This positive dependence encourages
encourages cooperation, mutual
respect, and a feeling of responsibility and group
group identity.
The preceding fifive
ve principles are interconnected. A system of manymany zones of
proximal development assumes decentralized expertise; decentralized expertise
assumes the legitimacy of personal differences; and so on. on. Brown adds another
pair of principles to create a systematic structure of good learning:
6. Deep conceptual content appropriate to the learners’ stage of development.
7. Authentic evaluation coordinated with the curriculum.
16
16 Teaching and Learning in a Community
11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of The Context
Context

1.1.5 of Inquiry
Community of

Matthew Lipman, the creator of the Philosophy for Children program,

program, is also the
father of the method of teaching and learning called community of inquiry. He states
the program:
the goal of the program:
of Philosophy
The aim of Children is to promote
Philosophy for Children excellent thinking:
promote excellent creative
thinking: thinking that is creative
critical, imaginative
as well as critical, imaginative as well as inventive as well as
logical, inventive
as logical, analytical. But to make
as analytical.
children think well,
children first
must fi
well, we must make them
rst make them think.
think. This involves an intellectual
intellectual awakening,
awakening,
strengthening of
a strengthening of their ability discriminate the relationships
ability to discriminate relationships among things –
among things — to draw

distinctions and make connections.

appropriate distinctions
appropriate connections. (Lipman 1991,, p. 35)
(Lipman 1991

way to do this —– to make students think, to recognize the connections

The best way
between things —– is to deal with philosophy in the framework of a community of
inquiry. Since children in elementary grades, for whom the program
program is intended, are
unable to read original philosophical texts, Lipman wrote “philosophical novels”
for them. These “novels” describe children who hold philosophical conversations
about topics taken from thethe life of children of the learners’ age.
age. Each “novel” is
devoted to problems in an area of philosophy —– logic, epistemology, ethics, and
politics. Though Lipman has written a great deal regarding the the advantage
adVantage of philo-
sophical content for developing thought, he does not believe it is a necessity. It is
possible to develop thinking with other content. What is necessary
necessary is the pedagogy
‘community of inquiry’ should be the metho-
or methodology: “the pedagogy of the ‘community
dology for the teaching of critical thinking, whether or not a philosophical version
of it is being employed” (Lipman
(Lipman 1991
1991,, p. 3). And what is the nature of a community
of inquiry? What are the desirable characteristics of students who participate in it?
Thus, we can now speak of
Thus, of “converting classroom into a community
“converting the classroom community of of inquiry”
inquiry” in
which students
which another with respect,
students listen to one another another’s ideas,
respect, build on one another’s ideas, challenge
challenge
another to supply reasons
one another otherwise unsupported
reasons for otherwise unsupported opinions, assist each other in
opinions, assist
drawing inferences from
drawing inferences from what has been another‘s assump-
identify one another's
been said, and seek to identify assump—
tions. A community
tions. community of of inquiry
inquiry attempts follow the inquiry
attempts to follow inquiry where leads rather
where it leads rather than
being
being penned
penned in by the boundary
boundary lines of existing
lines of existing disciplines
disciplines […]. when this
Consequently, when
[. . .]. Consequently,
internalized by the participants,
process is internalized
process participants, they come think in moves that resemble
come to think resemble its
procedures. come to think as the process
procedures. They come thinks. (Ibid.,
process thinks. (Ibid., pp. 15–16)
15—16)

The concept of internalization –— assimilation of the social process

process in the thinking
of the individual (Vygotsky’s influence
(Vygotsky’s infl evident9)
uence is evident 9 —
) – is the decisive argument in
Table 1.6
favor of the community of inquiry. Table 1.6 presents the social processes
processes that take
place in a community of inquiry and are are internalized in the thinking of its partici-
1991,, p. 52).
pants (Lipman 1991

9l"‘We
“We call this bringing of the action
bringing of action inward,
inward, this recapitulation of the high mental
recapitulation of mental functions
functions that
connected with a change
are connected change in their structure,
structure, the process of internalization.
process of internalization. Our main
main meaning is:
meaning is:
mental functions
the fact that the high mental functions are fifirst constructed as external
rst constructed external patterns of behavior
patterns of behavior that
external sign is not coincidental.
depend on an external
depend coincidental. On the contrary, determined by the very
contrary, this fact is determined
psychological of the high function,
nature of
psychological nature function that does not appear
function, the function direct extension
appear as a direct of
extension of
processes but is rather
elementary processes
the elementary rather a pattern of social behavior
pattern of person uses by himself
behavior that a person himself and
directs himself ’ (Vygotsky
directs toward himself” 2003, p. 16;
(Vygotsky 2003, emphasis in the original).
16; emphasis original).
1.1 The Third Model
The Third Model 17
17

Table 1.6 Social processes internalized in individual’s

processes internalized individual’s mind
mind
Characteristic behaviors
Characteristic of the community
behaviors of community Internalized individual
Internalized individual behaviors
behaviors
Members question
Members question one another
another Individuals question
Individuals question themselves
themselves
Members request
Members of each other
request of other reasons
reasons for beliefs
beliefs Individuals reflect
Individuals reasons for
reflect on their reasons
thinking as they do
thinking
Members build
Members another’s ideas
build on one another’s Individuals build
Individuals their own ideas
build on their ideas
Members deliberate among
Members deliberate themselves
among themselves Individuals deliberate
Individuals deliberate in their own thinking
thinking
Members offer counterexamples
Members counterexamples to the hypotheses
hypotheses Individuals anticipate
Individuals anticipate counterexamples
counterexamples to
of others
of others hypothesis
their own hypothesis
Members point
Members possible consequences
point out possible of one
consequences of Individuals anticipate
Individuals anticipate possible
possible
another’s ideas
another’s ideas consequences
consequences of of their own ideas
Members utilize
Members utilize specifi criteria when making
specificc criteria making Individuals use specifi
Individuals criteria when
specificc criteria
judgments
judgments making judgments
making judgments
Members cooperate
Members of
development of
cooperate in the development Individuals follow
Individuals follow rational
rational procedures
procedures
rational
rational problem—solvingtechniques
problem-solving techniques dealing with their own problems
in dealing problems

Lipman summarizes:
And countless other cognitive
And so with countless cognitive acts and processes:
processes: They begin of us as adap-
begin in each of adap—
tations of group
tations of behaviors. And since thinking
group behaviors. individual emulation
thinking is individual of social
emulation of social norms
norms and
rational the social or institutional
conduct, the more rational
social conduct, institutional conduct,
conduct, the more rational will
more rational
be the internalized
internalized reflection. institutionalized patterns
community that has institutionalized
reflection. A community of criticism
patterns of criticism
among members prepares
among its members those members
prepares the way for those members to become
become more
more self-critical, self—
self—critical, self-
autonomous. (Ibid.)
controlled, and autonomous.
controlled,

Ann Sharp, Lipman’s partner in developing and circulating the program program of
Children,10
Philosophy for Children, 10
dur-
expanded the circle of “assets” that are internalized dur-
ing the process
process of participation in a community of inquiry from the ability to think
Virtues” or
to more general and personal characteristics, which she calls “cognitive virtues”
“intellectual traits.” How can we know, are
know, she asks, that we are in the
the presence of a
presence
community of inquiry? Her answer is that we know we we have such a community
when students:
accept corrections by peers
peers willingly;
listen to others attentively;
revise their views in light of reason from others;
one another’s ideas seriously;
take one
build upon
upon one another’s ideas;

l"Ann
10
Lipman’s loyal partner
Ann Sharp is Lipman’s developing the program
partner in developing program ofof Philosophy Children and
Philosophy for Children
writing books
in writing articles in support
books and articles of it.
support of Brown and Joseph
it. Ann Brown Campione were
Joseph Campione were a couple.
couple. Carl
Bereiter and Marlene
Bereiter Marlene Scardamalia married couple.
Scardamalia are a married connection between
couple. Is there any connection between life as a
couple and the creation
couple of a community
creation of community of of learners/inquirers/knowledge
learners/inquirers/knowledgebuilders, based on
etc., based
builders, etc.,
dialogue, cooperation,
dialogue, cooperation, and intimacy?
intimacy? Do couples extemalizations of
create externalizations
couples create of ideal
ideal life as a couple
couple
educational frameworks
in the educational frameworks that they establish?
establish? Most of of the institutes
institutes dedicated
dedicated to dialogue
dialogue
between religious believers
between religious nonbelievers in Israel
believers and nonbelievers Israel —– and there
there are many
many – — were established by
were established
married couples
married which one is a believer
couples in which nonbeliever.
believer and the other one is a nonbeliever.
18
18 Teaching and Learning in a Community
11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of The Context
Context

develop their own ideas without fear of rebuff or humiliation from peers;
peers;
are open new ideas;
open to new
show concern for the
show the right of others to express
express their views;
are capable of detecting underlying assumptions;
show concern for consistency when arguing a point of view;
show
ask relevant questions;
verbalize relationships between ends and means;
show respect for persons
show persons in the community;
show sensitivity to context when discussing moral conduct;
show
discuss issues with impartiality;
1988,, p. 209 [adapted])
ask for criteria. (Sharp 1988
1993) described how the
Elsewhere Sharp ((1993) the dialogue in a community of inquiry
reveals and shapes characteristics vital for its own
own existence: care of each partici-
pant for the growth of the other participants and the logic of the discussion, which
assumes openness
openness and willingness to change attitudes and to change; trust in others,
the thinking of others; and autonomy and self-esteem
in their willingness to accept the
that derive from the belief of each participant in the others and in the world. These
the principles that guide the character of the
characteristics and others arise from the
dialogue in the community of inquiry: tolerance, consistency, a general outlook,
openness,
openness, self-correction, conscious use of criteria, sensitivity to context, and
new insight.
respect for all the participants as possible sources of new
Matthew Lipman (1991, pp. 241—243) summed up the main stages and goals of
pp. 241–243)
the community of inquiry in the following way:way:
Ofiering of
1. The Offering
1. of the Text text, the philosophical novel, demonstrates a com-
Text:: The text,
munity of inquiry to the learners by means of a story “from life” with imaginary
characters; the achievements of past gene-
the text presents the values and intellectual achievements gene-
the text mediates between the
rations; the the text reflects
the learners and the culture; the reflects
processes of thought that take place in the individuals’ minds; the
processes the text describes
human relations that are susceptible to analysis in logical terms; the text is read
by turns by all the participants;
participants; the participants discover that the text is signifi
participants discover significant
cant
and relevant to their lives; the thinking behavior of the
lives; the the imaginary protagonists
are gradually internalized in the thought of the participants.
2. The Construction of of an Agenda:
Agenda: Raising preliminary questions and responses
responses
of the community of inquiry regarding the text; the teacher relates to every
the text; every con-
tributor to the discussion with seriousness; the whole community constructs its
research agenda; the the agenda is a map map of the participants’ areas of interest;
the agenda includes thethe subjects that arose in the text and appear
appear important to the
students, respond to their intellectual needs; the teacher and the students defi definene
the point of departure for the discussion.
Solidifying the Community
3. Solidifying Community:: The creation of group solidarityby
group solidarity dialogical
by means of dialogical
inquiry; giving preference to the activity of thinking rather than the the results of
thinking; formulating differences of opinion and subjects that need to be under-
stood; development of thinking skills in the the context of dialogue; learning how to
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 19
19

apply tools of thought; joining together in shared thinking; development of

significant
increased sensitivity to signifi cant details and context-dependent differences; the
group
group works together to feel its way the trail of the argument; internalization
way on the
group behaviors.
of the visible group
Using Exercises and Discussion Plans
4. Using Plans:: Processing questions within the aca-
demic tradition; application of the disciplinary methodology by the participants;
internalization by the students of other philosophical possibilities; concentration
specificc problems in order to encourage
on specifi encourage articulation of judgments; direction
of the inquiry to the examination of general ideas and subjects such as truth,
the like.
beauty, justice, and the like.
Encouraging Further
5. Encouraging Further Responses:
Responses: By By means of varied forms of expression; fami-
the synthesis of critical and creative thinking and of the
liarity with the the community
every individual in it; striving to deepen meaning by means of strengthening
and every
judgment.
Lipman writes: “The chief concern of education was was traditionally held to be the
transmission of knowledge from one generation to another […]. [. . .]. The great paradigm
the history of education has been the redesign of education to have thinking
shift in the
rather than learning [of knowledge] as its target” ((1988, 141).
1988, p. 141).
When the development of thinking is seen as the goal of education, Lipman
writes, all the definitions
the defi nitions of the dimensions of education and all the the metaphors
bound upup with them “collapse like dominoes,” giving way
way to new
new definitions
defi nitions and
metaphors. The question of traditional education —– how how can we cause students to
repeat and absorb certain knowledge? —– is replaced by a new question: “how “how specifi
specifi--
cally to involve students in thethe inquiry process,
process, how to introduce them at least as
much to the demonstrably problematic aspects of the subject matter under investiga-
tion as to the purportedly settled aspects?” (ibid., p.142). Lipman’s answer to this
inquiry.”
question is: “by making the classroom into a community of inquiry.”

1.1.6 of Knowledge Building

Community of Building

Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia are the originators of the framework called
community of knowledge building. The concept of “knowledge building” is meant
to replace that of “learning” as a focus of the educational process.
process. The two terms
the concepts of
uses the
indicate different activities directed at different goals. Bereiter uses
Karl Popper to distinguish between building knowledge and learning. Popper
divided the world into three realms: World
World 1, the world of objects (the
1, the (the “objective”
World 2, the world of the
world); World the mind (the
(the “subjective” world); and World 3, the
ideas (the “intersubjective”
world of ideas “intersubjective”world),
world), which seeks understand the two others
seeks to understand
((Popper World 2. It is doing something
1972). “Learning is activity directed toward World
Popper 1972).
to alter the state of your achieve a gain in personal knowledge
your mind to achieve knowledge or competence.
Knowledge building is activity directed toward World World 3. It is doing something to a
2002,, p. 255).
conceptual artifact” (Bereiter 2002
20 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

“Doing something to a conceptual artifact” means creating ideas in the process process
of work on ideas —– to fi find
nd alternatives to them, to criticize them, to deduce new new ideas
from them, etc. World 2, the
etc. In World the processes
processes of the mind —– thinking, learning, interna-
etc. —
lizing, etc. – are the focus; in World 3 the the focus is “outside” — – on ideas, theories, and
other conceptual products. In World World 3 researchers work on conceptual products the
way a carpenter works on a table in World 1.
way 1.
constructing knowledge
These two actions –— learning and constructing different edu-
knowledge —– demand different edu-
environments. A school is an educational
cational environments. educational environment
environment focused on learning,
learning,
on World instruction is interested in content that is located in the mind.
World 2. The instruction mind. In
principle, a school could be focused on conceptual
conceptual products, on World World 3 — – although
this fundamental change in instruction,
this would require a fundamental instruction, evaluation, curriculum, etc.
evaluation, curriculum,
scholastic education is directed at learning guided by the metaphor of mind
However, scholastic
However,
container. The
as container. The mind,
mind, which is seen filled
container, is to be fi
seen as a container, lled by selected
by teaching selected
content. Even constructivist instructional methods are are focused on learning and not
constructing knowledge,
on constructing knowledge, and and they
they are guided by the metaphor of the mind as a
container. In contrast,
container. constructing knowledge
contrast, the mark of constructing knowledge is progressive
progressive discourse,
meaning concern with ideas with the goal of improving them. The improvement
improving them. improvement of
ideas is the concern of science. “Scientific
science. “Scientifi c progress
progress is not a matter of getting closer to
improving on existing
truth; it is a matter of improving
the truth; existing knowledge” (Bereiter et al. 1997
knowledge” (Bereiter 1997,,
331). Progressive discourse, by its very
p. 331). very nature, is group
group discourse: “If there is
distinctive about science,
anything distinctive individual
science, it is not to be found in the working of individual
minds but in the way scientists themselves as a community” (ibid.,
scientists conduct themselves (ibid., p. 333).
333).
characteristic of scientifi
The essential characteristic scientific commitments to progres-
c work lies in four commitments progres-
sive community discourse: (1) Commitment to mutual advances in understanding:
commitment to progress
progress in thethe understanding shared by all the the participants; the
ideal is that all participants should agreeagree that there has been improvement in their
understanding compared to its previous state. (2) Commitment to empirical test-
ability: commitment to formulated questions and hypotheses in a way way that allows
for testing them by empirical evidence; this is willingness to submit a position to a
test, to make it vulnerable. (3) Commitment to expanding the basis for discussion:
commitment to enlarging the network of facts and ideas that are already accepted by
the participants —– which increases the constluctive discussion of
the possibility for constructive
points of disagreement.
disagreement. (4) Commitment to openness: openness: commitment to critical
thinking, to disagreement, to challenge, and to new new ideas.
These commitments are scientificc community; they
are not peculiar only to the scientifi they
characterize
charac terize other communities that are not concerned with science but with art, art,
literature, and any other subjects
literature, community of learners and research-
subjects about which a community
ers might seek theoretical progress.
progress.
The view of science commitment of a community to improve
science as the commitment improve understanding
understanding
and advance knowledge has rich pedagogical potential, because it is tailored to the
children’s efforts
children’s understand the world and makes it possible to turn the classroom
efforts to understand
into a community of knowledge building. “If students can carry carry on progressive
discourse aimed at explaining natural phenomena, then they they areare doing science — –
regardless of their mastery of research procedures” (ibid., p. 334). 334).
The progressive discourse described below took place over a period of three
months in the sixth grade of a public school in Alberta, Canada. The discussion
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 21
21

dealt with the phenomenon of accelerated growth at puberty, and it was carried out
on Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE) –— software and
a network designed to support constructive discourse. The participants’ entries are
guided by the kind of thinking they wish to contribute to the the group
group discourse:
P (problem), MT (my theory), INTU (I need to understand), NI (new (new information),
(comment), and WHWL (what have we learned?).
C (comment), learned?) Each entry give rise
entry of INTU can give
to a secondary discussion that can branch off from the central discussion following
the special interest it arouses.
special interest example presented
arouses. The example below is part of such a secondary
presented below secondary
“About Growing.”
discussion, the title of which was “About Growing.” It included 179 179 entries.
The starting point of the discourse waswas the personal interest expressed by partici-
accelerated growth –— a topic
pants in the phenomenon of accelerated topic that arouses curiosity during
adolescence. Some participants asked when their growth spurts would begin, while
others asked when theirs would end. end. One student wrote that he was one one of the shortest
everyone around him was growing, and he felt as if
boys in the class; everyone if he were
shrinking. One girl wrote that she she had grown
grown fast and was going to be a very very tall
She wanted to know when her growth would stop. Discussion of this kind is
girl. She
scientific.
not scientifi c. Rather it is the sharing of a common experience that is not subject to
However, after a short while interest arose in the
controls. However, the process
process of growth itself,
as a phenomenon in the world, and it took the form of scientifi scientificc hypotheses. One
student asked whether growth rate was was hereditary. One student wondered whether
trees also had a period of accelerated growth. A third student hypothesized that
accelerated growth stopped after the material from which it was made was was exhausted.
Another student suggested that the body has some kind of clock that controls the
process. Gradually the expectation arose that a common solution would be found to
process.
various INTU questions concerning the phenomenon of accelerated growth.
Thus, the fifirst
rst commitment was formed —– to strive for joint understanding of the
phenomenon. The students turned to various sources of information and and while doing
they created the third commitment —
so they – to expand the basis of agreed-upon know-
ledge. The basis of agreed-upon knowledge developed rapidly and with it arose new new
questions (Why do nails and hair continue to grow grow after other physical growth has
ceased? What is the nature of the growth of knowledge in our brains? Is the accele-
rated growth of trees and fl flowers
owers similar to that of animals?), which prompted the
basic question of what should be considered knowledge. Once this question arose,
the second commitment was formed —– subjecting knowledge to empirical test.
The subject of heredity became central and focused on the the question of whether
growth ceased when offspring reached their parents’ size. size. The children decided to
conduct a survey compare the heights of parents and their offspring. The survey
survey and compare survey
also included grandparents to test the hypothesis that in old age age people begin to
shrink. In this part of the discussion, the fourth commitment —– openness openness —– was
created when the the students examined unconventional ideas.
final
The fi nal stage in the discussion dealt with the question, “What have we learned?”
The students spoke of having learned many many concepts and facts. Follow-up on the
group discussion showed that a conceptual change took place among
group among the partici-
pants with respect to the nature of growth. Most of the students wanted to continue
the discussion in order to formulate their own theories on the subject, and they they also
suggested various ways ways of doing so.
22 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

Teachers and leaders from CSILE occasionally intervened and made comments
to further the discussion. The CSILE technology made the community discussion
possible. Unlike email, communication in the the community network built knowledge,
and it is not one-to-one but rather with the community, according to agreed-upon
procedures.
The experiment demonstrates a true processprocess of progressive discourse to build
scientificc activity —– the
knowledge. If that truly is the nature of scientifi scientificc method
the scientifi
the students truly experienced it. This experience differs from learning
itself —– then the
by the method of research or discovery in several important respects: (1) the focus
is not on doing (research) but on understanding; (2) the focus is not on argument but
on cooperation —– the students are not encouraged to form a position and defend it,
but to strive to create a basis for mutual understanding; (3) the focus is not a project,
a research task, or any concrete result that can be exhibited, but the the increase and
deepening of knowledge and understanding; (4) the the framework is not that of science
studies but of the personal interest that gradually grew scientificc activity.
grew out of scientifi activity.
Hence, the goal is not science, but rather the ability to take part in progressive
discourse of building knowledge. Bereiter writes: “The crucial issue is whether the
students are World 3. If they
are working in World they are, are doing knowledge building,
they are
are, they
regardless of how how active a role the teacher plays in their WorldWorld 3 work” (2002,
p. 266). Development of the the ability to participate in the
the construction of knowledge
means educating young the information economy
young people for the society, an eco-
economy and society,
nomy society in which work with knowledge —
nomy and a society evaluating,organizing,
– creating, evaluating, organizing,
locating, applying, and processing information —– will be an indispensable ability. ability.
According to Marlene Scardamalia ((2002, 2002, pp.
pp. 78–82),
78—82), the framework of the
knowledge-building community is based on two dynamics: a socio-cognitive
dynamic and a technological The former includes mental ways
technological dynamic. The ways of working,
and the latter includes ways
ways of working with a Knowledge Forum, the the software of
the knowledge-building community (an advanced version of the CSILE software),
permitting and encouraging the fi first this case the computer is combined
rst dynamic. In this
new pedagogy and enables it, unlike many
with a new many instances in which the computer
is a mere adjunct to traditional pedagogy, without realizing its possibilities.
We have surveyed three communities of learners, investigators, and builders of
knowledge very y, communities that embody the basic assumptions of The
briefly,
very briefl
Third Model. Let us now now describe these assumptions systematically.

1.1.7 of the First

The Third Model as a Synthesis 0fthe First
and
and Second Models

Rogoff and her colleagues and Carl Bereiter and Marlene Scardamalia warn against
conceptualizing the third model in terms of the first
the first and second ones. To establish
they argue,
the third model as something new, they we must distance ourselves from the
argue, we
field”
“magnetic fi the old models and conceptualize it on its own terms. While this
eld” of the
warning merits our attention, the presentation of the third model as a synthesis of
the older models can shed light on the third model from a useful angle. Indeed, the
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 23

synthesis of
third model is a synthesis of the fifirst (thesis) and the second (antithesis).
rst model (thesis) (antithesis).
In this synthesis of the two models, we ascend to a new level and create a new new con-
ceptual and practical framework.
demonstrate this
To demonstrate dialectical principle, one
this dialectical one may “formula of instruction”
may use the “formula
developed by Gary Fenstermacher and Jonas Soltis (1986). After a correction, correction,“11
the formula is as follows: T + I + C + S = P. The teacher (T) instructs (I) (1) content (C)
to the student (S) in order to achieve a purpose
purpose (P). process has (at
(P). The educational process
five
least) five components —– teacher, instruction, knowledge, student, and purpose purpose —–
which coalesce in the image of the desired graduate. The purpose purpose determines
the function and quality of the formula’s other components. For example, when the
purpose (P) is critical thinking (the
purpose (the educated person
person = a critical thinker), then
the role and character of the teacher, instruction, knowledge, and the student in the
process of instruction take shape accordingly. As noted, according to the
process the typologies
of Lamm, Fenstermacher and Soltis, and Egan, education may may serve three purposes:
purposes:
socialization, acculturation, and individuation, using Lamm’s terminology. Each
such purpose
purpose gives specificc content to the components of the formula of instruction.
gives specifi
How are these components conceived in the three models of teaching? How How does
the two previous models constitute the
the synthesis of the the third model?
Teacher:: Thesis
Teacher Thesis:: According to the fifirst the teacher is to provide
rst model, the role of the
the students with bodies of knowledge and skills useful for social success and a
(the logic of socialization –
professional career (the the sake
— for the sake of simplicity, I will use
only Lamm’s terminology) or to shape their spirit in light of the the fundamental values
and truths of the privileged culture (the logic of acculturation). In the fi first
rst case,
case, the
teacher is the authoritative manager
manager of the classroom; in the
the second case, she is a
she
identification.
charismatic model for identifi cation. Antithesis:
Antithesis: According to the second model, the
function of the teacher is to enable the student to develop according to his abilities,
propensities,
propensities, and pace of individuation). As a sensitive facilitator, the
pace (the logic of
Synthesis:: According to the third
teacher seeks to be as unobtrusive as possible. Synthesis
the teacher is to have the
model, the role of the the student encounter ideas in challenging
challenging
ways understand the world and himself or, in constructivist’s
ways so that he will understand constructivist’s terms,
construct the world and himself.
Instruction: Thesis:: According
Instruction: Thesis According to the fi first instruction —– the authoritative
model, instruction
rst model, authoritative trans-
trans-
mission of knowledge
mission (socialization) or inculcating
knowledge and skills (socialization) truths and values
inculcating truths values (accul-
(accul-
turation) —
turation) central role,
– plays a central because it promotes learning
role, because student
learning and propels the student
initial position
from his initial position of ignorance
ignorance and irrationality
irrationality toward educated
toward the ideal of an educated
person. Antithesis:
person. second model, we must strive to minimize
According to the second
Antithesis: According minimize teach-
teach-
abolish it, because it impedes
ing, even abolish impedes learning,
learning, that is to say, student self-regulates
say, the student self-regulates
learning (individuation).
learning (individuation). Synthesis
Synthesis:: According third model,
According to the third instruction is an ally
model, instruction
neither drives nor impedes
learning —– it neither
of learning impedes learning motivates learners
learning –— since it motivates learners to deal
ideas that structure
actively with ideas
actively understanding.
structure them and their understanding.

1‘
11
formula of
original formula
The original of Fenstermacher
Fenstermacher and Soltis is T∅Sxy. teacher instructs
TQJSxy. The teacher instructs (∅) student
(Q) the student
(S) specifi content (x) for a specifi
specificc content specificc purpose formula is mistaken,
opinion, this formula
purpose (y). In my opinion, mistaken, because
because
content and purpose,
variables, content
it has only two variables, whereas in fact all the terms
purpose, whereas terms ofof the formula
formula vary
according to the quality
according of the purpose.
quality of purpose.
24 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

Student:: Thesis
Student Thesis:: According first
According to the fi student is a candidate for acquisition
rst model, the student
of behaviors, skills, and knowledge that will be useful for his social role and profes-
sional functioning (socialization) or the internalization of values that will restrain
refine
and refi his instincts, prejudices, misconceptions, and the
ne his inherent nature –— his
like (acculturation: “Humans are born evil”). Antithesis:
Antithesis: According to the second
model, one must nurture the student’s inherent nature, his authentic personality, and
defend it against the unsupervised acquisition and internalization of externally
imposed ideas (individuation: “Humans are born good”). Synthesis Synthesis:: According to
the third model, the individual is a product of her relations with both people and
ideas. One must make certain that the the student encounters people and ideas in con-
structive ways (the child is born neither good nor evil;
ways (the the child “does not exist” at
evil; the
birth; it takes shape in its contacts with society and culture).
Content:: Thesis
Content first
Thesis:: According to the fi the content includes useful know-
rst model, the
ledge and skills (socialization) or moral values and truths that underlie culture
(acculturation), which are organized in a common and imposed curriculum.
Antithesis:
Antithesis: According to the second model, knowledge includes only what the
student brings by himself and organizes for himself in an authentic and spontaneous
Synthesis:: According to the third model, knowledge
curriculum (individuation). Synthesis
includes “big ideas” and “essential questions” that help students understand and
think about the world. These are organized in an open flexible
open and flexible curriculum.
Purpose: Thesis:: According to the fi
Purpose: Thesis first
rst model, the desired graduate is someone who
has acquired practical knowledge, useful skills, accepted codes, and prevailing
behaviors (socialization) or who has internalized formative truths and values (accul-
turation). Antithesis:
Antithesis: According to the second model, there is no general image of
“the educated person.” The educated person person is someone who has actualized his
unique personality, sometimes in opposition to accepted behaviors and formative
values (individuation). Synthesis the third model, the educated person
Synthesis:: According to the person
is someone who develops in constant dialogue with behaviors, truths, and values,
someone whose critical thought derives from familiarity with areas of knowledge
the world of ideas.
and the
The above synthesis can be described in the terms of David Olson ((2003, 2003,
pp. 213–266).
pp. psychology.12
213—266). He writes that education is controlled by folk psychology. 12
According
(the thesis), there is a sharp distinction between the
one folk theory (the
to one the knower and the
known. “The seen as a commodity that can be shaped, stored,
“The known is seen stored, and transmit-
ted quite independently of any any particular knower” (ibid.,
(ibid., p. 217). This division exists
authoritative and absolute. In this
in societies where knowledge is regarded as authoritative this con-
con-
text, the task of the
text, the the mind is to retain — – not to create —– knowledge. The mind’s main
cognitive faculty is memory.
memory. The function of education in such such a context is to trans-
mit knowledge. The opposing folk theory (antithesis) tries tries to bridge between the

12“Folk
12
“Folk Psychology, somewhat dismissive
Psychology, a somewhat dismissive yet apposite of referring
apposite way of referring to common
common sense, inten-
inten—
tionalist psychology,
tionalist psychology, that is, the psychology
psychology ofof beliefs currently employed
desires, as currently
beliefs and desires, employed in
mainstreamcognitive
mainstream science” (ibid., 213). “One
cognitive science” “One advantage of such folk theories
advantage of theories is their accessibi-
accessibi—
ordinary language,
lity to ordinary language that can be learned
language, a language learned and shared
shared by the teacher
teacher and student”
student”
221).
(ibid., p. 221).
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 25

knower and the known, to rehabilitate the the viewpoint of the knower, his subjectivity.
his subjecti vity.
In the framework of this theory, theory, “Learners are seen as constructing models of the
world by using narratives and and paradigmatic frames in order to interpret their experi-
ence andand plan their actions” (ibid.,
(ibid., p. 219). Knowledge, in thisthis instance, is not grasped
true, but as a personal invention
as absolute or true, invention that can be changed.
The pedagogy of the the past 100 100 years,
years, writes Olson, waswas largely a battlefield
battlefield where
these two folk theories were in confl conflict. Teachersknow
ict. Teachers know them and, guilt-ridden, vacil-
and, guilt-ridden, vacil—
late between them. When they they work according to the first
the fi rst theory —– covering the
material and testing on it —– they they feel good in relation to the system, but less so in
relation to the student. When they work according to the second theory —– letting the
student understand in his own way express himself —– they
way and express they feel good toward the
student and less vis-a-vis the system.
However, beyond the teachers’ emotional-pedagogical catch-22, there is a more
However,
fundamental problem here. Let us assume that children are responsible for their
learning and build their own truths: “What assurance do we we have that the beliefs that
they construct are true, at least true in the limited sense of ‘taken ‘taken to be true’
true’ by the
larger society?” (ibid., p. 223). In short, short, between every
every child’s making meaning and
the given meaning imposed on students, there has to be a third path (a synthesis).
Olson calls it “joint intention.” On the one are truths accepted by the
one hand, there are
society because theythey meet agreed-upon criteria for distinguishing between truth and
falsehood; on the the other hand, there is the the child’s subjectivity — the knowledge,
– the
beliefs, abilities, desires, intentions —– with which he enters the learning process. process.
Giving preference to either of the poles leads us to one of the folk theories. In con-
trast, “a promising alternative is to be found in the concept of pedagogy as the
management of joint intention […] [...] the ability of an adult and child to coordinate
their perspectives […].[. . .]. Joint intentions provide the basis for cooperative activities
[. . .] each must also recognize that his or her single part is part of a larger enterprise,
[…]
duet. This larger intention is the joint intention” (ibid., p. 224). Therefore, “the
the duet.
essential feature of pedagogy, it may may be argued, is combining the the intentions of the
teacher and learner in a joint intention […]. [...]. Forming a joint
joint intention involves
discovering a common frame of reference, a common goal, or common ground with
the learner” (ibid., p. 243). The common basis is a joint project with agreed-upon
internal criteria of quality.
The concept of joint intention establishes teaching and learning as a common
action. Olson does not fully explain the concept but rather leaves it as a challenge
for other researchers. In our terms, in the fi first the curriculum is central;
rst folk theory the
the second folk theory the
in the the child is central; the third folk theory is the third model,
in which teachers and students are involved involved in a joint intention to learn and investi-
gate a problem to get to a shared truth based on agreed-upon criteria.
Generally speaking, the fi first
rst model favors the framework; the the second model
favors freedom from the framework; the third model favors freedom within the
framework. Thus, the fi first
rst model favors exerting educational pressure stu-
pressure to shape stu-
dents “from the outside”; the second model favors freedom from educational pres- pres-
sure so that the students shape themselves “from within”; the the third model favors
sensitive and dialogical educational pressure pressure “from thethe outside” to shape the student
“from within” (the quotation marks are are meant to indicate reluctance to distinguish
26 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

sharply between “outside” and “inside”). Indeed, the fi first

rst model demands the initial
acquisition of knowledge (learning) and only afterward (if there is time) thinking
about the knowledge; the second model demands thinking fi first
rst (critical, creative,
independent) and only afterward (if there is time) learning; the third model proposes proposes
learning while thinking and thinking while learning. There can be no meaningful
learning without thought about the subjects being studied, just as there can be no
meaningful thought without understanding the subjects being studied. Finally, the
first
fi rst model says give up
says to the child: “Stay outside!” That is, give up what interests you
you and
adapt to the school (“Don’t ask what the school can do for you, you, but what you
you can do
for the school”). The second model says the child, “Come in and go
says to the go out the way
way
you
you are!” That is, everything lies within you, the school will adapt to you
you, and the you and
help you fulfill
you fulfi says, “Come in and build yourself through
ll yourself. The third model says,
the community!” That is, neither self-abnegation nor self-fulfi self-fulfillment, self-
llment, but self-
construction through thoughtful interaction with people and knowledge.
What motivated this synthesis of the two older models in a third model?
Historically speaking, as noted, the the two older models were disappointing, since fol- fol-
lowing the logic of either one did not lead to the desired results. Philosophically
speaking, it appears
appears that underlying this synthesis is a blurring of the the distinction
between the the individual, society,
society, and culture. With respect to the fi first
rst model, the
individual is the negative element, and the society and culture are the positive ele-
are the ele-
ments. Society must socialize and acculturate the individual so that he integrates
into society and culture and does not bring them to ruin. (Freud comments that
every year humanity faces a new
every year new invasion of barbarians.) For the the second model,
society and culture are the negative element, individual is the positive
element, and the individual positive
element. Education must consolidate the uniqueness of the individual, allow her to
fulfill
fulfi oppress her and turn her into a tool
ll herself, so that society and culture will not oppress
in their service. The third model blurs the the distinction between these two elements
and conceives them as a single continuum. The approach is evident in many many disci-
plines that have contributed interpretation reflecting
reflecting their particular vantage point.
Here, for example, are a few lines of Clifford Geertz in this this matter:
launch such integration
attempting to launch
In attempting [between human
integration [between human beings culture] from the
beings and culture]
anthropological side and to reach,
anthropological thereby, a more
reach, thereby, more exact exact imageimage of of man,
man,
I want to propose ideas. The fi
propose two ideas. first of these is that culture
rst of culture is best complexes
best seen not as complexes
of concrete
of behavior patterns
concrete behavior customs, usages,
patterns —– customs, habit clusters
traditions, habit
usages, traditions, clusters —– as has, by and
large, been
large, been the case up to now, but as a set of of control
control mechanisms
mechanisms —– plans, recipes, rules,
plans, recipes, rules,
instructions (what computer
instructions engineers call “program”)
computer engineers “program”) – governing of
— for the governing of behavior.
behavior. The
second idea is that man is precisely
second animal most
precisely the animal most desperately
desperately dependent
dependent upon upon such extra-
extra—
genetic, outside-the-skin
genetic, control mechanisms,
outside—the—skin control mechanisms, such cultural cultural programs, ordering his
programs, for ordering
behavior
behavior […]. culture patterns
Undirected by culture
[...]. Undirected organized systems
patterns —– organized systems of of signifi
significant symbols
cant symbols
– man’s behavior
— would be virtually
behavior would virtually ungovernable,
ungovernable, a mere chaos chaos ofof pointless
pointless acts and
exploding emotions, his experience
exploding emotions, experience virtually
virtually shapeless.
shapeless. Culture, accumulated totality
Culture, the accumulated of
totality of
such patterns, omament of
patterns, is not just an ornament of human existence but —– the principal
human existence principal basis of of its
specificity
specifi essential condition
city —– an essential condition for it […]. What this means
[. . .]. What culture, rather
means is that culture, rather than
being added on, so to speak,
being added finished
speak, to a fi finished
virtually fi
nished or virtually animal, was ingredient,
nished animal, ingredient, and
centrally ingredient, in the
centrally ingredient, production of
the production of that animal
animal itself
itself […]. Most bluntly,
[. . .]. Most bluntly, it suggests
suggests
there is no such thing
that there thing as a human nature independent
human nature independent of of culture
culture […].
[. . .]. We are, in sum,
incomplete or unfi
incomplete unfinished animals who complete
nished animals complete or fi finish ourselves through
nish ourselves culture […].
through culture [...].
((1973, 44—49)
1973, pp. 44–49)
1.1 The
1.1 Third Model
The Third Model 27

the human being as a thoroughly sociocultural creature has

The conception of the
been processed in various ways the third
ways by educators in the theory and practice of the
model.l313
model.
Taylor supports the above argument through his interpretation of authen-
Charles Taylor
ticity: individuals exist only through their connection with society and culture.
Being authentic is not discovering your
your inner isolated essence, as the second model
would have it, but discovering yourself through “languages” that are already there:
there:
general feature
The general of human
feature of human life that I want evoke is its fundamentally
fundamentally dialogical charac—
dialogical charac-
ter. We become human agents,
become full human agents, capable of understanding
capable of ourselves, and hence
understanding ourselves, of defi
hence of defin—
n-
identity, through
ing an identity, through our acquisition of rich
acquisition of rich human language of
human language of expression.
expression. For purpose
purpose
of this discussion,
of discussion, I want to take “language” broad sense,
“language” in a broad words
covering not only the words
sense, covering
we speak but also other other modes
modes ofof expression
expression whereby define
whereby we defi ourselves, including
ne ourselves, including the
“languages” of
“languages” of art, of
of gesture, of love, and the like. No one acquires
gesture, of acquires the languages needed
languages needed
self—definition
for self-defi introduced to them
nition on their own. We are introduced them through
through exchanges others
exchanges with others
what George
matter to us —– what
who matter Herbert Mead
George Herbert Mead called
called “signifi
“significant genesis of
cant others.” The genesis of
human mind
human mind is in this sense not “monological,”
“monological,” not something each accomplishes
something each accomplishes on his or
her
her own, but dialogical. 1991,, pp. 32–33)
dialogical. (Taylor 1991 32—33)

And:
And:
moment, the general
But for the moment, lesson is that
general lesson that authenticity defended in ways
authenticity can’t be defended ways that
collapse horizons
collapse of signifi
horizons of significance
cance […]. of self-choice
ideal of
[...]. So the ideal self—choice supposes
supposes that there are
other issues
other of signifi
issues of significance
cance beyond couldn’t stand alone,
self—choice. The ideal couldn’t
beyond self-choice. alone, because
because it
requires
requires a horizon of issues
horizon of issues ofof importance, which help
importance, which define
help defi ne the respects which self-
respects in which self—
making is signifi
making significant [...]. The agent seeking
cant […]. seeking signifi
significance define
trying to defi
cance in life, trying ne him
him or
herself meaningfully,
herself meaningfully, has to exist in a horizon of important
horizon of important questions. what is self-
questions. That is what self—
defeating in modes
defeating of contemporary
modes of culture that concentrate
contemporary culture self—fulfillmentin
concentrate on self-fulfi llment in opposi-
opposi—
demands of
tion to the demands of society, or nature, which shut out history
nature, which history and the bonds
bonds ofof solidarity
solidarity
[…]. define
[...]. I can defi identity only against
ne my identity against the background
background of of things
things that matter [...].
matter […].
Authenticity is not the enemy
Authenticity enemy of of demands
demands that emanate
emanate from beyond
beyond the self; it supposes
supposes
demands. (ibid., pp. 38–41)
such demands. 38—41)

Taylor’s insights. The frameworks of

The philosophy of the third model echoes Taylor’s
the various communities “translate” them into pedagogical practices.

1.1.8 In Conclusion
In Conclusion

As Rogoff and her colleagues and Bereiter and Scardamalia cautioned, the founda-
tional principle of the third model is not one of compromise, a middle way, a correct
dosage of the fifirst However, contrary to the view of those
rst and second models. However,

13The
13
cultural organ is the point
assumption that the mind is a cultural
The assumption of departure
point of Kieran Egan’s
departure for Kieran
“fourth idea” (1997, 2008).
“fourth 2008). He explains education is trapped
explains that education dead end with three contra-
trapped in a dead contra—
dictory ideas:
dictory of socialization,
ideas: the idea of Platonic idea, and the Rousseauian
socialization, the Platonic Rousseauian idea.
idea. The way out is
fourth idea, the Eganian
in a fourth which is based
Eganian idea, which of Vygotsky,
based on that of Vygotsky, according which the mind
according to which
intemalizes sociocultural
internalizes sociocultural tools and develops means of
develops by means of them.
them. Egan
Egan proposes
proposes a computer
computer meta-
meta—
phor (today computer rules
(today the computer rules the world of educational
world of educational metaphors): invited to think
metaphors): “So we are invited of
think of
brain as computer
our brain computer hardware operating system
hardware and the mind as its operating system or programs running.
programs it is running.
evident feature
One evident of our minds
feature of minds is that they are cultural
cultural organs” 2008, p. 38).
organs” (Egan 2008,
28 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

authors, neither is it entirely separable from those models. The founding principle
the two older models and forming a
of the third model is dialectical, synthesizing the
new unity, in which they are vested with meaning different from that of
meaning different of their
form.14
original form. 14
the third model is a new
Thus, the this is that it can-
new creation. Proof of this
not be placed in any the familiar educational typologies such as those of Lamm,
any of the
Fenstermacher and Soltis, and Egan. A new new ideal type of education and instruction
must be forged in its honor.
the typologies of education mentioned
This is not a simple claim, for it disrupts the
above, and those typologies aim to include not only the modes of education that
have existed, but also those that willwill exist. According to Lamm’s typology, for
example, the third model would be called “eclectic” ((LammLamm 2002, pp. 110—170),
pp. 110–170),
that is to say, a combination of the logics of socialization, acculturation, and indi-
viduation (mainly the second and third logics); and eclectic theories and practices,
according to Lamm, contain contradictions. Indeed, from Lamm’s perspective, the
new creation, but also a defective creation.
third model is not only not a new
In order to defend its unique identity against assimilation into one of the the older
models, the third model must consolidate its own identity; it must deepen its theory
and create an educational environment in which various communities of learners/
inquirers/researchers/knowledge builders/thinking arise decisively out of the closed
and open
open classrooms familiar to us.us. The model of instruction and learning in a
community of thinking, the hero of our book, aims to make its modest contribution
this trend.
to this

1.2 The Third

The Third Approach

the factor that makes for good

In teaching thinking, the main question is: what is the
thinking and how does one the arena of teaching
one develop it? Posing that question in the
thinking, yields three answers:
1. The factor making for good thinking is thinking skills
1. skills;; it is developed by means
of the pattern of impartation.
pattern of impartation .
dispositions;; it is developed by
2. The factor making for good thinking is thinking dispositions
means of the pattern of
pattern of cultivation.
cultivation.
3. The factor making for good thinking is understanding (of the subject about
and through which one thinks); it is developed by means of the pattern of
pattern of
construction..
construction

'4
14
Lawrence Kohlberg Rochelle Mayer similar
noteworthy that Lawrence
It is noteworthy Kohlberg and Rochelle Mayer suggested
suggested a typology
typology with a similar
dialectic. their article,
dialectic. In their article, “Development
“Development as the Aim of of Education”
Education” (Kohlberg
(Kohlberg and Mayer 1972),
Mayer 1972),
three educational
identify three
they identify educational ideologies:
ideologies: the romantic which the writers
ideology, which
romantic ideology, quoted here
writers quoted here
called the ideology
called ideology of of individuation/the
individuation/thetherapeutic Rousseauian view;
approach/the Rousseauian
therapeutic approach/the View; the ideol-
ideol—
ogy ofof cultural
cultural transmission, which the writers
transmission, which writers called acculturation/theliberating
called acculturation/the approach/the
liberating approach/the
Platonic approach;
Platonic approach; and the progressive latter ideology
ideology. The latter
progressive ideology. sometimes balances
ideology sometimes balances between
between
other two.
the other
1.2
1.2 Third Approach
The Third Approach 29

These three factors and the teaching methods associated with each of them are
thinking.. In my
the foundations of the approaches to teaching thinking my opinion, the third
approach –— that of understanding —– is preferable. The framework of teaching and
learning in a community of thinking can be seen as a framework for teaching
and learning for understanding. Teaching and learning for understanding is also the
soul of the third model.
now expand on what has been said in this dense paragraph.15
Let us now paragraph.15

1.2.1 Reception of
The Reception Thinking
of Teaching Thinking

Teaching thinking is a theoretical and practical fi field,

eld, the goal of which is to develop
good thinking: critical, creative, and effective thinking. As a theoretical fi field,
eld, teach-
ing thinking seeks to answer the question of what good thinking is; as a practical
field,
fi eld, it tries to answer the question of what keykey factors makes for good thinking and
how can it be taught. Since the mid-1980s teaching thinking has been a dominant
stream in educational discourse but has had comparatively little infl influence
uence on edu-
cational practice. Concepts such as “higher-order thinking,” “thinking styles,”
skills,” “thinking dispositions,” “teaching for
“multiple intelligences,” “thinking skills,”
understanding,” “critical thinking,” “creative thinking,” “ effective thinking,” and
thinking, “effective
79

“infusion” have been common parlance among levels, and it appears

among educators at all levels, appears
as if thethe entire educational system were headed for teaching thinking. Robert
Sternberg and Louise Spear-Swerling wrote, “Probably never before in the the history
of educational practice has there been a greater push to teach children to think well
[...]. It would be diffi
[…]. difficult
cult to read anything at all in thethe contemporary literature of
education without becoming aware of this new new interest in teaching thinking”
(Sternberg and Spear-Swerling 1996 1996,, p. 102).
102). Even if this statement is slightly exag-
exag-
gerated (especially the fi first
rst part), there is no doubt that teaching thinking has been
accepted rapidly and has become a strong trend in contemporary education.
What caused the rapid acceptance of teaching thinking? Here are several several factors
and arguments that accelerated its acceptance:
Change in the Situation of Knowledge: In recent decades, knowledge itself has
of Knowledge:
undergone three far-reaching changes: it has “exploded” —– the amount of know-
ledge doubles within short periods; it becomes outdated —– theories and interpre-
new ones; it is accessible —
tations are frequently replaced by new – in resources such
as books, the computer, and the minds of other educated people. These changes
have made the teaching of discrete bodies of knowledge, which prevails in
anachronistic.1616
schools, anachronistic.

15The
15
following chapter
The following chapter is a simplifi
simplifieded condensation of my book,
condensation of book, Fishing Bait, and
Fishing Pole, Bait, and Fish:
Fish:
Approaches Jerusalem: Branco
Approaches to Teaching Thinking, Jerusalem: Institute (2005).
Branco Weiss Institute (2005).
1"’The
16
assumptions of
The assumptions of the explosion, obsolescence, and accessibility
explosion, obsolescence, of knowledge
accessibility of accepted as
knowledge are accepted as
without proper
self—evident without
self-evident critical evaluation.
proper critical evaluation. Knowledge indeed exploded,
Knowledge has indeed does indeed
exploded, and it does indeed
of date, but not the bases
go out of of knowledge,
bases of knowledge, that is to say, the basic Darwin’s
theories, such as Darwin’s
basic theories,
30 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

Change in the Picture of Knowledge: Not only has the condition of knowledge
of Knowledge:
changed, but our concept of it —– our relation to it —– also has changed as a result.
influence
Under the infl uence of of postmodernist theories, knowledge
postmodernist theories, conceived as
knowledge is conceived
relative by intellectuals as well as by “ordinary” people (and this is a signifi
significant
cant
phenomenon), as dependent upon upon various factors: on the coincidental commu-
person belongs to, on point of view, on discourse, on the effort to gain
nity that a person
power, on language, on paradigm, on the neural structure of the brain, and more.
power,
If knowledge is relative —– the result of an arbitrary conceptual framework and not
an unbiased observation; of invention and not discovery; of interests and not the
desire for truth –— why should one relate to it with veneration and dedicate all of
scholastic education to transmitting knowledge?
The Information Economy: economy is based on processing
Economy: The new, postindustrial economy
information. Information is its raw material, energy, energy, and product. The new new
sources of wealth are knowledge and its applications and not natural resources
labor. Muscle and machine power
and physical labor. power is giving wayway to brainpower.
Production, management, and application of information are the most important
economic functions of individuals and businesses. The information economy economy is
based on workers who are able to deal with information —– to locate, process,
process, and
apply information –— that is to say, people who can think well.
Democratic Society democracy, as opposed to procedural democracy,
Society:: Substantive democracy,
where democratic procedures alone exist, is based on a “democratic mentality,”mentality,”
on the ability and tendency of citizens to think independently. An open open society
demands open
demands thinking; open,
open thinking; independentthinking
open, active, independent democratic
thinking is the fuel of democratic
institutions. Civil society as well —– the fifield
eld of action of volunteerism, thethe NGO
sector that has developed rapidly in the past decades —– owes its existence to the
ability, and disposition to think and to invent social solutions in
citizens’ vitality, ability,
sectors that the state has abandoned or where it is powerless.
The Age of Change or
Age of or Uncertainty
Uncertainty:: The only stable factor in contemporary society
is the rapid and deep change that takes place in every life. Forms of work,
every area of life.
family, entertainment, culture, leisure and,
family, and, of course, technology change beyond
recognition before our eyes. eyes. These changes cut people and societies off from
familiar situations and routine solutions to problems. Today’s Today’s problems are
unprecedented and far more complex than those of the past. The solutions of the
past are
are inadequate. Hence, it is necessary new information con-
necessary to discover new
stantly and to invent creative solutions —– that is, to think well.
Cognitive Psychology:
Cognitive Psychology: TheThe long reign of behaviorism
behaviorism over the psychology of learning
(that which cannot be observed is not scientifiscientificc and perhaps does not exist;
learning is observed behavior acquired by conditioning) yielded to the new new
science of the mind –— cognitive psychology —– which allowed the opening of the
“black box” —– the mind —– and the investigation of processesprocesses that take place

theory of
theory of evolution,
evolution, Einstein’s of relativity,
theory of
Einstein’s theory Freud’s psychoanalytic
relativity, or Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. The basic
basic
theories are constantly
theories constantly undergoing correction, but new ones don’t appear
undergoing correction, appear every day, year, or
decade. Knowledge
decade. accessible to people
Knowledge is also accessible knowledge, on the basis
prior knowledge,
people who have prior of which
basis of which
they know how to obtain
obtain information.
information. The other
other arguments of teaching
arguments in favor of teaching thinking merit
thinking also merit
critical evaluation.
critical evaluation.
1.2
1.2 Third Approach
The Third Approach 31

“within” it. The newnew science equipped education with a rich “mental language”
about human consciousness and gave gave teaching thinking a rich world of concepts
and a strong tailwind.
Good Learning:
Learning: As society became a learning society, society, learning came to be consi-
dered as the goal of education (lifelong learning) not just as its means (to gain
knowledge). Hence, learning garnered much more attention, and new new theories of
learning emerged. One of the current insights about learning is that good learning
is the result of thinking about the subjects of study while learning about them.
Schools fail on their home court –— in the effort to transmit bodies of knowledge —–
because they do not succeed in stimulating the students to think about and utilize
“learning.” Thinking about the
they are “learning.”
the content they the content that is learned, intel-
lectual struggle with it, is a condition for learning it. Hence, even when the the goal
of instruction is simply transmission of knowledge and not development of
thinking, the development of thinking is vital. vital.
The Charm of of Teaching
Teaching Thinking
Thinking:: Good thinking is defi defined
ned as thinking that helps
people attain their goals, whatever they may be. Is there anyone
they may anyone who doesn’t
want to attain his goals? Is there anyone
anyone who doesn’t want to think well? Teaching
thinking is regarded as a fi field specificc ideology. Education committed to
eld with no specifi
ideological content (religious education, multicultural education, democratic
education, etc.) is seen as “particularistic education,” and it arouses opposition of
some sections of the public. Teaching thinking, by contrast, is seen —– though this
view is not necessarily correct –— as education concerned with form, not with
content, as education appropriate to every every social and cultural segment of the
population, as universal education.
Syndrome:: The
The Savior Syndrome The crisis
crisis in modern education arose virtually
virtually ab initio,
initio, as
universal education
modern, universal education began to spread in the West during the nineteenthnineteenth
century. Every era in education looks back nostalgically
century. nostalgically to the one
one that preceded it,
which also longed for the one before it. The chronic crisis crisis in education, feel-
education, or the feel-
gave rise to chronic expectations
crisis, gave
ing of crisis, expectations of a rapid and comprehensive solu-
comprehensive solu-
tion from some direction —– a new
some direction definition
new defi new method
nition of the goals of education, a new
of instruction, advanced technology,
instruction, advanced unprecedentedbudgets,
technology, unprecedented antic-
budgets, and so on. This antic-
“salvation” makes
ipation of “salvation” education vulnerable
makes education vulnerable to panaceas
panaceas and fads (and also –—
in the wake inevitable disappointment
wake of the inevitable disappointment —– to cynicism).
cynicism). From the mid-1980s
teaching thinking was one candidates for rescuing education.
one of the prime candidates education.
For these reasons and arguments, teaching thinking was accepted rapidly, and
the rhetoric of “Don’t teach content, teach thinking!” has dominated educational
discourse both in and out of the
the academy.

1.2.2 A Conceptual
Conceptual Map

theory, as Kurt Levin said, there would

If nothing is more practical than a good theory,
appear
appear to be nothing less
less practical than many
many theories, especially many
many inconsistent
creatively, and
theories. The vision of teaching thinking —– people thinking critically, creatively,
32 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

effectively in order to cope

cope wisely with today’s unprecedented challenges —– was
received enthusiastically by educational theorists, who developed countless, incon-
sistent theories of teaching thinking. A personperson who wishes to understand the the fi
field,
eld,
not to mention apply it in teaching, is helpless in the face of the the cacophony and can
hardly be expected to know which theory to adopt.
Theorists of teaching thinking have taken note of the the chaotic state of the field
the field and
overcome it by various means:
tried to overcome anthologies that present the various
means: compiling anthologies
2001);
(e.g., Costa 2001
theories (e.g., ); proposing criteria for choosing a good theory (e.g., (e.g.,
1984);
Sternberg 1984 one or another among
); opting for one among the theories (e.g., 1991);
(e. g., Lipman 1991);
establishing a framework for teaching
establishing teaching and study with components
components of of several
(e. g., Marzano et al. 1988
theories (e.g., 1988);
); etc. too, have joined this campaign to salvage
etc. I, too,
creativity, by proposing a conceptual
a structure that is collapsing under its own creativity,
map
map of the fi field
eld of teaching thinking (see Harpaz 2005 2005,, 2007). This map map provides a
place for all the theories in the fi field
eld of teaching thinking and enables them to be
applied intelligently in teaching. In brief:
All theories of teaching thinking must deal either explicitly or implicitly with the
question,, which is, what is the factor that makes for good thinking and how
main question how do
we develop it? This question is practical, because teaching thinking, like all educa-
tion, is a practical enterprise that seeks not only to understand the the world but also,
and mainly, to change it (or to understand it in order to change it). it). Hence, the main
question is not “what is good thinking?” —– an important question in its own own right,
with extensively
dealt with extensively in the literature of teaching – — but rather “what is the factor that

it?” For if
enables it?” if we can identify the factor whose development assures good
thinking, we can concentrate on it and place upon upon an Archimedean point,
upon it, as upon
the lever of teaching thinking.
find
We fi nd three answers to that main question in the the literature of teaching thinking.
Each entails a different approach to teaching thinking:
The answer of the fifirst skills:: the factor that makes
rst approach to teaching thinking is skills
skills.. One develops thinking skills through the
for good thinking is thinking skills
pattern of impartation –— a framework to teach (impart) thinking skills.
pattern of
dispositions:: the factor
The answer of the second approach to teaching thinking is dispositions
dispositions.
that makes for good thinking is thinking dispositions . One develops thinking
dispositions through the pattern of
pattern of cultivation
cultivation –
— a framework
framework of (cultivat-
teaching (cultivat-
ing) dispositions to think.
understanding:: the
The answer of the third approach to teaching thinking is understanding the factor
understanding.
that makes for good thinking is understanding . One develops understanding by
means of the pattern of
pattern of construction –
— a framework for teaching (structuring)
understanding.
An approach to teaching thinking, therefore, includes a foundational
foundational element of
educational apparatus
good thinking (skills/dispositions/understanding) and educational apparatus for
imparting/cultivating/structuring it. The educational apparatus depends upon upon the
basic element, because each element —– skills/dispositions/understanding –— demands
now offer a short description
a particular teaching pattern appropriate to it. We shall now
of these two components —– the foundational elements of good thinking and their
educational apparatuses.
 Basic Elements
1.3 The Basic
1.3 of Good
Elements of Good Thinking 33
33

1.3 The Basic Elements

The Elements of Good Thinking

the basic element of good thinking “mindware”:

David Perkins calls the
whatever people
It is whatever people can learn that helps to solve problems, make decisions,
problems, make understand
decisions, understand
difficult
diffi concepts, and perform
cult concepts, perform other intellectually demanding tasks better. To draw an anal-
intellectually demanding anal—
ogy with computers, mindware is software
computers, mindware software for the mind – — the programs you ran
programs ran in your
mind that enable
mind enable you to do useful
useful things data stored in your memory…
things with data Mindware is
memory... Mindware
whatever knowledge,
whatever knowledge, understanding, attitudes you have that support
understanding, and attitudes making the
support you in making
best of your mind.
best use of mind. (1995, p. 13)
13)

person to think better? In

So what are the elements of the mindware that enable a person
find
the literature of teaching thinking, we find three such elements.

1.3.1 Thinking Skills

Thinking

The fifirst appear was the skills approach. It paved the

rst to appear the way
way for the following two
approaches: that of dispositions and that of understanding. The skills approach
opposed traditional education, the the “old
“old education” in Dewey’s
Dewey’s terms, which was
knowledge.17
concentrated on transmitting knowledge. 17
Against the background of changes in
the economy,
economy, society, and culture, the the skills approach argued that it no longer
makes anyany sense to transfer bodies of knowledge. Instead, one one should cultivate the
students’ abilities to process, apply, criticize, and create knowledge, i.e.,
process, apply, i.e., to think
well. Thinking well means skillful thinking. These arguments provoked educational
discourse, and the educational marketplace was fl flooded
ooded with thinking skills of
various qualities.
skill, and what skills are vital for good thinking? In the dis-
What is a thinking skill, dis-
course of teaching thinking, that concept of “thinking skill” is the the most common of
the concept actually suffers from particular fuzziness. This fuzziness derives
all, but the
all,
from the existence of two different meanings that are not distinguished from one
another: “outer meaning” and “inner meaning.” In the fi first
rst sense, thinking skills are
a tool for thinking that is meant to make thought processes
processes more effective. Thinking
given names such as “strategies,”
tools are given “heuristics,” “algorithms,”
“strategies,” “heuristics,” “algorithms,”18
18
“scaffolding,”
“scaffolding,”
“frames,” “routines,”
“frames,” “routines,” and “maps.”
“maps.” With respect to the second meaning, thinking

l7John
17
described traditional
John Dewey described traditional education
education as composed
composed of of two systems of pipes
systems of pipes —– one packs
packs
knowledge means of
knowledge in by means of lectures
lectures and the other draws knowledge means of
knowledge out by means of examinations
examinations
(Dewey 1933/1998, p. 261).
(Dewey 1933/1998, 261). The grade student receives,
grade that the student according to this image,
receives, according image, is equal
equal
to the relation
relation between material drawn
between the material drawn out (by participation classes, by doing
participation in classes, homework, in
doing homework,
material packed
tests) and the material
tests) packed in (by the teacher
teacher and textbooks).
textbooks). A grade of 85, for example,
grade of would
example, would
student, 85
mean that, for a given student,
mean of the material
85 % of material was packed
packed into him.
him.
18
“Heuristic” derives from the Ancient
18“Heuristic” Greek verb heurisko
Ancient Greek heurisko,, to fi
find, of an
opposite of
nd, and it is the opposite
algorithm. refers to rules
algorithm. It refers derived from
rules derived from experience of thumb)
experience (rules of thumb) that are applied
applied to problems
problems
defined.
that are not well defi These rules
ned. These increase, but do not ensure,
rules increase, ensure, the prospect of solving
prospect of solving such ill-
ill—

defined
defi ned problems. algorithms are applied
contrast, algorithms
problems. In contrast, applied to well-defi
well—defined, formal problems,
ned, formal problems, and they
solution. A heuristic
ensure a solution.
ensure heuristic rule common among
rule common teachers in the United
among new teachers “Don’t
United States is “Don’t
Thanksgiving; don’t laugh
smile until Thanksgiving; Christmas.”
laugh until Christmas.”
34 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

skill means the deft use of thinking tools: rapid use, use, with a minimum expenditure of
energy; precise use, appropriate to the
mental energy; the circumstances or the
the problem. In this
case, emphasis is on the manner in which the thinking tool is used and not on the
tool itself. When we combine these two meanings of the concept of thinking skills,
we come up
we definition
up with the defi nition of good thinking according to the skills approach:
good thinking is skillful thinking, thinking that applies the tools of thinking rapidly
and precisely.
In the literature of teaching thinking, it is common to distinguish between simple
complex thinking skills. The former –— classifying, ranking, comparing, and the
and complex
like —– are the basis for thethe latter —– making decisions, solving problems, forming
concepts (abstraction or generalization), and the like. like. However,
However, this distinction is
artificial,
artifi difficult
cial, since it is diffi cult to rank thinking
thinking skills according
according to simplicity
simplicity or
complexity and place them in hierarchical order (for instance, the “simple” skill of
ranking requires the “complex” skill of making decisions).
Along with the prevalent distinction between simple
prevalent and problematic distinction simple and complex
thinking skills, one can propose
propose another distinction, a more productive one in my my
opinion, between indifferent
indifierent and valuable thinking skills. Indifferent thinking skills
are meant to increase the effi efi‘iciency
ciency of the thought processes
processes that a person
person applies
naturally: identifying,
naturally: identifying, focusing,
focusing, sorting,
sorting, ranking,
ranking, distinguishing,
distinguishing, comparing,
comparing, choosing,
choosing,
asking, selecting, estimating, concluding, generalizing, problem solving, decision
making, and so on. Valuable thinking skills, on the other hand, are meant to form the
on. Valuable
processes that people typically don’t perform and which they ought to
thought processes
perform, for example, breaking routine patterns of thought, inventing
problems, discovering basic assumptions and biases, criticizing one’s one’s own beliefs,
processes that people usually don’t perform, especially in con-
and other thinking processes
Valuable thinking skills seek to activate thinking
nection with their own thinking. Valuable
processes of that kind and make them more effective, because they
processes they are of value
(in a given culture).
The distinction between indifferent and valuable thinking skills has important
cance, because it distinguishes between two essen-
significance,
conceptual and practical signifi
tially different kinds of thinking skills, each of which demands instruction with
particular emphasis. Indeed, the valuable skills should be preferred because they are
prized by us.us.19
19

1.3.2 Thinking Dispositions

Thinking

The dispositions approach accepts the critique of the skills approach regarding
traditional education, with its concentration on transmitting knowledge, but rejects

19Frank
19
Frank Smith argues people perform
argues that since in any event people thinking processes
perform the thinking indif—
processes that the indif-
ferent skills seek to improve,
ferent skillfully, the impartation
improve, and they do so very skillfully, of such thinking
impartation of thinking skills
entirely superfl
is entirely superfluous (Smith 1990
uous (Smith 1990).
).
 Basic Elements
1.3 The Basic
1.3 of Good
Elements of Good Thinking 35
35

the reduction of good thinking to skillful thinking. In this view, view, the foundational
element of good thinking is thinking dispositions and not skills. Human thought is
influenced
infl uenced more by the intellectual character of the individual than by his or her
thinking skills.
The dispositions approach attained independence –— the status of an approach that
sought to replace the skills approach —– in two stages. In the first
the fi rst –— in the embryonic
stage –— it was regarded as a source of energyenergy for the skills approach. At a certain
stage, theorists of the skills approached acknowledged that a person person might have
developed thinking skills but no impulse, desire, or motivation –— in short, no dispo-
sition —– to use them. When we say of someone, “He’s “He’s capable, but he doesn’t want
to,” what we really mean is that he has the skill, but he has no desire to
the ability or skill,
implement it. Hence, theorists of the skills approach added a list of dispositions to
their list of skills.
1962, Robert Ennis, for example, published an impressive list of many
In 1962, many think-
ing skills, which in his opinion were essential for critical thinking, and a generation
later, after becoming aware of the
later, the importance of thinking dispositions, he added a
short list of them (Ennis 1962 1962,, 1987). However, in the
1987). However, the framework of the skills
approach, dispositions Trojan horse. They
dispositions resembled a Trojan They conquered the besieged city – —

the skills approach —– and in its place (if I may

may be permitted to diverge constructively
from the Homeric original) established a new city, the dispositions approach. In the
new city,
second phase –— in the independent stage stage —– dispositions demanded an independent
definition:
defi nition: no longer an auxiliary to skills, encouraging them from backstage, but
the basis, the essence, the substance of good thinking. “This conception [disposi-
tion],” wrote Perkins and his his colleagues, “can function as a [main][main] unit of analysis
for cognitive behavior” (Perkins et al. 1993 1993,, p. 3). In other words, the difference
between good thinkers and bad ones is not the quantity and quality of their thinking
skills but rather the the thinking dispositions that motivate them. Dispositions, not
skills, are what make all the difference.
What are thinking dispositions, and what thinking dispositions are vital for good
thinking? The disposition to think is an intellectual trait —– a characteristic that has
uence on the quality of thought. A disposition to think can be positive or
influence
direct infl
negative, one that motivates good or bad thinking —– for example, a disposition to
open
open or closed thinking, a disposition to systematic or capricious thinking, and a
disposition to profound or superfi cial thinking. Perkins and Swartz ((1991),
superficial 1991), for
distinguished four basic shortfalls
instance, distinguished shortfalls of thinking: (impulsive or
thinking: hasty thinking (impulsive
unconsidered), narrow thinking (clinging to just one side, side, “mine”), fuzzy thinking
(unclear and confused), and sprawling (unfocused) thinking.
These shortfalls reflreflect,
ect, in the authors’ opinion, negative thinking dispositions.
The cure is positive thinking dispositions, which neutralize the negative ones.
One can view the source of thinking dispositions (and personality dispositions in
general) from two perspectives. According to one view, view, thinking dispositions come
unconscious sources —– from primary
“from below,” from unconscious impulses, repressed
primary impulses, repressed
emotions, and various mechanisms that shape the psyche, including the cognitive
According to the second view, thinking dispositions
iceberg.” According
“tip of the iceberg.” dispositions come “from
above” —– from opinions, attitudes, values, decisions, and the like, like, which the
36 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

consideration. Dispositions
individual formed or chose after explicit or implicit consideration.
apparently take shape both “from below” and “from above” or from the connections
between However, teaching
between the two. However, thinking strives to strengthen
teaching thinking second source
strengthen the second source —
–
thinking dispositions that derive from conscious choice, from rational preference,
reflective
and from refl ective attitudes. One may
may thus defidefine
ne a disposition to think as a consi-
dered motivation for a certain pattern of thinking or quality of thought (openness,
above.”
depth, etc.), motivated “from above.”
The concept of a thinking dispositions can be classifi classified
ed with respect to two
dimensions: (1) Depth –— Thinking dispositions
dimensions: dispositions do not apply to the whole personality;
character or personality traits.
they are not character
they traits. The intellectual tenden-
The relations between intellectual
necessarily on the same continuum.
cies and character traits are complex and not necessarily
A person may be very
person may very daring intellectually and a coward in personal life (proposing
theories or writing
daring theories writing hair-raising
hair-raising fi ction but being afraid to leave his house).
fiction house).
(2) Breadth —– Thinking dispositions do not apply to all thinking. A person person may
may tend
toward deep thought in his scientifi
scientificc pursuits but be a shallow thinker when it comes
to politics. Thinking dispositions depend on context.
may also distinguish between thinking dispositions and the disposition to
One may
think.. This
think This distinction is by no means clear-cut – — thinking dispositions include and

encourage the disposition to think —– but nevertheless the distinction has both con-
encourage
ceptual and practical justification.
justification. Thinking dispositions, as we defi defined
ned them, are
motivation (“from above”) to think in a certain way; way; the disposition to become
involved in thinking, to immerse oneself in thought. Dewey, Dewey, for example, thought
that the disposition to think was the most important trait of good thinking, which he
“reflective
called “refl ective thinking”: “the kind of thinking that consists in turning a subject
over in the mind and giving it serious and consecutive consideration” (Dewey
1933/1998, p.
1933/1998, p. 3). The disposition to think, therefore, is expressed in the act of
sinking into thought, of devotion to thought, of dwelling upon upon a certain subject, and
of inspecting it from every side. The traditional school does not have a place for
every side.
thinking of this kind. As John Holt wrote, “children in school are are simply too busy to
21). Michael Barber ((1997,
1999,, p. 21).
think” (Kohn 1999 180) illustrates the point with
1997, p. 180)
the following dialogue:
Teacher to pupil:
Teacher “What are you doing?”
pupil: “What doing?”
Pupil teacher: “I’m thinking.”
Pupil to teacher: thinking.”
Teacher to pupil:
Teacher pupil: “Well, stop it and get on with your work.”

school that allocates

Only a school
Only allocates time
time to thinking
thinking and encourages students “to stop and
encourages students
think,” Hannah Arendt phrases it,
think,” as Hannah 20
it,20 fosters the disposition
that is to say, one that fosters disposition to

20I
20
I will stray for a moment literature on teaching
moment from the literature teaching thinking enlist Hannah
thinking to enlist Hannah Arendt
Arendt in
defense of the category,
defense of introduction to The Life of
disposition to think.” In the introduction
category, “the disposition of the Mind
Mind
(1971), she explains
(1971), devote herself
explains what led her to devote about thought,
thinking about
herself to thinking thought, explaining what
explaining what
motivated her to abandon
motivated abandon “the relative
relative safe fifield” of political
eld” of science and take up the “rather
political science “rather awe-
awe—
matters” of
some matters” of the life of
of the mind.
mind. The immediate
immediate motivation
motivation was the impression upon her
impression left upon
of Adolf
by the trial of Adolf Eichmann
Eichmann in Jerusalem. impression in her
expressed that impression
Jerusalem. She expressed her highly charged
highly charged
controversial concept,
and controversial concept, “the banality
banality ofof evil”: “Behind
“Behind that phrase, held no thesis
phrase, I held thesis or doctrine,
doctrine,
 Basic Elements
1.3 The Basic
1.3 of Good
Elements of Good Thinking 37

considered a school
worthy of being considered
think, is worthy
think, school where
where thinking enabled and encour-
thinking is enabled encour-
school that Arthur Costa ((1991)
aged, a school
aged, Mind. Such
1991) would call a Home for the Mind. Such a school
school
institution substantially
would be an institution substantially different characterfrom
different in character traditional school.
from a traditional school.

1.3.3 Understanding
Understanding

There is more than some irony in the development of teaching thinking. Initially, the
teaching thinking movement sought to circumvent knowledge or, rather, concentra-
tion on the transmission and acquisition of knowledge. In an era when knowledge is
devo-
exploding, becoming obsolete, widely accessible, and relative, so argued the devo-
tees of teaching thinking, there is no longer any
any need to acquire information. Rather
than transmit information, one was to invest in inculcating thinking skills and/or
dispositions to think. Teaching thinking was in; transmission of knowledge was
out.21
out. 21
However, the intensive concern with research in good thinking, especially the
However,

although I was dimly

although dimly aware of of the fact that it went counter tradition of
counter to our tradition of thought literal,
thought —– literal,
theological, or philosophic
theological, about the phenomenon
philosophic —– about phenomenon of of evil” (ibid.).
(ibid.). According tradition,
According to that tradition,
evil is the product
product ofof deep and tangled feeling and thought:
tangled feeling “However, what
thought: “However, what I was confronted
confronted with
different and still undeniably
utterly different
was utterly factual. I was struck
undeniably factual. struck by a manifest
manifest shallowness
shallowness in the doer
that made
made it impossible trace the uncontestable
impossible to trace uncontestable evil of of his deeds deeper level of
deeds to any deeper of roots
roots or
motives. The deeds
motives. deeds were monstrous,
monstrous, but the doer —– at least the very effective effective one now on trial —– was
quite ordinary,
quite commonplace, and neither
ordinary, commonplace, neither demonic
demonic nor monstrous”
monstrous” (ibid., p. What made
p. 4). What made him
him so
astonishing in his simplicity?
shallow, so astonishing “There was no sign in him
simplicity? “There him ofof fifirm convictions
ideological convictions
rm ideological
of specifi
or of specificc evil motives,
motives, and the only notable characteristic one could
notable characteristic could detect
detect in his past
past behavior
behavior
during the trial and throughout
during pre-trial police
throughout the pre—trial examination was something
police examination something entirely
entirely negative:
negative: it
stupidity but thoughtlessness…
was not stupidity thoughtlessness. .. It was this absenceabsence of of thinking which is so ordinary
thinking —– which ordinary an
experience in our everyday
experience where we have hardly
everyday life, where hardly the time, alone inclination,
time, let alone inclination, to stop and
think –— that awakened
think awakened my interest”
interest” (ibid). Could
Could it be, Arendt
Arendt asked,
asked, that thinking
thinking ofof this kind
kind —– the
habit
habit ofof examining
examining what happens
happens to us and giving attention –
giving it attention connection to the results
— with no connection results
content, can be among
or content, among the conditions
conditions for keeping becoming evil? Arendt
people from becoming
keeping people Arendt does not
thinking on the simple
speak about thinking because everyone
simple level, because thinks all the time. Rather
everyone thinks Rather she is speak-
speak—
ing about the inclination
inclination to stop and think,
think, willingness become engaged
willingness to become engaged in thought,
thought, to ponder
ponder or
things over, to see new aspects,
turn things aspects, to invent possibilities, deviate from
possibilities, to deviate from patterns, make an
patterns, to make
think, to take the risk
effort to think, of thinking,
risk of thinking, to invest in thought,
thought, and to immerse oneself in it. She is
immerse oneself
also not talking about the quality of of thinking –— about critical or creative or any other kind of of thinking.
thinking.
She is talking about stopping
talking about stopping and thinking:
thinking: “all thinking demands stop-and-think”
thinking demands stop—and—think” (ibid., p. p. 78).
speaks of
She speaks of the possibility
possibility that such willingness could keep
willingness could keep people committing evil.
people from committing
2‘
21
Education for
(mistaken) spirit, in Education
In this (mistaken) Critical Thinking I wrote, “The question
for Critical of questions
question of questions of of
education ‘What knowledge
education —– ‘What knowledge is of of the most worth?’ as as Herbert Spencer wrote in the mid- mid—nineteenth
nineteenth
century —– has been replaced
century replaced by teaching questions: What
teaching thinking with other questions: What is the knowledge
knowledge and
what is the model of of teaching knowledge that can best develop thinking
teaching knowledge thinking of of the best kind? In other
education for knowledge
words, education knowledge to be the goal, and education
knowledge takes knowledge education for thinking takes
knowledge as the means.
knowledge Education for knowledge
means. Education focuses on the result,
knowledge focuses result, and education
education for thinking
focuses on the process.
focuses Education for knowledge
process. Education knowledge is aimed at remembering
remembering information, education for
information, education
thinking is aimed at understanding,
thinking applying, and developing
understanding, applying, developing know knowledge. Education for knowledge
ledge. Education knowledge
transmits an uncritical
transmits uncritical view
View ofof knowledge (knowledge reflects
knowledge (knowledge reflects the world, is gradually accumulated,
gradually accumulated,
and is found among experts). Education Education for thinking presents a critical picture
thinking presents of knowledge
picture of knowledge
((knowledge advances with reversals, is based on invention and not only on discovery, depends
knowledge advances depends on
38 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

good thinking of experts, brought leading theorists to the conclusion that there is no
escaping the need for knowledge; knowledge is a necessarynecessary though not suffisufficient
cient
condition for good thinking.
was in no way
This was way a simple return to knowledge or the ordinary scholastic
teaching of knowledge. Advocates of the understanding approach also believed that
the routine teaching of knowledge in schools did not develop good thinking and that
it might even damage it. Proponents of the understanding approach therefore asked,
“under what conditions does knowledge indeed constitute a precondition for good
thinking?” and they answered: “on condition that it is understood,” i.e., i.e., only when
the memory
memory of information —– retaining details of information separately from one
another and from the interest of the knower —– becomes understanding.
demonstrate the relation between thinking and knowledge,
To demonstrate differentiate
knowledge, we can differentiate
three conditions for knowledge.. “Knowledge in the solid state” is
for accumulating knowledge
knowledge whose concepts are are bound to each other in a rigid wayway and which does
not pass the context in which it was acquired to other contexts; it is molded
pass out of the
one context. This kind of knowledge freezes and paralyzes thought (Whitehead
into one
called it “inert knowledge”). “Knowledge in a gaseous
gaseous state” is knowledge whose
concepts are scattered in space
space without any
any connection among
among them and without
any
any framework to unify them. With With knowledge in that state, difficult.
state, thinking is diffi cult.
It is weakened and diluted. Thinking has no links or connections to move across.
“Knowledge in a liquid state” is knowledge
“Knowledge connected in
concepts are connected
knowledge whose concepts
ways and which moves from context to context. Liquid knowledge gives
various ways
thinking fl exibility and movement. Understanding is “the liquid state of know-
flexibility
ledge.” This state is a vital condition for good thinking.
The understanding approach rejects the dichotomy between the teaching of
knowledge and the teaching of thinking, between the teaching of what to think
about and the teaching of how how to think. There is an inner connection between the
what and the howhow.. The relationships between thinking and knowledge are are different
from those between eating and food; the knowledge or, rather, its understanding
constitutes the quality of thinking. There is no good thinking in a general way; way; there
is good thinking by means of certain knowledge. When this knowledge and its
domain –— the field
the field of knowledge or discipline —– are understood, the the thinking about
will be good thinking —
it and through it will – critical, creative, and effective; producing
intelligent decisions, useful solutions, and productive ideas (McPeck 1981 1981,, 1994).
1994).
The inclusion of understanding among
among the three foundational elements of good
thinking might seem surprising: we we “invest” in thinking skills and dispositions in
order to obtain good thinking; good thinking produces understanding; hence, under-
versa. We may
standing is the result of good thinking and not vice versa. may call this logic the

theory and is dependent values. Education

dependent on values. Education for knowledge search for the right
guided by the search
knowledge is guided right
answer, educationfor
answer, and education thinking is guided
for thinking correct explanations
quest for correct
guided by the quest and the search
explanations and search
for good
for good questions; education for knowledge
questions; education fosters a heteronomous
knowledge fosters heteronomous personality; education for
personality; education
thinking develops
thinking autonomous personality.
develops an autonomous Education for knowledge
personality. Education knowledge strengthens founda—
strengthens the founda-
tions of the traditional
tions of traditional industrial
industrial school; education for thinking
school; education thinking challenges these foundations
challenges these foundations and
offers the principles of a ‘smart’
principles of ‘smart’ school”
school” (Harpaz 1996, p.
(Harpaz 1996, chance to repent!
14). This is my chance
p. 14). repent!
 Basic Elements
1.3 The Basic
1.3 of Good
Elements of Good Thinking 39

isolated line of thought

line of this logic, knowledge is “out there” and the
thought.. According to this
mind is “here inside.” The mind produces action –— thinking —– which is projected
upon knowledge; thinking acts upon
outward upon upon knowledge in order to bring it into the
mind; when that operation succeeds, understanding is achieved. Thinking, there-
fore, is action and nothing more, knowledge is content and nothing more, and
understanding is the result of the successful action of thought upon upon knowledge.
The understanding approach is based on a different logic. Let us call it the unify-
ing line ofof thought this line of thought, it is impossible to isolate
thought.. According to this
thinking from understanding (though it can be useful to distinguish between them).
Thinking is not exclusively action but rather action on and with knowledge; when
this knowledge is understood, the action of thinking is better. Hence, understanding
is not (only) the result of good thinking but (also) its source.
What is understanding and what kinds of understanding are vital Vital for good think-
ing? In the literature of teaching thinking, several concepts of understanding are
current. I shall point out two of them in order to emphasize the the advantages of the
second conception, which guides the activity of the community of thinking.
According to one conception, understanding of a concept/idea/principle means
locating it in a rich and relevant context; understanding as location
location:: “To grasp
grasp the
meaning of a thing, an event, or a situation, is to see it in its relations to other things;
to note how it operates functions, what consequences
operates or functions, follow from it, what causes
consequences follow causes it,
1933/1998, p. 137,
(Dewey 1933/1998,
what uses it can put to” (Dewey 137, emphasis
emphasis in original). example,
original). For example,
person understands the concept “democracy” when he sees its relations to other
a person
concepts such as direct and indirect democracy, separation of powers, powers, fundamental
rights, defense of minorities, and the crisis of democracy in the postmodern era. era.
Understanding complex ideas is not a closed task —– understanding them once and
for all —– but an open
open task: the network of concepts is enriched and the the connections
among them are constantly renewed. Understanding the concept “democracy,”
among “democracy,” for
example, is a lifelong project.22
project.22
understanding as locating, as placing in context (which sometimes
Although understanding
creates that celebrated experience of a “click”), is a reasonable and workable con-
cept of understanding, it suffers from weakness of application: other people’s minds
are not accessible to us (fortunately); hence, it is hard to see whether a student has
understood or not —– if if his conceptual networks areare dense or thin. Since it is hard to
see understanding, it is hard to build it and evaluate it. What is to be done? How can
understanding be translated into a public event? One redefines redefines it. That is exactly
what David Perkins did with the idea of “understanding performances.” He defi defined
ned
understanding as the ability to perform cognitive processes
processes with learned concepts/
principles/ideas. Performances are public and available to all, they can be
all, and they
evaluated
evalua ted and improved. Thus, understanding as locating became an understanding
performance —– one performance among among several. “Understanding something is a
matter of being able to think and act fl flexibly you know and are coming to
exibly with what you

22
Dante wrote
Dante wrote that “hell is a place where nothing
place where connects with anything”
nothing connects Gardner 2006,
anything” (cited by Gardner 2006,
p. 45). In this respect, school is a rather
respect, school hellish preparation
rather hellish after death.
preparation for life after death.
40
40 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

know” ((Perkins 446).23

Perkins 2001, p. 446). 23
“So let us view understanding not as a state of
possession but one of enablement. When we we understand something, we not only
possess certain information about it but are enabled to do certain things with that
possess
knowledge. These things that we can do, show understanding, are
do, that exercise and show
called 'understanding performance” ((Perkins 1992, p. 77). A person
Perkins 1992, person understands
something when he is able to express
express it in his own words, to present an example, to
ask a question about it, and to carry
carry out other understanding performances. Perkins
proposes seven understanding performances (Perkins 1998
proposes seven 1998,, pp.
pp. 85–86).
85—86). I propose
propose
18 of them, divided into three categories (see
18 (see Chap. 3 below).
necessary but not suffi
Understanding a subject that is being thought about is a necessary suffi--
cient condition for good thinking. Good thinking demands a new kind of under-
standing. We can distinguish between two types of understanding that together,
according to the understanding approach, comprise the necessary sufficient
necessary and suffi cient
substantive understanding and
thinking: substantive
condition for good thinking: and refl
reflective understanding..
ective understanding
The fi first the subject of thought (the
rst kind of understanding is that of the (the substance that
bears it). It may pre-disciplinary, disciplinary,
may be pre-disciplinary, multidisciplinary,interdisciplinary,
disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary,
meta-disciplinary, rises in the disciplinary
transdisciplinary. The higher it rises
meta-disciplinary, or transdisciplinary. disciplinary hierarchy,
hierarchy,
the more it becomes a “higher-order” understanding. Understanding of the second
kind –— reflective
reflective understanding —– refers to thinking itself or, more precisely, to the
foundations and conditions that make thinking good (this is what teaching thinking
deals with). According to the understanding approach, there are thus two conditions
for good thinking: understanding of the the subject and its discipline and understanding
of the conditions under which thinking becomes good.
how the three approaches to teaching thinking answer the
So far we have seen how
first
fi rst part of the main question: what is the fundamental basis of good thinking?
Let us now see how they respond to the second part: how does one develop the
fundamental element of good thinking?

1.3.4 Instructional ofApproaches

Instructional Systems of Approaches
to Thinking
to Teaching Thinking

The approaches to teaching thinking (an approach = a fundamental element of good

the main question
thinking + an instructional system) respond to the second part of the
by means of their instructional systems
systems.. The instructional systems are conceptual
and practical frameworks intended to impart teaching skills or to cultivate thinking
dispositions or to structure understanding. What is an instructional system made of?

23
These understanding
These understanding performances
performances are likelylikely to recall included in
thinking skills included
recall to us the thinking
Bloom’s famous
Bloom’s famous taxonomy.
taxonomy. They are also likely to remind of what
remind us of what John wrote more than
John Holt wrote
three decades
three decades ago, before
before the appearance
appearance of of the performance conception. Holt said that one feels
performance conception. feels
that one has understood
understood something
something ifif (1) words, (2) if
( 1) one can state it in one’s own words, if one can provide
provide
examples, (3) if
examples, if one can identify it in a variety ofof circumstances
circumstances and disguises,
disguises, (4) if one can see the
(4) if
connections between
connections between it and other
other facts and ideas, if one can use it in various
ideas, (5) if various ways, if one
ways, (6) if
predict some of
can predict of its consequences,
consequences, and (7) if if one can say what is the opposite of it. Holt viewed
opposite of viewed
that list as a tool for distinguishing
distinguishing real from apparent
real from 1964/1982, 136–137).
understanding (Holt 1964/1982,
apparent understanding 136—137).
 Basic Elements
1.3 The Basic
1.3 of Good
Elements of Good Thinking 41
41

Following Lamm (2000), let us defidefine

ne instruction as “education through knowledge,”
knowledge,”
meaning that the uniqueness of scholastic education is that it is done through knowl-
edge; knowledge mediates between the the teacher and the students (in the framework
family, for example, education takes place by means of relationships —
of family, – an occa-
sional conversation, a trip together, a hug, a scolding, etc.). An instructional system
is thus composed of three basic components: a teacher, a student, and knowledge,
knowledge,
specifically,
or, more specifi organization of
cally, it is composed from the organization of knowledge
knowledge,, the spe-
spe-
of the teacher
cial activity of of the
teacher,, and the special activity of student..
the student

1.3.5 The Impartation System

What is thethe composition of the impartation system — the instructional framework

– the
intended to impart thinking skills? The impartation system consists of an order
(taxonomic, hierarchical, or other) of thinking skills intended to be taught (organi-
skills intended to be taught (special acti-
exemplifying skills
zation of the knowledge); of exemplifying
the teacher); and of exercising (special activity of the
vity of the the students). That is, in
teaching thinking skills, the the teacher organizes the knowledge that is meant to be
imparted (thinking skills) into some kind of list. list. This list could be based on logical
(e.g., some skills are derived from others) or on a cluster of selected
connections (e.g.,
skills. Teaching of skills is based on exemplifying —– the the teacher demonstrates how
one uses a certain thinking tool. Imparting skills includes more than that, but exem-
plifying decisive action
plifying is the decisive action in it. The students,
students, for their part, practice the skill that has
part, practice
been demonstrated until they they are
are able to apply it easily and independently (as Robert
Marzano notes, “three things are skills: practice, practice, and
are important in learning skills:
practice”). Learning to use skills passes passes through four stages: unconscious absence
skill, conscious absence of the skill,
of the skill, skill, conscious mastery of the skill, skill, and
unconscious mastery of the the skill.
skill. The ideal thinker of the skills approach, therefore,
thinker.
“thoughtless,” skillful thinker.
is an automatic, “thoughtless,”
The pattern of impartation can be presented mechanically: the pattern of impar-
tation breaks thought mechanism up into a series of thought processes; processes; it repairs (or
upgrades) each thought process
process in turn by means of appropriate skills; it restores the
thought processes
processes –
— now
now trained –
— to the thought mechanism; it performs quality

control (Beyer 19881988,, p. 52).

52).
The impartation system is a type of instruction intended to inculcate thinking
skills. Hence, it belongs to a broader type of instruction intended to inculcate skills
of all kinds.24
kinds.24 This type of instruction is usually disparaged. It is seen as training, as
conditioning, as “drill and kill.” However, this teaching pattern is not inherently
kill.” However,
bad. What is bad about it derives from the context in which it is applied. When
thinking and other skills are imposed on learners, and they they are
are detached from the
learners’ goals and choices, the the instruction type used to impart them indeed dam-
ages
ages intellectual development with its implicit and explicit messages. messages. But when the

Zvi Lamm
24Zvi
24
Lamm ((1976) called them the “imitation
1976) called “imitation pattern,” Gary Fenstennacher
pattern,” Gary Fenstermacher and Jonas Soltis
Jonas Soltis
called them the “execution
(1986) called
(1986) “execution approach,” Israel Scheffl
approach,” and Israel Scheffler called them
(1964/1989) called
er (1964/1989) them the
model.”
“impression model.”
“impression
42 of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community
11 Teaching The Context
Context

learners are interested in the skills, this type of instruction is the most effective way
way
of imparting them. Since the students in a school generally have no interest in the
the criticism of this teaching pattern is justified.
skills offered to them, the justified. It is espe-
espe-
cially justified we are talking about a system of impartation that pretends to
justified when we
impart skills of critical, creative, and independent thinking to school children.

1.3.6 Cultivation System

The Cultivation System

Thinking dispositions are are developed by means of a cultivation system — – a frame-

work whose goal is to cultivate thinking dispositions (or to form the the intellectual
character). The cultivation system is different from the impartation system not only
in its components but also in its substance. The impartation system is a direct mode
of instruction; the cultivation system is indirectindirect.. As noted, instruction was defi defined
ned
as “education through knowledge,” but knowledge has a marginal place in the
cultivation system. Lectures on thinking dispositions will not help very very much to
cultivate them; organized lectures on open open thinking, for example, will not contribute
much to its development. Dispositions are are nurtured in people’s minds only
indirectly, not by transmitting knowledge about them, but by a “culture of thinking”
that “transmits” thinking dispositions in various ways ways (cf. Tishman et al. 1995 1995).).
More precisely, cultivation consists
precisely, the pattern of cultivation consists of modeling
modeling (the special
special activity
identification
of the teacher), identifi cation (special activity of the students), and explicit concern
with thinking dispositions (organization of knowledge). The model or modeling or
personal example is different from the demonstration of behavior that is dominant
in the impartation system. In the cultivation system, the teacher must embody in his
personality and conduct the dispositions that he wishes to nurture (otherwise, as
Robert Sternberg says, says, he is like a teacher preaching while smoking). However, However, a
model is effective only when it arouses identifi identification.
cation. If the students don’t respect
the teacher and don’t want to be like him in any any way, the teacher’s model conduct or
way, the
thinking has no value. Identifi
Identification
cation is required for internalization; internalization is
the way
way that thinking dispositions and character traits are acquired.
As noted, cultivation system
noted, the cultivation indifferent to knowledge;
largely indifferent
system is largely possible to
knowledge; it is possible
thinking
foster thinking dispositions
dispositions by dealing
dealing with any knowledge.
knowledge. However,
However, the cultivation
cultivation
system
system is not indifferent
indifferent to one kind of knowledge:
knowledge: about the thinking dispositions
thinking dispositions
themselves. Explicit
themselves. Explicit concern thinking dispositions
concern with thinking dispositions strengthens
strengthens their infl influence;
uence;
discussion of the concept
discussion concept “critical
“critical thinking,”
thinking,” for example,
example, helps foster it and promotes
promotes
its intelligent internalization.Content
intelligent internalization. indifferent to thinking
entirely indifferent
Content itself is not entirely thinking dispo-
sitions. Content that includes
sitions. Content includes personalities
personalities (real or fifictional) who model the exemplary
ctional) who exemplary
dispositions intellectualtraits and arouse
dispositions or intellectual identification
arouse identifi helpful. The dialogues
cation can be helpful. dialogues
whose hero,
example, whose
of Plato, for example, hero, Socrates, “ultimate thinker,” can have great
Socrates, is the “ultimate
cultivating power. Of course,
cultivating thinkers populate
good thinkers
course, good populate a variety works of art.
variety of works art.25
25

25
In my article,
article, “Complementary
“Complementary Approaches
Approaches to Teaching Thinking: The Landscapes
Teaching Thinking: Landscapes ofof David
David
Perkins’ Thought
Perkins’ about Teaching
Thought about Teaching Thinking”
Thinking” (Harpaz 2000b),), I suggested
(Harpaz 2000b suggested watching times)
watching (several times)
William Friedkin’s 1977
William Friedkin’s 1977 movie, Angry Men (or the original
Twelve Angry
movie, Twelve film
original fi directed by Sidney
lm directed Lumet
Sidney Lumet
 Basic Elements
1.3 The Basic
1.3 of Good
Elements of Good Thinking 43

The cultivation system seeks to foster cognitive traits or intellectual character

and, thus, it belongs to a broader type of instruction that seeks to develop traits of all
kinds or the
the character in general. 26
general.26 the type of instruction intended to impart
Like the
skills, this type of instruction has also been disparaged in the the climate of opinion
prevalent in the past decades. It has been called “indoctrination” or “an effort to play
God” (think of the educational maxim of S. Yizhar, Yizhar, a renowned Israeli writer:
educatel”). This criticism, however, is misplaced. The cultivation
“Teach, don’t educate!”).
this character is based
system holds that while it seeks to form intellectual character, this
on dispositions to critical and creative thinking, which is to say independence or
autonomy of thought.

1.3.7 Construction System

The Construction

sake of understanding by means of a system of construction —

One teaches for the sake –a
(“constructi0n” here
framework of instruction intended to construct understanding (“construction”
refers to encouraging building “from within” by the learner, and not “from the
outside” by any authority).27
any authority).
27
The construction system imparts the following content
the instruction system: organization of knowledge —
to the elements of the – ““big ideas””
big ideas
or ““essential
essential problems”; the teacher’s special activity is stimulating or
problems”; the or undermining
undermining;;
student’s special activity is investigative
the student’s learning.. The “big ideas” (such as
investigative learning
Marxism, psychoanalysis, evolution, the theory of relativity, but not only mega- mega-
theories of that kind; “smaller” ideas also construct understanding) that address
“essential problems” have great explanatory power power and promote understanding —–
many phenomena and assist in their comprehension. “Big ideas” place
they explain many
facts and events in context, a complex, a Gestalt, and give give them meaning (God is in
the whole, not just in the details). The distinct function of the teacher who teaches
for understanding is to stimulate motivation for investigative
investigative learning by awakening
interest or by undermining
interest undermining basic assumptions
assumptions and preconceptions
preconceptions (see Chap. 3
the importance of undermining). Because understanding is constructed, not
on the
absorbed, the most characteristic activity in classrooms where teaching for under-
standing takes place is active student investigation —– the asking of questions and the
search for knowledge that will answer them.
Understanding is not transmitted from one mind to another like an object. It must
be constructed in every
every person’s mind. As Duckworth said: said:
Thoughts are our way of
Thoughts of connecting
connecting things
things up for ourselves. If others
ourselves. If others tell us about
about the
connections they have made,
connections made, we can only understand them
only understand them to the extent
extent that we do the
work of
work of making these connections
making these connections ourselves.
ourselves. Making must be a personal
connections must
Making connections personal

40 years earlier)
earlier) to take inspiration
inspiration from the good thinking of the hero of
thinking of of the fifilm
lm –— a juror who,
who, with
sensitivity and intelligence,
sensitivity intelligence, persuades others to change
persuades the others their minds.
change their minds.
2"
26
Lamm called
Lamm called this the “formation
“formation pattern” (Lamm 1976
pattern” (Lamm 1976); Fenstermacher and Soltis
); Fenstermacher Soltis (1986) called
(1986) called
“liberation pattern,”
it the “liberation Kieran Egan ((1997)
pattern,” and Kieran called it the “Platonic
1997) called “Platonic pattern.”
pattern.”
27
Mortimer Adler
Mortimer Adler (1982) called
called the structuring
structuring system meiotic method”;
system “the meiotic Scheffler
method”; Scheffl ( 1964/1989)
er (1964/1989)
called it “the insight
called model.”
insight model.”
44
44 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

Table 1.7 The basic

basic components of the teaching
components of teaching thinking
thinking systems
systems
The systems of teaching
systems of teaching
thinking—>—
thinking →
impartation
The impartation cultivation
The cultivation construction
The construction
components ↓i
The components system
system system
system system
system
organization of
The organization of Ordering
Ordering Explicitness
Explicitness “Big ideas”; “essential
ideas”; “essential
knowledge
knowledge problems”
problems”
activity
Teacher’s activity Exemplifying
Exemplifying Modeling
Modeling Stimulating through
Stimulating through
undermining
undermining
Student’s activity
Student’s activity Practicing
Practicing Identifying
Identifying Investigative learning
Investigative learning

elaboration, sometimes a person

elaboration, and sometimes simply not capable
person is simply of making
capable of connections that
making the connections
trying to point out. (Duckworth
someone is trying
someone 1996,, p. 26)
(Duckworth 1996

understand for you.

short, no one can understand
In short, Since this is so, the model of construction,
you. Since
like that of cultivation, is an indirect method of instruction, although knowledge
does play a central role in it.
The construction system is attacked less frequently than the previous systems of
difficult
instruction because it is diffi oppose it: who can object to teaching for under-
cult to oppose
standing? What teacher could say something like, like, “I’m teaching about processes
processes
the cell of an organism, and I hope that the students won’t under-
that take place in the
stand it!”? The construction system managesmanages to tiptoe between the the raindrops —–
between education in which the curriculum is central and education in which the
child is central. The construction system respects cultural content, on the one hand,
and the (primary or authentic) personal motivations of each student, on the other —–
and especially the connection between the two. two. Hence, the construction system is an
integral part of the third model.
Table 1.7
Table 1.7 summarizes the basic elements of the instructional systems.

1.3.8 The Matrons of Thinking

of Teaching Thinking

The approaches to teaching thinking are not oblivious to each other. Each approach
believes that it encompasses
encompasses the rivals, meaning that its basic foundation contains
the other basic foundations or that, in any
any case, it leads to the results that the
necessary to make a reduction of
others seek to attain. Hence, it is necessary of the other two
approaches.
To fully appreciate how the
the reductionist argument works, let us listen in on a rare
recording of a tense encounter between the three matrons of teaching thinking —–
Madam Skills, Madam Dispositions, and Madam Understanding.
Madam Skills
Skills:: You wouldn’t believe how
how long I’ve been waiting for the opportunity
to tell you,
you, Madam Dispositions and Madam Understanding, how much I admire
your
your contribution to our common concern – teaching thinking. Good thinking is
—

without doubt a product of thinking dispositions and understanding, not to mention

the most important foundation of good thinking. The three
thinking skills, probably the
 Basic Elements
1.3 The Basic
1.3 of Good
Elements of Good Thinking 45

vital to good thinking.

of us are all vital thinking. But,
But, you if any of us were
know, if
you know, were to co-opt teaching
thinking, teaching thinking, which is so precious to us, is liable to be injured. We
have to pool our resources! I’m convinced that the best thing to do is to unite under
my
my leadership, that is, to concentrate educational effort on imparting thinking skills.
any special interest in protecting myself, but skillful thinking on this
Not that I have any
will convince you
matter will you that prolonged practice of thinking skills produces the
that, in any
appropriate thinking dispositions, and that, any case,
case, the result of skillful thinking
is understanding. For example, when you you endow a child with a skill skill like classifica-
like classifica-
tion, comparison, or deduction, by the same token you you develop within him the dis- dis-
position to classify, compare, and, in addition, the disposition to suspend
compare, and deduce and,
judgment. And when you you teach them to apply those skills and others to a certain
subject, in any case youyou construct understanding of that subject. So teaching think-
ing according to my my approach will produce the same results as your your approaches —–
dispositions and understanding. You, dear sisters, are are welcome by-products of my my
invite you
actions. I invite you to come in under the wings of my my approach.
Madam Dispositions:
Dispositions: Thank you,
you, Madam Skills, for your your kind invitation. I would
accept it willingly if I thought that I, with all my my dispositions, could dwell with
security in the shadow of your
your approach. I, too,
too, have no special interest in preserv-
preserv-
ing my
my independent existence at any
any cost. What motivates me is to protect what is
precious to us all, teaching thinking, and that demands an independent dispositions
approach. Why? Because Madam Skills Skills can’t
can’t guarantee proper
proper thinking dispositions.
Proper thinking dispositions are not the product of practicing skills, the way way electri-
cal energy
energy is produced by a generator. Sometimes the enforced and wearisome prac-
prac-
tice of skills actually gives rise to the opposite thinking dispositions –— negative ones.
Ask schoolchildren. They’ll tell you. you. And even if if we assume for the the moment that
practicing skills creates appropriate dispositions –— for example, that practicing the
skill of making comparisons cultivates a trained disposition to compare compare —– I have no
specific
interest in specifi c dispositions that depend on one
one skill or another. I’m interested in
general, global dispositions, which produce many many skills. For example, the disposi-
tion to critical thinking –— which, by the way,
way, is a disposition, as correctly argued by
my
my friend John Passmore in his classic article on teaching critical thinking, and not
a wearisome cluster of skills, as thethe champions of your your approach mistakenly claim,
e.g.,
e.g., Ennis28
Ennis 28 —
– will motivate the critical thinker to find
fi nd and invent many
many critical
thinking skills. And that’s exactly the point: the impartation of skills does not pro- pro-
duce a disposition, but the fostering of a disposition does produce skills –— many many
skills. Anyone who has a disposition for something searches and fi finds
nds the skills that
will make it possible. Therefore, Madam Skills, I invite you
possible. Therefore, you to come into the
shelter of my
my approach. In any
any event you’re already there. And you,
you, too, Madam
Understanding,
Understanding, are also there. If
If a person
person has a disposition for something, she has
understanding,
understanding, at least an elementary understanding, of the subject of her interest,
and that disposition motivates her to attain further understanding. Where there’s a
will, there’s a way,
way, as the saying goes.
goes. In short, unbiased thinking, that is, is, thinking

Passmore, J. ((1980).
28Passmore,
28
teaching to be critical. In The philosophy
1980). On teaching of teaching
philosophy of teaching (pp. 166–182).
166—182).
London: Duckworth.
London: Duckworth.
46
46 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

motivated by the disposition

motivated intellectual honesty, and open-minded
disposition for intellectual open-minded thinking,
thinking,
intellectual empathy, will bring you
thinking motivated by the disposition for intellectual you to
the inescapable conclusion that teaching thinking must be committed to the
approach that I proudly serve —– the dispositions approach.
Madam Understanding
Understanding:: How interesting! A little while ago ago I met a woman. I got the
impression that she wasn’t a bad thinker at all. On the the contrary, she was equipped
with all the thinking skills you you can imagine: skills in logical thinking, in critical
thinking, in problem solving,
thinking, in creative thinking, solving, in decision making, and so on.
Moreover, motivated by many
Moreover, she was motivated many excellent thinking dispositions: a disposition
to systematic thinking, to adventurous thinking, to thinking about thinking, and so
on. Yet, for some reason, she talked … how
on. how should I put it? … nonsense. Yes, her
thinking was frightfully poor, creativity, criticism, or effectiveness. I
poor, lacking in creativity,
wondered howhow a woman with such potential and her thought was so shallow. shallow. Why?
Based on understandings that I constructed in the past, I reached the the conclusion that
what she lacked was understanding of the the subject we were talking about. Yes, she
simply didn’t understand it well.well. She
She lacked vital concepts for understanding it, or
else they were terribly weakly connected. Understanding, understanding the subject
being thought about and with which we we think, is the basis of good thinking! As my my
friend Robert Sternberg says, you
says, you have to know something about mountains before
you them. Madam Skills,
you set about leveling them. Skills, you understand: if a person
you really must understand: person is
understanding
equipped with understanding of the subject he’s
he’s thinking about, he’ll have no prob-
lem implementing all the the skills you’ve worked on — – sorting, analyzing, comparing,
like. Madam Dispositions, you
and the like. you have to understand that all the dispositions
you
you work on are included in understanding, because to understand something means
deeply, the disposition to think deeply; to take an interest in it, the
to delve into it deeply,
disposition to curiosity; to see it from surprising angles, the the disposition to daring
thought; and so on.on. Furthermore, understanding arouses motivation; understanunderstanding
ding
act. In short,
is the disposition to act. short, the concept of understanding includes your your central
concepts, Madam Skills and Madam Dispositions. Ladies, why fi fight? We’re all
ght? We’re
members of the same family, Let’s unite around me.
family, the family of teaching thinking. Let’s me.
No one will be slighted. My category —– understanding –— is rich and generous. generous. It
includes you,
you, whether or not you agree.
you agree.
Of course we could prolong the conversation amongamong those ladies, but even
without further elaboration, it’s clear: each approach has an inherent tendency
argue that it’s possible and correct to be
to include the other approaches and to argue
content with it alone, because it and only it deals with the basic foundation of
good thinking, and the foundations of of the other approaches are included in or
conditioned on it. However, this strategy of of elimination by reduction doesn’t
work: the fact remains that there are three approaches to teaching thinking, not
one.29
two and not one. 29

29
In book, Fishing
In my book, Fishing Pole Bait, and
Pole,, Bait, and Fish:
Fish: Approaches find
Thinking,, I tried to fi
Approaches to Teaching Thinking nd justi—
justi-
fications
fi hermeneutic and ontological
cations –— hermeneutic ontological —– for the existence of the three,
existence of three, no more
more and no less,
approaches to teaching
approaches teaching thinking
thinking (2005, pp. 391–395).
391—395).
 Basic Elements
1.3 The Basic
1.3 of Good
Elements of Good Thinking 47

Ideological and
1.3.9 Ideological Metaphorical Biases
and Metaphorical

controversy between the approaches

The controversy approaches to teaching thinking is not only only ontological,
that is, around the question of what is the fundamental element of good thinking, but
also ideological, which is to say, around the question of who a good thinker is. Let
us explain.
As Zvi Lamm has shown (2000; http://Zvilamm-archive.org/contact_heb.html),
http://zvilamm-archive.org/contact_heb.html),
educational theories have a conceptual structure similar to ideologies rather than to
scientificc theories. Educational theories are in fact ideologies disguised as scientifi
scientifi scientificc
theories.30
theories. 30
The conceptual structure of an ideology consists of four components or
types of statements: eschatology (or utopia utopia),31
),31 the image of the world as it should
be; diagnosis
diagnosis,, a description of the world as it is; strategy
strategy,, the means of transforming
the world that is into the world as it should be; be; and collective the public that the
collective,, the
ideology addresses and urgesurges to implement its ideas and perfect the world. Let us
take the example of Zionist ideology: the Utopia was for the Jewish people to
establish a sovereign state in its ancient homeland; the diagnosis was that the Jews
suffer from anti-Semitism everywhere; the strategy was Zionist education, illegal
immigration, the establishment of settlements, adding “another acre, another goat”;
the collective was the Jewish people.
and the
Educational theories have a similar structure to social ideologies, but their con-
tent is different. The theories of teaching thinking have content peculiar to them, as
Table 1.8
shown in Table 1.8..
The utopian component of educational theories (henceforth, we will call them
ideologies) informs the image of the educated person person or the desired graduate; the
component
diagnostic component informs the theories about the child, of the society,
nature of the child, society,
of knowledge, and so on on”;
32
; the strategic component informs the didactic methods;
collective component informs
and the collective informs an appeal to those
those in a society
society who are capable
of effecting the change. When we want to observe the nature of an educational

30In
30
education people
In education frequently claim that research
people frequently something, but it is doubtful
research has shown something, doubtful
whether research
whether research in education
education really important things.
really shows important things. It certainly doesn’t show what the
certainly doesn’t
goals of
goals of education
education are (see Egan 2002 2002).). Egan,
Egan, by the way, argues of educational
source of
argues that the source educational
goals is autobiographical:
goals autobiographical: the image image ofof the educated
educated person, embodies the goals
person, who embodies of education,
goals of education,
“people like us, but without
is in fact “people without our defects”
defects” (Egan 19991999,, p. 79). Lamm,
Lamm, as noted,
noted, argues
argues that
their source
their source is in ideology. education is an autobiographical-ideological
ideology. In short, education autobiographical—ideological business.
business.
3‘
31
“utopia,” rather
prefer the term “utopia,”
I prefer “eschatology.” The latter term is taken
rather than “eschatology.” taken from the vocabulary
vocabulary
of theology
of alludes to passive
theology and alludes waiting for redemption,
passive waiting whereas the former
redemption, whereas former entails
entails action
action and
achieve it.
striving to achieve
striving it. Perhaps “vision” would
Perhaps the word “vision” would be better.
32According
32
Lamm, the essence
According to Lamm, essence ofof an ideology “infusion” of
ideology is the “infusion” of its four components.
components. In this
infusion, each component
infusion, authentic meaning
component loses its authentic distorted. Thus,
meaning and is distorted. Thus, for example,
example, an
appropriate diagnosis
appropriate diagnosis adapts itself to a utopia
adapts itself strategy becomes
utopia and a strategy becomes a tenet of faith from which
tenet of which
one must not stray (in Zionism,
Zionism, e.g., the diagnosis anti—Semitismeverywhere
diagnosis —– there is anti-Semitism everywhere —– is incor-
incor—
rect, and the strategy, rapid
rect, establishment of
rapid establishment of settlements
settlements (known
(known as “wall“wall and watchtower”),
watchtower”),
assumed a ritual
assumed extended beyond
ritual status and was extended beyond the period This infusion
rational). This
period when it was rational). infusion
explains the diagnostic
explains disagreement between
diagnostic disagreement between the various
various educational
educational ideologies.
ideologies. For example,
example,
according to some of
according of them, the child is evil from birth (irrational, selfi selfish, “childish”),
sh, lazy —– in short, “childish”),
others, the child is good from
according to others,
and according from birth creative, honest,
(curious, creative,
birth (curious, honest, kind,
kind, etc.).
48 of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community
11 Teaching The Context
Context

ideological structure
Table 1.8 The ideological of educational
structure of educational theories
theories
of
Types of
ideologies →
ideologies —>

Components
Components
of ideology ↓l
of ideology Societal ideology
Societal ideology Educational ideology
Educational ideology Teaching thinking
Teaching thinking ideology
ideology
Utopia
Utopia image of
An ideal image of the An ideal image
image ofof the image of
An ideal image of the
desired society
desired society “educated person”
“educated person” thinker”
“good thinker”
“good
Diagnosis
Diagnosis Description and
Description Description and analysis
Description analysis Description and analysis
Description of
analysis of
analysis of
analysis of the of the defects
of of real
defects of real defective thinkers
defective thinkers
defects of
defects of the real
real students (in the light
students of the ideal
(in the light of ideal
world (in the light of ideal
of ideal image
image ofof the image of
image of the good
good
of the ideal
of ideal image
image educated person)
educated person) thinker)
thinker)
of the world)
of world)
Strategy
Strategy Means to turn the real
Means Pattern of teaching,
Pattern of teaching, Pattern of teaching,
Pattern of teaching,
world into the method of
method of assessment,
assessment, method of
method of assessment,
assessment,
desired one
desired organization of
organization of the of the
organization of
organization
curriculum, etc. that
curriculum, curriculum, etc. that
curriculum,
turn concrete students
concrete students concrete thinkers
turn concrete thinkers
educated persons
into educated persons thinkers
into good thinkers
Collective
Collective deprived people
The deprived educators, parents,
people or The educators, parents, educators, parents,
The educators, parents,
order
social order students, and other
students, others
students, and others
students,
publics
publics who can make make the
who can make
change
the change change
change

first
theory (ideology), we must fi idea] fi
rst identify its underlying utopian or ideal figure
gure of the
educated person.
person.
gure below presents three approaches —– ideologies —– to teaching thinking:
figure
The fi

The ideology
The ideology of teaching thinking
thinking
The sub-ideology
The sub-ideologyof the
the
skills approach The sub-ideology
The sub-ideologyof the
the
dispositionsapproach
dispositions approach
0
.
O
Theories and
Theories and 0O
programs
Theories and
Theories and
C>programso programs
programs
O O
The the
su b-ideology of the
The sub-ideology O
0
understandingapproach
understanding approach
O O
Theoriesand
Theories and
programs
programs
O o0

In summary, the approaches are

summary, teaching thinking consists of three approaches; the
ideologies; the ideologies of teaching thinking depend upon
upon the three different ideal
figures
fi gures of the good thinker.
 Basic Elements
1.3 The Basic
1.3 of Good
Elements of Good Thinking 49

The skills approach rests uponupon the ideal image of a good thinker as a practical or
efi‘icient
effi thinker.. The effi
cient thinker efficiency
ciency of a good thinker, according to the skills approach,
has an inner and an outer dimension. With respect to the the former, a good thinker
performs cognitive actions effi efficiently:
ciently: making decisions, solving problems, making
generalizations, classifying, comparing, and so on, with speed and precision. With With
respect to the inner dimension, effi efficient person attain his or
cient thinking is what helps a person
her practical goals. 33
goals.33
The dispositions approach is guided by the the ideal image of a good thinker as a
thinker.. The wise thinker is (mainly) judged by his thinking dispositions and
wise thinker
cognitive abilities (which can be measured by psychometric examinations).
not by his cognitive
He or she is motivated by dispositions that have an intrinsic value that does not
He
depend on utility or effi efficiency.
ciency. Sometimes they even are opposed to the thinker’s
wise thinker’s dispositions are embodied in values that a given culture
utility. The wise
utility.
holds in high regard. Western culture, for example, admires values like like creativity,
openness, depth, being systematic, awareness,
originality, criticism, independence, openness,
empathy, and so on. on.
understandingapproach
The understanding approach is guided by the ideal image of a good thinker who is
expert and
an expert learned.. This
and learned This thinker is a master of the subjects about which and by
thinks. But she is master not only
means of which she thinks. only of them (for she is not simply
expert) but also of the basic ideas
an expert) ideas of the given expertise per-
given culture. This cultural expertise per-
well, for a good thinker always thinks well
mits her to think well, well within a given
given culture.
The approaches to teaching thinking, therefore, inevitably are ideologically
biased toward a certain image of of a good thinker. These biases are part of more
general images of the good person life. The controversy among
person or the good life. among the
approaches to teaching thinking is, therefore, not only ontological (what is the basic
element of good thinking?) but also ideological. People decide in favor of one
approach or another toward teaching
approach teaching thinking ideological
thinking based on their own ideological
horizon. Ideological determinations in education are not irrelevant. They are, are, as
Lamm taught, the epitome of relevance.
Inevitably, the approaches to education also have metaphorical biases;; they
metaphorical biases
tend toward certain metaphors of good thinking. According to George Lakoff and
Mark Johnson, “Metaphor is for most people a device of the the poetic imagination and
the rhetorical fl flourish
ourish —– a matter of extraordinary rather than ordinary language.
[However,] the way
[However,] way wewe think, what wewe experience, and what we do every day is very
every day very
much a matter of metaphor” ((Lakoff Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1980, p.
p. 3). Thus, for example,
we talk about thinking using four fundamental metaphors: thinking as moving
we moving

33
Critical creative thinking
Critical and creative thinking –— the two forms of of thinking
thinking that teaching
teaching thinking
thinking seeks to foster —–
necessarily practical
are not necessarily efficient
practical or effi creative thinkers
(critical and creative
cient (critical always benefit
thinkers do not always from
benefit from
of their thinking
the fruit of thinking —– take the example
example of of Socrates). framework of
Socrates). However, in the framework of skills, the
principle of effi
principle of efficiency influences
ciency infl conception of
uences the conception of them.
them. That
That is, when forms
forms ofof thinking
thinking undergo
undergo
reduction
reduction to skills, the principle of effi
principle of efficiency instrumentality is implicit
ciency or instrumentality implicit in the concept of skills
concept of
and takes control of them.
control of them. See, for example,
example, how Scriven
Scriven ((1993,
1993, p. 34) and Halpern (1965, p. 5)
Halpern (1965, 5)
define
define critical thinking as effective and practical
practical thinking and how de Bono defi defines
nes lateral thinking –—
creative thinking —– as effective and practical of lateral thinking,
practical in all his books (if you apply the tools of thinking,
you’ll make money).
you’ll money).
50 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

(wandering, stuck, skipping, staying away, away, slowing down, following, reaching a
conclusion, arriving at a point,
conclusion, thinking as perceiving
point, etc.); thinking (seeing, covering
perceiving (seeing,
up,
up, hiding, fifinding,
nding, pointing, shedding light, getting the picture, deaf to opposing
ideas, etc.); thinking as object manipulation (playing with an idea, turning an idea
over, exchanging ideas, hold ideas up to scrutiny,
over, scrutiny, putting an idea under microscope,
crafting, shaping, fashioning ideas, etc.); and thinking as eating (swallowing,
digesting, chewing on ideas, thirst for knowledge, appetite for learning, half-baked
ideas, warmed-over theories, etc.) ((LakoffLakoff and Johnson 1999,1999, pp. 235—244).3434
pp. 235–244).
In order to understand theories and the the questions to which they respond, we must
metaphors that guide them.
identify the main metaphors them. What, then,
then, are the essential metaphors
that guide the approaches to teaching thinking?
The main metaphor guiding the skills approach is the toolbox toolbox:: the mind is seen
as a bundle of instruments adapted to the treatment of given problems. Skilled
thinking means thinking that makes correct use of thinking tools. This metaphor for
skilled use of tools that are stored in the mind appears
good thinking as the skilled appears frequently
in the writings of thethe theoreticians of teaching thinking, even those whose approach
is not exclusively the the skills approach (cf. Lipman 1991 1991,, p. 28; Perkins 1995
p. 28; 1995,, p. 15;
15;
2002,, p. xi; Treffi
Reid 2002 Treffinger 1994;; Whimby and Lochead 1982;
nger et al. 1994 1982; de Bono 19701970).).
The main metaphor that guides the dispositions approach is deep currents currents:: deep,
hidden currents of defi definite
nite direction guide our intellectual behaviors. This metaphor
explicitly, but that doesn’t lessen its power.
is not used explicitly, the contrary, an implicit
power. On the
metaphor has more power power than an explicit one,one, for it cannot be criticized or con-
trolled. The existence of this metaphor is evidenced by the essence of the disposi-
tions approach, according to which thinking as a cognitive activity is a kind of
surface phenomenon, epiphenomenon, beneath which deeper forces swirl —–
phenomenon, an epiphenomenon,
dispositions, traits,
dispositions, traits, attitudes,
attitudes, emotions. Whoever wishes
emotions. Whoever thinking has to direct
wishes to teach thinking
his action toward
toward these
these deep currents and not to the cognitive
cognitive processes themselves.
processes themselves.
The main metaphor of the understanding approach is the network network:: to understand
something means to place it in the warp warp and weft of meanings. A concept is under-
stood (not entirely; understanding is an open-ended task, it is always partial and
labile; the network expands infi nitely and the connections change) only in relation
infinitely
to other concepts. Good thinking is conditioned on a dense network of concepts that
touch upon
upon the subject about which one one is thinking (cf. Boix-Mansilla and Gardner
1998 174; Fisher 1990
1998,, p. 174; 1990,, p. 85; Salomon and Perkins 1996 1996;; Marzano et al. 1988 ).35
1988).35
The disagreement between the approaches to teaching thinking is therefore
deep. Each approach expresses comprehensive world view
expresses a comprehensive View with
with explicit arguments

3“
34
One can ofof course of further
think of
course think further metaphors
metaphors for thinking.
thinking. Concepts
Concepts such as “deep
“deep thought”
thought” and
“superficial
“superfi thought” are based
cial thought” which, in Rorty’s metaphorical
metaphors which,
based on metaphors metaphorical language, “dead
language, are “dead
metaphors” —– metaphors
metaphors” metaphors that we no longer
longer perceive
perceive as metaphorical. “metaphor” is
metaphorical. The very term “metaphor”
metaphorical.
metaphorical.
35The
35
performance conception
The performance conception ofof understanding, which supports
understanding, which framework of
supports the framework of teaching
teaching and
leaming in a community
learning community of of thinking, alternative to the network
thinking, is an alternative network conception of understanding.
conception of understanding.
By the way, in the book edited by M. S. Wiske, Teaching for
book edited which is
(1998), which
Understanding (1998),
for Understanding based
is based
alternative conception
on the alternative conception of of performance, network conception
performance, the network articles.
conception sneaks into several articles.
It is very difficult
very diffi dislodge the conception
cult to dislodge of understanding
conception of understanding as bound
bound up of network
up in some sort of network
of representations
of representations that we have in our minds.
minds.
 Basic Elements
1.3 The Basic
1.3 of Good
Elements of Good Thinking 51

and implicit biases that strengthen its foundational element. The essence of this
disagreement can be summed up by a play on the familiar Chinese proverb “Give “Give a
man a fi sh and feed him for a day;
fish day; teach a man to fi fish lifetime.”
and feed him for a lifetime.”
sh and
the preferred antithesis to “giving a man a fi
As the fish” “old education”), the
sh” (the “old the motto
skills approach would be “give
of the skills fishing
“give the child a fi the dis-
shing pole;” the motto of the dis-
positions approach would be “give the motto of the
“give the child bait;” and the the understand-
ing approach would be “show“show the child around the fi fishing pond.”36 The skills
shing pond.”36
approach maintains that teaching thinking must give fishing
give children tools (a fishing pole)
for use with information of all kinds. The dispositions approach maintains that teach-
motivation (bait)
give children motivation
ing thinking must give (bait) to implement thinking skills of one
kind or another, to think in one
one way
way or another, or to think at all. The understanding
approach argues give the children understanding of the
argues that teaching thinking must give
fields
fields of knowledge or disciplines (the fishing
(the fishing pond) to which the subjects they are
thinking about belong.

1.3.10 Approach Is
Which Approach Correct?
Is Correct?

Why get drawn into this this barren controversy?

controversy?Why who’s right? Let’s not
Why try to decide who’s
be right, smart! To be smart in this case
right, let’s be smart! case means to do it all: to impart thinking
cultivate thinking dispositions,
skills, to cultivate
skills, understanding.If good think-
dispositions, and to construct understanding. think-
skills + thinking
ing = thinking skills thinking dispositions
dispositions + understanding,
understanding, then teaching thinking
impartation + a system of cultivation
system of impartation
= a system construction.
cultivation + a system of construction.
What’s so bad about that? Why not develop the three essential foundations of
good thinking by means of three instructional systems? Indeed, one’s one’s heart is drawn
to that harmonizing approach (Dewey thought that the the source of all defective think-
ing is wishful thinking), but a simple combination of the the three approaches won’t
work. Before dealing with that disheartening assertion, let’s let’s review what we’ve
established up up to now (Table 1.9
now (Table 1.9).
).
The approaches to teaching thinking are like families (or metatheories or
metaprograms), to which the theories and programs programs of teaching thinking belong.
Some of the theories and programs
programs belong to two or three of the the families at the
the same
time, but almost all of the theories and plans have one “true” family, family, that is, a domi-
nant approach that is reflected
reflected in it more powerfully than the other two approaches.
now return to the original question: why
Let us now why not combine the three approaches
and impart thinking skills, cultivate thinking dispositions, and construct understand-
may be possible and even worthwhile doing that,
ing? It may that, but not by means of simple
combination,because each approach
combination, entails a general
approach entails view on teaching
general world view teachingthinking
thinking
and on education in general. If teaching thinking aims to be effective –— to infl influence
uence
the learners’ minds –— it must be coherent and embrace one one approach, that is, a theory
or theories, a plan or plans that belong to the the same family. But, one might object,
family. But,
when youyou stick to oneone approach, you you neglect the development of the the elements of

3"’“Knowing
36
around” is Perkin’s
“Knowing your way around” Perkin’s metaphor
metaphor for understanding.
understanding. Understanding,
Understanding, as you
noticed, is a metaphorical
noticed, term.
metaphorical term.
 03:5
:0

:4
5:555
Table 1.9 Summary of good thinking

:00M
M5555

550:05:<
Approaches →

555050550
H
H

05
555
05
059

5
50:55:50
The skills approach The dispositions approach The understanding approach

50:05::
50:05::
50:05::

M:5:::50:::
Characteristics ↓

I
05:00:

500:
:0

:0::_
0:

H
H
:

05
505050
05

:05

Hm55m

5:05:55:
M55558
5505055
5055:5D
:05:>505
The foundational element Skills: Thinking tools used efficiently – Disposition: motivation laden patterns of Understanding: The ability to locate a 5:5:

5505::

5::
5::

:o
:0

:
50500

5
5
5050

5505:
”M:5::50::D 0:00:00
5:00:00

5:500:35

:8:
of good thinking quickly and precisely – in given thinking; intellectual traits concept in a context of other concepts,

5555
:0>_M
M5555

505005
30:

0:
5

505055:

55:55:50
3:00:00

circumstances to implement concepts in new

5::
0:

£50500
contexts, and to perform thinking
55:50:
M5555

553

processes with knowledge

550005
0M:0:>>0:5

5505:5050:
”M5:0:::50:::

:0
05:5:0:
H
055555

5:55:02

3:05050
050050:

555m
555m

5:51
5:055:50
Types of foundational elements Neutral skills; normative skills Thinking dispositions; disposition Substantive understanding; reflective

555:5:

M5555
M550:::505::

0:
555
to think understanding :05055500

:0

555::
M5550:
555555:
:0::>5:U
Patterns of teaching Impartation Cultivation Construction

50555
505:0:

5::
5::

250555
053

5050::0

05:
5:05:05:
:0555
:0555

Ideologies: “the good thinker” Practical and efficient thinker Wise thinker Expert and learned thinker
50:05:

:00M

5050:0050:
:0:
5:03:02

5:0550

505500.:
Metaphors for thinking Toolbox Deep currents Network

:00D

55:50::
M5555

0:02
5:50
30:5

050
05
050
05
05
5550
55
05

5:05:

:00:

E550
5:5
Motto Give the child a fishing rod Give the child bait Help the child know his way around the
:50:
5:3

M55:
fishing pond
5:0:

M55:

I
”0:0m
:0

505
”555:0:
”555:0:

0Q
.5500
5055:5Q

@5505
55:55:50:

Theories, programs, ideas – De Bono: CoRT Perkins: Dispositions theory of thinking Perkins: Understanding performances
5005

.m05005H
M5555
M:5::50::D

50:5:0

55m
:0
H

555:5
5:555H
5
05

5:05.50
examples
5555050

50:55:50
Ennis: Taxonomy of critical thinking Tishman: Thinking dispositions Gardner: Understanding in the disciplines

0550:0551
M5555
M5555
M555505D

”0553
:0:

:0
:0

550
55::

M5550:
:55

500:5

50:0“:
Beyer: Direct teaching of thinking Costa: Habits of mind Wiske: Teaching for understanding
M550:0H
M:5::50:::

M5555
”:0::m
5::

:0

”5.550:
55:5:
5005.:L

M55559
>5

Perkins: Thinking frames Baron: Theory of rationality Wiggins and McTighe: Understanding by
H05MFOE

55505::
M555505D

m5MM5>>
:M5m0Q

Design
5::
055

5:05.50

5::
050m

55:0:
Paul: Critical thinking in the strong sense

05:50

5::3m
5055552

5055MB
”50M::1:
M55

M5555

Perkins and Swartz: Graphic organizers Langer: Mindfulness

::05:0

”500:0:
05

5::
050050:
:0555

”55::
:555:
McPeck: The reflective critical thinker

555m
505m
mm0:_:::5M:05:L

Swartz and Parks: Infusion Barrel: Thoughtfulness

:0
505:0]:

5305
55:5500

”0:505:
Brown: Community of Learners
5:055
50:55:55

Sternberg: Intelligence Implied Facione: Critical thinking dispositions

”M55505
00:09:55:
505:5:
M5555
M:5:::50:0:D

55m
m:

5::
5:>:0Q
m:
:

Smith: Understanding as good thinking

:0m5:m:
05:50
5:055

”05055::

Treffinger, Isaksen and Dorval: Creative Passmore: Critical thinking as a

:00M
M5555

:0M5::0:H
M5555

5::

50:05:50

M538
problem solving character trait

505505
5550:5500

5::
5::

::5:0:::
:0

H
M5005

05
05
5005

:0550_.
5:05:50

5:5
:0555

50M0:m
55m

Johnson and Blair: Informal logic Siegel: The spirit of the critical thinker Brooks and Brooks: Constructivist

0:M0_
5::mm000:m

”00:50
5:50:55:

instruction

5.555
5:050
”M55505

Chaffee: Thinking critically Sternberg: Successful intelligence

00:0M5055

5::0505m:
:0:

50:055001:
:05550

5030::
5:5:00

5::
5:05:55:

Lipman: Philosophy for Children

5:551:

M538

55553
Whimbey and Lochhead: Problem solving Golman: Emotional intelligence
00:0M5055

50550550
:0

:0:
:05550
55:5500
M55559

Harpaz: Community of Thinking

5:05:55:

50:50:05
”5:55.:

Feuerstein: Instrumental enrichment Lipman: Philosophy for Children

5:505:55:
5:551:

:0:
:05550

5:05:55:
Lipman: Philosophy for Children

5:551:
 Basic Elements
1.3 The Basic
1.3 of Good
Elements of Good Thinking 53
53

good thinking of the other two approaches! Not necessarily. You can adopt one
aegis,, develop the other two approaches.
and, under its aegis
approach and,
escape from the “tragic” decision, from preferring one of the
There is no escape
approaches. II believe that the third approach –— the understanding approach
approach —– is to
be preferred.
preferred. Why? There are four reasons:
A
A Reason: More and more research and fi
Theoretical Reason: findings
ndings on good thinking
indicate its clear dependence
indicate dependence on understanding
understanding of
of subjects that are
the subjects
thought
thought about.37
about. 37
Paraphrasing Gardner, there isn’t general intelligence but
domain-specific
domain-specifi c intelligence –
— there is no general good thinking but good think-
ing in particular domains; the question is not how smart you you are but how are
are you
you
smart.
A Practical Reason:
A Practical Reason: Schools teach knowledge; therefore, knowledge should be
the sake
taught for the sake of understanding. Knowledge without understanding destroys
thinking. If teaching thinking is to penetrate schools, it has to do so by means of
teaching knowledge in the the various fifields
elds (and not by the infusion approach).
An Ideological Reason: favor understanding
Reason: I favor understanding “big ideas” not only because it can
contribute to the construction
contribute construction of good thinking, but because
good thinking, those ideas
because those ideas really
really are
great,
great, and it is important
important to understand
understand them.
them. In teaching for the sake of under-
under-
standing, you
standing, you get two shows –
— great
great ideas
ideas and good
good thinking
thinking –
— for the price
price of one.38
one. 38

A Reason:: Striving for understanding is the soul of the third model, the
A Pedagogical Reason
reason for its existence. Anyone in favor of the third model is necessarily in favor
of teaching for understanding.
However, as noted, adopting the understanding approach does not mean forgoing
However,
skills and dispositions essential for good thinking. The child needs SDU (skills,
dispositions, and understanding), the foundational elements of good thinking, what
“mindware.” Skill and dipositions should be delivered under the
Perkins calls “mindware.” the aegis
of the understanding approach and a construction system. Thinking skills should be
imparted in authentic contexts, when students need them in order to grapple with a

37
Hayes’ “Ten Year Rule” (1989) states that a person must think about and investigate a fi
Hayes’ field
eld for about
ten years in order for his thinking to be critical and creative. In his The World World is Flat, Thomas
Flat, Thomas
Friedman presents
Friedman conversation with Bill Gates in which the latter dismisses
presents a conversation dismisses the claim that the
American education
American education system neglects creative thinking,
thinking, and he says that thinking of the box is a
thinking out of
result of understanding
result of understanding the subject beingbeing thought about and not of of thinking skills. Yitzhak Rabin did
thinking skills either. Haaretz (Israeli newspaper)
not believed in thinking reported (Oct. 4, 2002) that when
newspaper) reported
the great chess master, Gary Kasparov, visited Israel, his hosts arranged
arranged a visit to the Golan Heights.
Heights.
Minister Rabin he expressed
In a meeting with Prime Minister expressed his opinion. reporter writes: “The breadth
opinion. The reporter breadth
of the world champion’s
of Champion’s grasp of of the data could not fail to astonish
astonish the people
people who had crowded into
analyses, as he warned
Champion’s analyses,
the room. Rabin listened attentively to the world champion’s warned him not to risk
borders that would be determined
withdrawing to borders
Israel’s security by withdrawing determined arbitrarily colonial pow-
arbitrarily by the colonial pow—
ers. He responded,
responded, ‘I played chess when Il was young.’ Kasparov
‘I know. I also played Kasparov never forgave Rabin for
remark, which he interpreted
that remark, interpreted as undisguised contempt
as undisguised contempt for his military-political
military—political analysis.” Rabin
of his insult of
(in light of of Kasparov),
Kasparov), believed
believed that skills depend on context and cannot be transferred
transferred
from one fi field
eld to another —– from chess to national security. Gabi Salomon and David Perkins Perkins (1989)
gave the insight of of Gates and Rabin a theoretical
theoretical basis.
38
“Teaching thinking,”
“Teaching Perkins told me in an interview,
thinking,” Perkins interview, “is not the only important educational goal.
important educational goal.
first
It is in the fi rst row but not fifirst (Perkins 2000, p. 458).
rst in the line” (Perkins 458).
54 11 Teaching of Thinking: The
Community of
Teaching and Learning in a Community The Context
Context

the framework of striving

problem, and thinking dispositions should be cultivated in the
to construct understanding.

1.3.11 In Conclusion
Conclusion

When we ask the main question with regard to teaching thinking, the question that
programs of teaching thinking grapple with –— what is the basic
all theories and programs
element of good thinking, and how can it be developed? —– we we are offered three
answers, which represent three approaches to teaching thinking. Each approach
offers a basic element of good thinking and a system of instruction for developing
it. There is tension among
among the approaches, because each claims preference for the
basic element of of its instructional
instructional system. For various reasons we have preferred
the understanding approach, but this preference does not mean abandoning the
other approaches. In the the long run, good thinking is the the result of skills, dispositions,
understanding.
and understanding. We also have preferred
preferred the understanding approach because
understanding approach because
it is an inherent part of thethe third model.
In essence, the third model is a framework that fundamentally strives strives for under-
Understanding
standing. Understanding
standing. is a bridging
bridging category
category.. It is “located”
“located” between
between curriculum
the curriculum
and the child, between the the culture and the individual. The category of understanding
has two poles: the external and the internal or the the cultural and thethe psychological.
the fi
With respect to the rst pole, the cultural, understanding is rooted in cultural content
first
that we understand and that is worthwhile understanding. With respect to the the second
pole, the psychological, understanding is rooted in the inner process process that indepen-
dently regulates the making of meaning. Understanding, if if you
you will, is a matter of
“do it yourself –— buy and build.” “Buy” ideas and inspiration “outside,” “outside,” from people,
from ideas, from experience, and build meaning from the “inside,” “inside,” in your
your mind
(that, of course,
(that, course, is a rough distinction
distinction between inside and outside).
outside). If you
you concentrate
only on the fi first
rst pole, you curriculum-centered
you get the old, curriculum- centered education, and if if you
you
concentrate only on the second pole, you
concentrate you get the new,
new, child-centered
child-centered education.
education.
education according
In education according to the third model and the third approach, neither the
approach, neither
curriculum nor the child is central, but rather the encounter between them —– an
critical, creative,
active, critical, creative, and thoughtful encounter both the
encounter. In this encounter
thoughtful encounter.
individual and the culture are constructed; the individual constructs his identity
individual
and views, and the the culture receives meaning and is enriched with new new ideas. This
encounter between the individual who creates meaning and the culture as the raw
material for creating meaning is the the essence of the third model and approach.

1.4 The Third

The Third Drive

“Whenever people divide things in this world into three or seven,” Nietzsche
wrote, “you should know that they’re lying to you.”
you.” The world, he explained, cannot
be divided into the numbers
numbers consecrated
consecrated by human beings. This book lies to
human beings.
1.4
1.4 The Third Drive
The Third Drive 55
55

you
you too often –— too many
many matters in it areare divided into three. The third context of
communities of of thinking —– which I won’t expand —– is the context of motivation:
the third drive.
Motivation is of such great importance for education not only because it is the
power behind learning, which is to say
power say a means, but also because it is a goal.
Education seeks to foster motivation of a certain quality, and good education,
according to the viewpoint behind the idea community of of thinking, seeks to
develop intrinsic motivation –— motivation driven by both enjoyment and value.
Daniel Pink ((2009)
2009) called this motivation, “the third drive.” People motivated by
the third drive not only learn more, but they they also are better human beings, because
motivation –— and people
their motivation described and evaluated
people can be described evaluated according
according to the
quality ofof their
their motivation
motivation —– is not (primarily) biological, the fi first
rst drive, nor
drive, but also and mostly intrinsic: authentic
(principally) instrumental, the second drive,
and idealistic.
argue that people motivated by the third drive
I argue drive both learn more and and are better
human beings, because the first
the fi rst and primary drive, if we we adopt Pink’s tripartite
sleep, have sex, etc. And the second
division, is mainly biological: the impulses to eat, sleep,
division,
drive is the result of classical or operant conditioning, which emerged powerfully
following the industrial revolution, when a carrot and stick approach was used to
motivate millions of workers to perform standardized labor. labor. This is the
the motivation
to which the behaviorist school has given exclusive rights: behavior is elicited or
extinguished by means of positive or negative reinforcement.
drive, whose best-known researchers are
The third drive, are Edward Deci and Richard
Ryan (1985), contradicts common sense assumptions that were reinforced by capi-
talist and behaviorist logics. It turns out that reinforcement does in fact extinguish
certain behaviors —– complex, creative behaviors —– that our challenging age age and our
individual well-being demand more than ever before.
drive, intrinsic motivation, is composed of two kinds of motivation
The third drive,
(two, not three, thank goodness!). Let us call them authentic motivation and idea-
(two,
motivation.. Authentic motivation refers to things people do because it gives
listic motivation
them immediate, ongoing, deep satisfaction. Idealistic motivation refers to the
things people do because they they regard it as valuable, as something that should be
give them immediate satisfaction —
done —– even if it does not give – for example, when a
person practices violin or helps the needy.
person needy.
Intrinsic motivation —– authentic and idealistic –— can arise only in certain circum-
stances. Deci and Ryan described these conditions in their self-determination theory
(SDT), according to which intrinsic motivation arises when a person’s basic needs
have been satisfi
satisfied the need for connection, belonging, self-effi
ed —– the self-efficacy,
cacy, freedom
from coercion, and a sense of goal or meaning (Deci 1975 1975;; Deci et al. 1994
1994).).
Teaching and learning in a community of thinking seeks to develop the the third
drive, both as a means and as a goal. It strives to respond to the
drive, the learners’ basic needs
and to stimulate them to study and explore out of authentic interest and idealistic
commitment to the truth –— its discovery and its invention.