In my last blog article I shared with you, the clark real thinking process. I proposed that thinking is not in fact hierarchical in nature; that contrary to Bloom’s Taxonomy, and popular belief, analysis is not lower than evaluation; and application higher than comprehension. Instead, I suggested, and demonstrated through a digital presentation, that thinking is in fact cyclical and adaptive; that there are simply ‘types’ of thinking that are inextricably linked; and degrees of sophistication embedded within each type of thinking.
So what are the implications of the clark real thinking process on teaching and learning? And what are the implications of thinking as a cyclical adaptive process on curriculum design?
In this blog post I will address the first of these questions…
Curriculum internationally is aspiring toward the goal of ‘deep knowledge and understanding’. Curriculum documents are promoting creativity and innovation. All too often, the document neglects to instruct the teacher on how this can be achieved. It is as if the mandate alone is enough! How can teachers explicitly and deliberately promote deep, broad, rich thinking; creativity, ideation and innovation?
Firstly, educators need to understand what it means to ‘process’ learning and they need to understand the real learning process. If the learner engages in a learning experience that reflects the cyclical and adaptive process described, a deep, broad and solid foundation of knowledge and understanding can develop. In turn, learners will be enabled and empowered to use their learning to make a difference in their lives and the lives of others™. It is the process that will facilitate the thinking; and it is the thinking that will facilitate real learning!
But how does a teacher practically do this? How does a teacher ‘ensure that a learner is engaging in this ‘cyclical process’? It’s actually easier than you think!