Higher order thinking There is a lot of focus currently on the notion of higher order thinking, particularly in relation to the

Middle Years concerns, focusing on engaging students in meaningful learning. Terms such as the Thinking Curriculum are used to describe a school focus on deeper level ideas. Higher order thinking is used as a term to describe a number of related ideas, all essentially held to be in contrast to rote learning, learning of facts, superficial thinking etc. Schemes such Blooms taxonomy have been used to order knowledge forms in a hierarchy, with information at the bottom (Bloom called it knowledge but the term tends to have a wider meaning these days), then comprehension, then higher levels such as application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The three tiered intellect uses similar terms, with higher order thinking being associated with words such as interprets, analyses, reflects, evaluates. Also associated with higher level thinking are dimensions of creativity, or divergent thinking. Emphasising, in science tasks, such things as creativity, imagination, flexibility all aim at developing in students a capacity to think through ideas and apply them to a range of contexts, to think outside the square and to think critically. Higher level thinking is also associated with investigative practices in science, and with problem solving. Such behaviours and knowledge as asking investigable questions, designing investigations or measurement procedures, critically evaluating evidence, thinking of ways to test ideas etc. are all part of what we would hope an engaged and resourceful student to be doing. The first two SIS Components of effective teaching and learning are closely related to higher level thinking. These are given below, with links to the science education literature.

1. Encouraging students to actively engage with ideas and evidence Component 1 is a key characteristic of effective teaching and learning. It is linked with a number of important ideas that appear in the science education research literature, and in curriculum and innovation change projects.

The key idea embodied in this Component is that real learning is an active process that involves students being challenged, and challenging each other, rather than accepting received wisdom and practicing its application. A predominant image projected by this Component is thus one of the active, searching mind. The underlying logic of this Component is consistent with constructivist insights into learning. This does not in any way diminish, however, the role of the teacher. If anything it makes teachers roles more complex and difficult, in asking them to encourage students to express their ideas, but to maintain a high standard of challenge and attention to

evidence based on scientific traditions. The Component combines two ideas that learning involves activity and engagement, and that scientific processes fundamentally involve argument from evidence. It is hard, in a practising science classroom situation, to separate these notions.

Related ideas in the science education literature:

Sharing intellectual control, or student centredness The idea that students ideas be treated with respect is well established in research on students conceptions and research on learning in science. The Monash University Extended PD materials, now embedded within the SISPD program, emphasised this control aspect. One cannot expect students to be engaged with a pre-packaged program entirely dictated by teachers understandings, and this Component asks that teachers take some risks in acknowledging that students, if they are to learn, must be given a measure of control over the ideas that are discussed. Inquiry based learning This is a term much in vogue in the U.S., implying that science teaching and learning must be based on students actively exploring and investigating and questioning. This is different to discovery learning which, in its pure form, implied somehow that students could learn science simply by undertaking appropriate practical investigations, and under-represented the critical role of the teacher in structuring and responding to student experiences. A related phrase often used in primary science education is hands-on, minds-on science. It is the minds-on part that is referred to by this Component. Student autonomy, and responsibility for learning These ideas emphasise both the active and intentional nature of learning and the purpose of schooling in promoting autonomous adults. Engagement is a prior condition for both. The Middle Years concern with student engagement with ideas and with schooling is also linked to this Component. The Component should not be thought about, however, simply in terms of motivation or a willingness to join in. It focuses clearly on ideas. Maximising student-student interaction A video study of mathematics and science teachers (Clark, 2001) found that the key determinant of a rich learning environment was the amount of high quality student student dialogue. This could be taken as one of the critical features of engagement with ideas. Community of learners This idea of a class or group as a community dedicated to particular forms of learning sits comfortably with Component 1, since engagement with ideas and evidence can be interpreted as a communal enterprise. Social constructivism, or socio cultural theory, is also linked with this idea.

Argumentation there is growing interest in idea that the ability to frame and respond to argument is an important focus for science education. Science as it is practised in the community is characterized by argument based on evidence. Science processes and concepts of evidence The teaching of science processes has a long history in science education. These are sometimes called skills, but in fact there is a good deal of knowledge associated with things like experimental design, measurement principles, or analysis. Evidence is handled in science in particular ways (eg. principles of sampling, or variable control, or measurement procedures) and learning how this occurs in a more formal way is a part of this first Component. The teaching and learning focus associated with this would include being taught how to do things like sample biological data, control variables, set up tables, deal with measurement error etc. These may be taught explicitly, but teaching for an understanding of the way evidence is used would imply that students need to learn to make decisions about design, measurement and analysis. Open ended investigations form an important end of the practical work spectrum.

2. Challenging students to develop meaningful understandings

Component 2 raises the questions what does it mean to understand something in science, and what is meaningful? Neither are straightforward questions. The teachers who were originally interviewed to develop the Components talked of deeper level understandings, or understandings that would be revisited in different situations to enrich and challenge.

Related ideas in the science education literature:

Student conceptions The research into student conceptions shows clearly that students come to any science topic with prior ideas that will often contradict the science version of understanding, that can interfere with learning. Learning, and gaining understanding should be viewed often as a shift in perspective rather than something implanted over nothing. The conceptual change literature, which emphasises probes of understanding, and challenge activities, is thus relevant to this Component. Lesson and topic structure becomes important for the development of understanding. Metacognition The work of the PEEL project has important links to this Component, focusing on student learning strategies, and control over learning. If students are to establish deeper level understandings they need to be helped to develop good learning

habits, and to monitor the adequacy of their own understandings. These ideas underlie the thinking curriculum focus of some of the Middle Years projects. Higher order thinking Many writers have made the distinction between shallow and deep, or low and higher order thinking. Blooms taxonomy identified higher order thinking as associated with the application and evaluation of ideas. Ideas such as the three story intellect attempt a similar hierarchy. Deeper or wider? A commitment to looking below the surface is one way of describing this Component. Another aspect of meaningful understandings is the insight that ideas are tools to be applied rather than concepts to be arrived at. The ability to use an idea in interpreting the world is a critical part of understanding. Divergent thinking Part of what a meaningful understanding should be involves the ability to use it to solve unexpected problems, or to generate a variety of related ideas. The ability to think divergently or laterally is part of what a meaningful understanding is. Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) In order to support students in developing understandings, it is essential for teachers to be knowledgeable themselves (content knowledge), not so they can tell, but so they can listen and challenge . The other form of knowledge needed is that of how students learn particular concepts the difficulties they experience and the different ways they may interpret the science idea. We call this PCK.

Improving Middle Years Mathematics and Science: Components relevant to Higher Order thinking

Recently (in early 2004) we have been engaged in developing a set of Components of effective teaching and learning in mathematics and science, and examples to support two components dealing with higher order thinking are given below.

3. Students are challenged to extend their understandings

Students engage with conceptually challenging content such that they develop higher order understandings of key ideas and processes. 3.1 Subject matter is conceptually complex and intriguing, but accessible 3.2 Tasks challenge students to explore, question and reflect on key ideas

3.3 The teacher clearly signals high expectations for each student This Component is demonstrated when: Students are challenged to reflect on their response to tasks

Open questions are asked that call for interpretive responses

The teacher poses questions and hypothetical situations to move students beyond superficial approaches

Students are asked to represent their understandings in a variety of ways Including frequent open ended problems and explorations

The teacher provides experiences and poses questions that challenge students understandings, and encourages them to apply ideas to unfamiliar situations Stimulus materials are provided that challenge students ideas and encourage discussion and ongoing exploration Historical case studies are used to explore how major science ideas developed Higher order tasks involving the generation, application, analysis and synthesis of ideas, are well represented, for example, by the teacher using Blooms taxonomy in planning. Students are provided with questions or challenges as the impetus for learning and encouraging and supporting students to construct their own responses to such questions Open-ended problems or tasks are set that require divergent responses and provide the opportunity for solutions of differing kinds to be developed. Students are encouraged to examine critically and even challenge information provided by the teacher, a textbook, a newspaper, etc. The teacher sets learning challenges that require students to analyse, evaluate and create

 The teacher uses higher order thinking tools when planning activities to allow for multiple entry points and to develop higher order thinking skills such as synthesis, evaluation etc.

The Component is NOT demonstrated when:

Investigations or projects run without significant class discussion of the underlying science. Class activities which are fun, with surprising outcomes, but without follow up of ideas in subsequent lessons, or framing of the ideas behind the activities. Science concepts are treated as things to be learnt, emphasising formal definitions.

There is a presumption that it is the teachers role to control what is to be learnt, and how it is to be learnt. Classroom work is constrained or recipe like, without room for discussion or debate of purpose or methods Lesson plans contain too much material to allow sustained discussions in response to student questions Activities focus on having fun without a real focus on conceptual understandings

5. Students are encouraged to see themselves as mathematical and scientific thinkers

5.1 Students are explicitly supported to engage with the processes of open-ended investigation and problem solving This Component is demonstrated when: The teacher plans to strategically build opportunities for students to develop hypotheses in practical work, and to extend and question interpretations The teacher encourages students to raise questions in class, arising out of observations, or experience. Students are encouraged to make decisions in practical investigations concerning hypotheses to be explored, experimental design, measurement and recording techniques, analysis and interpretation.

This component is NOT demonstrated when:

Students are given a choice of investigations to carry out, but without training in appropriate experimental techniques and with no group commitment to the ideas being tested. A class experiment focuses on control of variables (fair testing) without a clear conceptual proposition. For instance, the permeability of sand, loam and clay soil is tested, with attention paid to controlling for water, amount of soil, technique, but without discussing the purpose or the reasons why they might differ.

Practical work is recipe-like, without room for discussion and debate of purpose, methods, analysis.

5.2 Students engage in mathematical/scientific reasoning and argumentation This sub-component is demonstrated when:

Stimulus materials are provided that challenge students ideas and encouraging discussion, speculation, and ongoing exploration Time is allowed for discussions to arise naturally and be followed in class, and encouraging investigations to resolve questions The teacher shares intellectual control with students The learning program includes frequent open ended investigations or short-term open explorations\ The teacher encourages discussion of evidence, including disconfirming evidence such as anomalies in experimental work, in text book explanations, in observations, or in public reports of science\ The teacher provides students with questions or challenges as the impetus for learning and encourages and supports students to construct their own responses to such questions Students are encouraged to challenge or support or amplify others contributions .

The sub-component is NOT demonstrated when:

There is a strong focus on ensuring content coverage, as distinct from understanding Lesson plans are strictly followed, with too much material to be covered to allow divergent discussions in response to student questions or comments.

Students work mainly individually, with not much whole-class or small- group discussion. Class discussion is dominated by the teachers voice. Teacher questions are mainly closed, with a particular response in mind. There is a strong focus on ensuring content coverage, as distinct from understanding. Intellectual control is firmly maintained by the teacher.

Examples to illustrate the Component:

The history of science ideas is strongly represented. Eg. A science topic on disease focuses on the history of our understanding of the bacterial nature of infection, to emphasise the power of science insights, and the way evidence is used to test and verify theories in science. Attention is paid to the processes of hypothesis generation and experimental design Eg. Yvonne ran an animal behaviour unit for her Year 1 class. They discussed, using observations of a classroom pet rat, the difference between observation and inference. They learnt the technique of time sampling of animal position and behaviour using birds in a cage, and one, then two rats in an enclosure. Following discussions about the survival implications of behaviour, they then examined crickets and came up with a class list of questions about cricket behaviour, or structure and function. Pairs of students designed, carried out and reported on a chosen question, using a template that required presentation of data in two formats, and an evaluation of the generality of the findings. The focus in the discussion continually referred back to the adaptive purpose of particular behaviours. Eg. Year 10 students studying genetics investigate recent claims there has been cross-breeding of genetically modified soy into local crops. They look at the suggested mechanism for cross-pollination, and study genetic techniques, to come up with suggestions about what controls should be in place.

 Planning is flexible enough so that student ideas and questions can be genuinely followed up, perhaps by further investigation. Eg. Julies Year 4 class raised the question about how long a ballpoint pen would last. They discussed how you would find out, then arranged a comparative investigation with different brands, measuring the length of line with appropriate controls. Eg. During a genetics unit, the question of genetically modified food captures student interest and leads to a debate informed by independent research using the web.

Anomalous results from experiments are discussed openly in the class . Eg. Craigs Year 8 class found an experiment culturing bacteria gave anomalous results. Before handing the cultures back to groups he displayed them, then led a discussion in which they discussed the surprise results to come up with some possible reasons and an evaluation of the adequacy of the controls they had put in place. Eg. A class uses de Bonos thinking hats technique to fully explore the greenhouse effect. Eg. A unit is planned using the interactive approach, whereby students questions are discussed and refined to form the basis of investigations forming the core of the unit.

Current issues are discussed in class, which encourage students to raise questions about evidence, or the ideas underlying such issues. Eg. Methods of responding to a contemporary outbreak of foot and mouth are discussed and debated, using newspaper analyses. Eg. The nutritional value of childrens lunches is discussed, using evidence from a resource book on dietary principles. Eg. In a unit on road safety, evidence related to the wearing of seat belts, or of bicycle helmets, is debated in the context of public policy. Open-ended tasks are set that encourage divergent, creative thinking Eg. Students are asked to use their science understandings to design a system, or technological device, such as an automated plant nursery, or method of analysing the movement of a netball player. Eg. Students are challenged using what would happen if.. questions (If gravity on earth was stronger, if we could clone dinosaurs), or take place in hypotheticals.