This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 26 October 2014, At: 10:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Social StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtss20

What Research Tells Us about Teaching Thinking SkillsBarry K. Beyer aa George Mason University, Fairfax, VirginiaPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Barry K. Beyer (2008) What Research Tells Us about Teaching Thinking Skills, The Social Studies, 99:5, 223-232, DOI:10.3200/TSSS.99.5.223-232

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/TSSS.99.5.223-232

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ABSTRACT. The findings and rec-ommendations of researchers and spe-cialists in thinking-skill learning and teaching have important implications for classroom efforts to improve stu-dent thinking. This summary identifies various types of thinking skills and skill components recommended for class-room instruction. The author describes and cites research-derived features of effective, direct instruction in thinking skills and describes a framework for this instruction. He also describes researcher- and specialist-recommended teaching techniques and lesson strategies for introducing any thinking skill, guiding continuing skill practice, and teaching students to transfer thinking skills to other contexts. He presents researcher recommendations of when, where, and why such direct skill instruction can be effectively provided. The research cited here suggests both students’ aca-demic achievement and their quality of thinking can be improved by using these techniques and strategies to teach think-ing skills in subject-matter courses.

Keywords: direct instruction, research, teaching, thinking skills

esearch provides one of the most credible and valuable bases for

making decisions about classroom teaching. This is especially true of research related to the teaching of think-ing skills. This article pulls together and summarizes the findings and implica-tions of this research for use by educa-tors who seek an approach to teaching thinking skills that is more predictive of success in improving student thinking and learning than are many, if not most, approaches to thinking-skill instruction currently employed in our schools.

A considerable body of research related to teaching thinking skills now exists. This research has occurred and continues to occur in a wide range of fields, including motivation, learning and cognition, learning styles, skill acquisition, skill teaching, informa-tion processing, cognitive psychology, creativity, memory, and brain function-ing, as well as in the nature of think-ing skills themselves. It also consists of a variety of quantitative and quali-tative research approaches, including experimental studies in natural and con-trolled settings, observational studies, and analyses of think-aloud protocols.

In addition, an unusually diverse num-ber of research, scholarly, and profes-sional publications have published this research. When assembled and framed in terms of strategic instructional deci-sions, as here, this research provides considerable guidance as to (1) what about thinking skills might be most use-ful to teach; (2) how purposeful, direct instruction in these skills can be effec-tively provided; and (3) where, when, and why providing such instruction in these skills is worthwhile.

What to Teach about Thinking Skills

Although thinking is a complex phe-nomenon, researchers and specialists agree that thinking skills are basic tools of effective thinking (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989; Perkins 1992; Resnick and Klopfer 1989). Two major kinds of thinking skills have been identified for classroom instruction: those essential for learning in general and those most useful for learning specific subjects or disciplines, such as history, science, or mathematics.

Teach Important Thinking Skills

Researchers in cognition have found mastery of at least four thinking skills is

What Research Tells Us about Teaching Thinking SkillsBARRY K. BEYER

BARRY K. BEYER is a professor emeritus at George Mason University in Fairfax, Vir-ginia, and the author of numerous books and articles on teaching thinking skills. He can be contacted at bkbeyer@frontiernet.net.

THE SOCIAL STUDIES SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 223

Copyright © 2008 Barry K. Beyer

R

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

02 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

essential for students to become effec-tive readers, writers, and learners: com-paring, classifying, sequencing, and pre-dicting (Commission on Reading 1985; Hayes and Flower 1981; Jones, Amiran, and Katims 1985; Paris, Wixson, and Palincsar 1986; Siegler 1998). Young-sters who do not master these basic cognitive skills by the conclusion of the primary grades rarely achieve grade-level performance thereafter in reading comprehension or independent learning (Siegler).

Subject-matter and discipline spe-cialists as well as researchers in dif-ferent types of thinking have identified additional thinking skills as especially important in learning various subjects and participating as effective citizens in a democratic society—skills such as deci-sion making, problem solving, drawing conclusions, interpreting written texts, analyzing multiple sources, and identi-fying cause-and-effect relationships as well as various critical-thinking skills, such as judging the strength of an argu-ment, distinguishing factual claims from value judgments, detecting bias, identi-fying point of view, and determining the credibility of sources (Carretero and Voss 1994; Leinhardt, Beck, and Stain-ton 1994; Lipman 1991; NCSS Task Force on Scope and Sequence 1989; Schoenfeld 1985).

Some researchers have also identified certain thinking skills central to specific disciplines. For example, Sam Wineburg’s (1991a) groundbreaking study of his-torical problem solving identified three important historical-thinking skills or strategies: sourcing, contextualizing, and corroborating. His analyses (1991b, 1998) and those of Gaea Leinhardt and Kathleen McCarthy Young (1996) also identified additional close-reading heuristics com-monly used by historians to devise war-ranted interpretations of historical texts (Martin and Wineburg 2008).

Not surprisingly, proficiency in these and similar thinking skills is required to meet the teaching expectations of many college and university academ-ics as well as many national, state, and local precollege language arts, math-ematics, writing, history, social studies, science, and other subject-matter stan-

dards now in place (e.g., National Coun-cil of Teachers of Mathematics 2000; UCLA National Center for History in the Schools 1995).

Teach the Components of a Thinking Skill

Many researchers assert that teach-ing the components of thinking skills ought to be an important goal of class-room instruction, especially at the K–12 levels. These components include the cognitive procedures (also called strate-gies or routines) by which these skills are applied, as well as the heuristics, rules, and other related skill knowl-edge used by experts in carrying out these thinking operations (Anderson 1983; Brown et al. 1983; Doyle 1983; Glaser 1976; Nickerson 1989; Nickerson, Perkins, and Smith 1985; Palincsar and Klenk 1991; Perkins 1992; Pressley and Harris 1990; Resnick 1976; Resnick and Klopfer 1989; Simon 1980; Wineburg 1991a).

Researchers have also affirmed the value of providing students with infor-mation about the usefulness of a skill procedure being learned and the con-ditions under which it can and should be employed (called conditional knowl-edge), as well as specific declarative knowledge related to the application of a skill (Baker and Brown 1984; Nick-erson 1989; O’Sullivan and Pressley 1984; Perkins 1985; Simon 1980).

Cognitive researchers and specialists have identified the thinking procedures of experts—or, more precisely, of those individuals identified as skilled in car-rying out specific thinking operations—through the analysis of their skilled per-formances (Anderson 1993; Chi, Glaser, and Farr 1988; Hayes and Flower 1981; Leinhardt and Young 1996; Nisbett and Wilson 1977; Wineburg 1991a, 1991b, 1998; Wineburg and Fournier 1994). Comparing “expert” procedures to the procedures employed by novices to carry out these same skills points out specific procedural steps, rules, or heu-ristics that can be taught to help students or any others less proficient in apply-ing these skills to become more skill-ful—more expert—in their execution

of these operations (Bloom and Broder 1950; Larkin et al. 1980; Whimbey 1977; Wineburg 1991a). Criteria gener-ally accepted as essential for making important critical-thinking judgments have been described by Robert H. Ennis (1962, 1985) and elaborated by other experts in critical thinking.

Detailed descriptions of expert, or authentic, thinking-skill procedures can be found in or adapted from the work of nationally respected philosophers/educa-tors such as Robert H. Ennis (1962), Mat-thew Lipman (1988), and Robert Swartz and Sandra Parks (1994); decision- science specialists Charles Higgins Kepner and Benjamin B. Tregoe (1997); educators Joe B. Hurst, Mark Kinney, and Steve J. Weiss (1983) and Barry K. Beyer (1988); reading researchers Ann Brown, Joseph Campione, and Jeanne Day (1981); writing research-ers John R. Hayes and Linda S. Flower (1981); researchers Gaea Leinhardt and Kathleen McCarthy Young (1996); and cognitive psychologists Robert Siegler (1998) and Sam Wineburg (1991a, 1991b, 1998), among others. These procedures, or appropriate grade-level adaptations of them, can be taught as directly as the subject matter to which they are applied to achieve valued class-room learning goals.

Teaching Thinking Skills

In many cases one’s thinking improves over time as a product of experience and as a cumulative, developmental process (Case 1992; Dreyfus 1984). However, skilled thinking rarely develops simply as the result of experience or matura-tion alone, especially during one’s early years. Nor does it normally occur sim-ply as an incidental outcome of subject- matter classroom learning (Anderson 1942; Glaser 1941; Newmann 1990; Nickerson 1989; Taba 1965; Taba, Levine, and Elzey 1964). Developing proficiency in any thinking skill often requires more than indirect teaching or self-discovery (Doyle 1983; Feuerstein 1980).

In fact, researchers have found that repeated, systematic instruction direct-ly in the thinking operations or skills by which people apply their thinking

224 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 THE SOCIAL STUDIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

02 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

can sharply enhance that proficiency (Anderson, Marcham, and Dunn 1944; Bauman 1976; Doyle 1983; Edwards 1988; Frederiksen 1984; Glenn and Ellis 1982; Hembree 1992; Herrnstein et. al. 1986; Lipman 1985; Lochhead 1976; Pressley and Harris 2001; Resnick 1976; Schoenfeld 1979a, 1979b; Sigel 1984; Sternberg and Davidson 1989; Whimbey 1980; Whimbey and Whim-bey 1975). Such direct instruction can accelerate skill mastery by minimizing novices’ development of dysfunctional skill procedures, introducing them to more effective thinking procedures and knowledge, and providing continuing, productive guided practice of autono-mous skill use (Doyle; Roehler and Duffy 1984).

Essential Features of Direct Instruction in Thinking Skills

Direct instruction in thinking skills is distinguished from other ways of teach-ing thinking skills by providing detailed explanations and modeling of explicit step-by-step thinking-skill strategies or procedures and rules; instruction about how and when a thinking skill can be applied; systematic, structured practice of a thinking skill for autonomous use; and supportive feedback and coaching throughout the skill-learning process (e.g., Duffy et al. 1987; Gersten and Car-nine 1986; Nickerson 1989; Rosenshine 1997). Such instruction has been shown to be especially effective in helping stu-dents of all abilities develop increased proficiency in carrying out a wide vari-ety of cognitive operations (Anderson 1977; Bryson and Scardamalia 1991; Doyle 1983; Duffy et al. 1987; Edwards 1988; Gersten and Carnine 1986; Glenn and Ellis 1982; Nickerson 1989; Perkins 1987; Posner and Keele 1973; Pressley and Harris 1990; Resnick 1976, 1987b).

A number of researchers have sum-marized what they consider to be the most useful techniques for providing such instruction in thinking skills (Col-lins, Brown, and Holum 1991; Pressley et al. 1995; Pressley and Harris 1990). Barak Rosenshine’s (1997) summary of these techniques is the most compre-hensive.

A Framework for Direct Instruction in Thinking Skills

Few, if any, thinking skills are mas-tered as a result of a single instruc-tional experience. Following an explicit introduction to a new skill procedure, continued instruction and practice are required. Research demonstrates that whereas some novices require as few as five or six such learning experiences to develop a level of independent pro-ficiency in a thinking skill, some may require as many as fifty or more instruc-tional experiences to do so (Joyce and Showers 1983; Kaufman and Miller 1958; Pasnak l989; Pasnak et al. 1987).

Research furthermore reveals the difficulties individuals have in apply-ing a newly “learned” skill to a context other than that in which it was initially applied, therefore underscoring the need for instruction to include explicit efforts to transfer a newly learned thinking skill to a variety of contexts beyond the original one (Perkins and Salomon 1989). Helping children become skillful thinkers, in effect, requires continuing instruction in thinking-skill procedures over an extended period of time in a variety of contexts or subjects.

A framework for systematic, direct instruction in any thinking skill starts with highly focused initial, introduc-tory instruction in a step-by-step or rule-driven procedure for applying that specific skill. This is then followed by considerable continuing teacher-guided and -supported practice of the skill, with instruction and support in applying that skill fading gradually until students demonstrate proficiency in the effective application of the procedure on their own initiative and under their own direc-tion in a variety of contexts and subjects (Doyle 1983; Frederiksen 1984; Nicker-son 1989; Posner and Keele 1973). Ray-mond Nickerson has summarized this skill-teaching framework as consisting of three key stages: modeling, coaching, and fading. This framework can perhaps be described more strategically, how-ever, as consisting of an introduction (in which modeling is only one effective technique that can be employed), guided practice (which may be scaffolded and

later cued by any of a number of useful techniques), and transfer.

Introducing a Thinking Skill

Research indicates that an introduc-tory lesson in a thinking skill should exhibit a number of important features. Many if not most students find it dif-ficult to ignore subject matter because, they say, that is what their courses and tests are all about. Researchers there-fore recommend that lessons introduc-ing instruction in a new thinking skill should keep student focus on the skill being introduced throughout the les-son. This requires eliminating or at least minimizing the interference to learning the new skill occasioned by extended attention to the subject-matter content of the lesson, the use of complex or unfamiliar subject matter, the emo-tions or affect attached to or evoked by the subject matter to which the skill is being applied, and the attributes of other recently introduced skills (Dempster 1993; Posner and Keele 1973; Pressley and Harris 1990).

Most important, according to many researchers, an initial skill-learning experience, or lesson, is especially effec-tive when it presents and makes explicit the key procedural steps and any skill-related knowledge (such as heuristics or criteria) to be applied in carrying out the skill being introduced (Doyle 1983; Feuerstein 1980; Frederiksen 1984; Perkins and Salomon 1989; Posner and Keele 1973; Simon 1980).

Techniques for Introducing a New Thinking Skill

When initiating an introductory think-ing-skill lesson (as well as those skill practice lessons immediately follow-ing), teachers should begin the lesson by helping students develop the mental set required to tap their prior knowl-edge related to the skill before present-ing or having them apply the skill-using procedure(s) to be learned (Ausubel 1960; Mayer 1983; Posner and Keele 1973). Furthermore, making clear the beneficial consequences or usefulness of applying the skill aids student understanding and

THE SOCIAL STUDIES SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

02 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

application of the skill (Baker and Brown 1984; Brown, Campione, and Day 1981) as does helping students identify condi-tions under which its use is appropri-ate (Baker and Brown; Feuerstein 1980; O’Sullivan and Pressley 1984; Perkins and Salomon 1989; Posner and Keele; Simon 1980).

Previewing a thinking skill to initiate a skill-teaching lesson immediately sets

1989; Bryson and Scardamalia 1991; Doyle 1983; Frederiksen 1984; Gersten and Carnine 1986; Palincsar and Klenk 1991; Posner and Keele 1973; Resnick and Klopfer 1989). Classroom research has demonstrated that at least three spe-cific techniques prove especially use-ful in making thinking skills explicit: modeling, metacognitive reflection, and thinking aloud (Bauman 1976; Brown,

the focus and goal of the lesson. This technique usually consists of giving or getting from students the name of the skill to be taught and one or more of its synonyms, because naming a cogni-tive operation gives students a hook on which to hang in memory—and recall later from memory—what they learn about the skill (Astington and Olson 1990). Eliciting or giving an example or two of when or where the skill may have been applied before often best pre-cedes producing its working definition (Anderson 1983). Brief statements of the skill’s importance and of the condi-tions under which it may be useful are then appropriate at this point (Baker and Brown 1984; O’Sullivan and Press-ley 1984; Posner and Keele 1973). This same technique can also be employed as a review to conclude a skill-teaching lesson by returning student focus to the skill they have been learning about and applying.

Techniques for Making a Skill Procedure Explicit

Many researchers and specialists agree that making visible and explicit the procedures (routines) by which a skill is or can be effectively applied is essential in introducing a new skill (Anderson et al. 1985; Baker and Brown 1984; Brown, Collins, and Duguid

Campione, and Day 1981; Lochhead 1976; Posner and Keele 1973; Rosen-shine and Meister 1992; Sternberg 1984; Taba 1965).

Modeling has long been recognized and demonstrated to be particularly helpful in introducing a new skill (Doyle 1983; Posner and Keele 1973; Pressley and Harris 1990; Rosenshine and Meis-ter 1992; Resnick 1987b; Simon 1980). This technique makes explicit and explains the steps in a thinking strategy or procedure while walking students through it step by step (Palincsar and Brown 1984). An introductory thinking- skill lesson using this technique pro-vides novices with a ready-made pro-cedure for applying that skill. The modeled skill procedure also provides a take-off point from which these nov-ices can gradually construct or develop more personalized procedures for car-rying out the skill (Pressley and Harris 1990; Resnick 1976, 1987b). Provid-ing students with a list of the steps in the skill procedure being modeled adds to the effectiveness of this technique (Rosenshine 1997).

Metacognitive reflection is also a pow-erful technique for making a thinking procedure explicit, whether employed by teacher or students. When used to introduce a new thinking skill, this technique engages students in reflect-ing on, verbalizing, sharing with others,

and analyzing what, step by step, they recall doing mentally to apply a just-completed thinking skill. Use of this technique helps students become more aware of the cognitive procedure(s) they employed and of procedures employed by others to carry out that same oper-ation. Repeated use of metacognitive reflection during initial efforts to apply a new skill enables novices to identify flaws in their own thinking as well as recognize and gradually construct or reconstruct more effective procedures for applying the skill (Brown et al. 1983; Brown, Campione, and Day 1981; CTGV 1993; Hudgins 1977; Larkin et al. 1980; Nickerson 1989; Nickerson, Perkins, and Smith 1985; Papert 1980; Paris and Winograd 1990; Vygotsky 1962; Whimbey 1980).

Thinking aloud has long been an important research tool for mak-ing thinking explicit. To paraphrase researchers Hayes and Flower (1980), thinking aloud consists of a subject saying aloud to a researcher or observ-er—with minimal prompting, usually in statements such as “What are you thinking now?”—everything she or he thinks and everything that occurs in his or her mind while performing a given thinking task. Researchers then analyze the resulting transcripts, called proto-cols and more recently think-alouds, to identify as precisely as possible how the person carried out, move by move, this thinking (Ericsson and Simon 1984; Hayes and Flower 1980; Wineburg 1991a, 1991b, 1998). Thinking-aloud research has been employed to iden-tify the thinking processes of novices as well as of experts in writing, reading comprehension, problem solving, and other subjects.

Thinking aloud has also been used in instructional settings. Arthur Whim-bey and Jack Lochhead, for example, developed a self-instructional program in which pairs of students think aloud while engaging in a problem-solving or analytical-reasoning task and then com-pare how they completed each task to a step-by-step procedure derived from an expert thinking aloud while doing the same task. This process repeats several times for each type of task presented

226 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 THE SOCIAL STUDIES

Repeated use of metacognitive reflection during initial efforts to apply a new skill enables novices to identify flaws in their own thinking as well as recognize and gradually construct or reconstruct more effective procedures for applying the skill.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

02 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

(Lochhead 1985, 2001; Whimbey and Lochhead 1999).

Other educators use think-alouds to focus on the substantive content manip-ulated by one’s thinking rather than on the mental processes they employ to do so. Wineburg and colleagues have devised a Web-based program in his-torical thinking that pairs sample think-alouds by historians and students of what they are thinking while reading excerpts from individual historical doc-uments, with commentaries naming and explaining the strategies each reader is using (Martin and Wineburg 2008).

Lesson Strategies for Introducing a New Thinking Skill

Research suggests that teachers can employ either constructivist (induc-tive) or didactic teaching strategies, or some combination of the two, to structure the application of several of the previously mentioned teaching techniques to introduce a new think-ing skill. A constructivist strategy might begin by previewing the new skill, followed by student applica-tion of the skill several times, reflect-ing on and analyzing each applica-tion to articulate one or more useful skill-using procedures. This type of lesson strategy allows students to construct a thinking-skill procedure inductively from their own experience and is helpful for average or above- average students, especially when they are addressing routine or rela-tively “easy” thinking skills (Ander-son, Marcham, and Dunn 1944; Doyle 1983; Frederiksen 1984; Glenn and Ellis 1982; Mulcahy and Associates 1993; Sigel 1984).

A didactic introductory lesson strategy might entail students pre-viewing the skill, seeing and hear-ing it modeled, and then applying it several times with teacher coaching and class analysis of the demonstrated procedure as needed. This more direct approach makes possible the intro-duction of authentic—or expert—skill routines and heuristics from the start, thus minimizing or eliminating stu-dent diversions into dysfunctional

skill-using procedures that sometimes occur during more inductive introduc-tions. This approach appears to benefit and appeal especially to less-able stu-dents (Doyle 1983). It also is helpful in introducing especially complex or difficult skills to students of any abil-ity level (Frederiksen 1984; Means, Chelemer, and Knapp 1991; Mulcahy and Associates 1993; Peterson 1979).

Skill-teaching research further sug-gests that combining modeling and student metacognitive reflection in the same introductory lesson may be more effective than using either of these techniques in isolation. A les-son including both techniques may be especially useful in heterogeneously grouped classrooms because these tech-niques accommodate the learning needs and preferences of most of the wide range of students customarily found in these classes. Teaching specialists and researchers have described several com-bined or developmental teaching strate-gies in detail (Beyer 1987, 1997; Beyer and Pasnak 1993; Martin and Wineburg 2008; Sternberg and Davidson 1989). Swartz and Parks (1994) have designed an extended strategy for introducing and practicing these skills while infus-ing them in various elementary school subject areas as well as in selected mid-dle and high school subjects (Swartz, Fisher, and Parks 1998; Swartz, Kiser, and Reagan 1999).

Guiding and Supporting Thinking-Skill Practice

Once a thinking skill has been explic-itly introduced, continued practice over an extended period of time has been demonstrated to be essential for devel-oping eventual autonomous proficiency in applying that skill (Anderson 1982; Brown, Campione, and Day 1981; Frederiksen 1984; Glaser 1979; Mayer 1983; Posner and Keele 1973). To be most effective, such practice should be teacher guided and of two types. Fol-lowing its introduction, a thinking skill should be practiced frequently and repeatedly, with considerable instruc-tional coaching, support, and feedback. At this stage of skill practice, student

performance is halting, often labori-ous, and fragmented (Dreyfus 1984; Frederiksen 1984).

The subsequent stage of practice requires more intermittent skill applica-tion, gradually decreasing the instruc-tional support provided until this sup-port disappears altogether as student performance of the skill becomes more rapid, proceeds more smoothly, and becomes more self-directed and self-correcting (Anderson 1982; Frederiksen 1984; Posner and Keele 1973). Such extended practice allows students to perfect a smoother, self-directed skilled performance and increase their success rates in applying the skill on their own (Rosenshine 1997).

Techniques for Scaffolding and Cueing Skill Practice

Researchers indicate that especially effective skill practice exhibits a number of features, chief among which are scaf-folded and cued instructional support and corrective, sometimes elaborated, coaching and feedback (Doyle 1983; Frederiksen 1984; Glaser 1979; Jones, Amiran, and Katims 1985; Pressley and Harris 1990; Resnick 1987a, 1987b; Resnick and Klopfer 1989; Rosenshine and Meister 1992; Wood, Bruner, and Ross 1976).

Scaffolding practice consists of using a diagram or series of written prompts that walk students explicitly through each step in an authentic procedure for applying the skill. By doing so, these devices allow students to concentrate on performing and perfecting each of the key steps in that operation with-out trying simultaneously to recall what these steps are or a useful sequence for performing them. Barak Rosenshine and Carla Meister’s (1992) analysis of research on thinking-skill instruction indicates that procedural checklists, skill-specific procedural graphic orga-nizers, and process-structured questions are especially useful for scaffolding the initial practice and applying newly introduced thinking skills. These and other scaffolding techniques have been described in detail by other researchers (Armbruster, Anderson, and Mall 1991;

THE SOCIAL STUDIES SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

02 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Beyer 1997; Dillon 1982; Jones, Ami-ran, and Katims 1985; McTighe and Lyman 1988; and Winne 1979).

Cueing practice proves useful in increasing learner proficiency when applying a recently introduced thinking skill, especially when it follows scaf-folded practice. A cue is a prompt that reminds one of what to do next but does not provide explicit guidance in doing it. The most effective cues for thinking skills include using the skill name or previously taught synonyms for its name in questions, directions, or explanations; stating the first several steps in a skill pro-cedure; or using a mnemonic consisting of the first letters of the steps in a skill’s procedure (McTighe and Lyman 1988; Rosenshine and Meister 1992). Research indicates that cues help students recall a skill procedure that is at least partially internalized as a result of prior learning and then scaffold the application of that skill (Doyle 1983; Rosenshine 1997).

Rehearsal is a cueing technique often used prior to student application of a previously introduced skill (McTighe and Lyman 1988; Rosenshine and Meis-ter 1992). This technique consists of helping students recall from previous experiences a procedure and heuristics to be applied in carrying out the skill they are about to use. Research into the physiology and functioning of the brain as well as information processing research suggest that repeated, cumu-lative rehearsal strengthens recall of a skill and scaffolds its subsequent appli-cation. Other techniques such as making multiple associations and restructuring information also strengthen and expand associations in the brain that strengthen recall of skill procedures and related skill information (Jensen 1998; Lehman 1990; Sprenger 1999).

Additional Techniques for Guiding Skill Practice

Michael Pressley et al. (1995), Rosen-shine (1997), and other researchers and teaching specialists have reported a number of other skill-teaching tech-niques appropriate for structuring and guiding student thinking-skill practice. The following are especially useful.

David R. Olson and Janet W. Asting-ton (1990) suggest that consistent use of the language of thinking in every-day classroom discourse, throughout all instruction in thinking skills, provides important cues for storing and retrieving skill procedures and related knowledge. This involves using the name of a skill to denote or trigger its application (as in “Evaluate this essay,” rather than “Tell me what you think about this essay”), as well as using the technical terms that denote the steps of major thinking pro-cedures (such as alternatives or options in reference to the possible choices that one could consider in making a deci-sion; Astington and Olson 1990; Olson and Astington 1990; Perkins 1992).

Coaching is important in supporting skill practice while students are actually applying a skill. It can consist of asking questions or providing hints, explana-tions, information, reminders, correc-tions, or step-by-step guidance. In effect it feeds remediating information forward into the ongoing performance of a skill. The teacher or other students may pro-vide it, as needed, to individual students or groups as students move through all stages of skill practice (Pressley and Harris 1990; Rosenshine 1997).

Providing feedback that seeks to alter or improve skill performance can also occur after a student applies a skill. Instructive feedback, in the form of hints, suggestions, brief demonstrations, and even questions, gives information about skill use to students after they have applied a skill. To be most effec-tive in improving thinking-skill profi-ciency, feedback must promptly follow student application of the skill to which it applies (Frederiksen 1984; Posner and Keele 1973).

For example, feedback can be pro-vided by engaging students in meta-cognitive reflection immediately after applying a newly introduced thinking skill (Brown, Campione, and Day 1981; Sternberg 1984). When that reflection is immediately followed by a second application of the skill, the use of this teaching technique also feeds skill-using information forward into the new application task, thus informing and supporting student application of the

skill. Various scaffolding and cueing devices function this way when used to assist students in practicing these skills (Jones, Amiran, and Katims 1985; Rosenshine and Meister 1992).

Lesson Strategies for Guiding Skill Practice

A common teaching strategy for guiding initial skill practices is to (1) preview or rehearse the skill; (2) ask students to apply the skill using a scaffold such as a checklist, graphic organizer, or questions keyed to a skill procedure; (3) ask students to reflect on how they applied the skill; and (4) then ask students to process the sub-ject matter manipulated and learned by applying the skill. Lessons provid-ing more intermittent practice usually can substitute cueing and coaching or other less intrusive feedback for scaf-folding and student reflection. These and other teaching strategies for using scaffolding and cueing techniques to guide student skill practice have been described in general terms by Pressley et al. (1995) and Rosenshine (1997), and in more detail by Beyer (1987, 1997). Additionally, use of techniques for making a skill procedure explicit may be helpful at any time during prac-tice when more direct instruction is required to help students recall a previ-ously introduced skill routine.

Teaching a Thinking Skill to Transfer

Because thinking skills are rarely transferred on their own beyond the con-text in which they are initially applied (Doyle 1983; Nickerson 1989; Perkins and Salomon 1989; Stonewater 1977), students benefit from instructional assis-tance in making such a transfer (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989; Perkins and Salomon 1988, 1989). Instruction and practice in applying a recently learned skill to new contexts enable students to decontextualize—or generalize—the skill beyond the characteristics of the specific type of data or problem or con-tent in which it was originally encoun-tered (Rosenshine 1997).

228 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 THE SOCIAL STUDIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

02 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Techniques for Teaching Skill Transfer

Research indicates that in transferring the application of a newly learned skill to new contexts it is especially impor-tant for students to identify the general similarities between the new and the original skill-using contexts so they can better identify other contexts in which the skill may be applicable (Hudgins 1977; Nickerson 1989; Perkins and Salomon 1988). Helping students gen-eralize the circumstances when it is appropriate to apply a skill and making explicit principles for applying it also facilitate transfer of a skill to new con-texts (Perkins and Salomon 1988).

Researchers and specialists have also suggested that transfer can be facilitated even when introducing a new skill for the first time. In doing so—for exam-ple, when previewing or reviewing a skill—teachers can help students recall previous times when they attempted to employ the skill and predict additional occasions when it would be appropri-ate to employ that skill. These activi-ties, often referred to as “bridging” a skill, help students identify and connect similar features in situations where use of the same skill may be appropriate (Feuerstein 1980; Perkins and Salomon 1988).

Lesson Strategies for Teaching Skill Transfer

Transfer can be initiated by rein-troducing in a new context a thinking skill previously applied in a different context to show students how it works in the new context. The same lesson strategies for introducing a new skill may be used. However, employing an inductive strategy—starting with a preview or rehearsal of the skill—allows students to recall and apply more easily what they already know from previous lessons on the skill. Follow-up practice often requires sev-eral additional scaffolded and then cued skill lessons in the new context until students demonstrate their abil-ity to apply it with ease in this new context (Beyer 1987, 1997; Pressley et al. 1995).

Where and When to Teach Thinking Skills

Many researchers recommend teach-ing thinking skills in academic subject-matter courses—rather than in so-called “content-free” courses or units—as the ideal setting or context for improving the quality of student thinking (Joyce 1985; Pressley and Harris 1990; Resn-ick 1987b; Resnick and Klopfer 1989). Their research identifies three main rea-sons for this recommendation.

First, one’s knowledge of the subject matter and the nature of that subject mat-ter inform the selection and application of thinking skills just as the selection and application of these skills shape the insights and knowledge derived from subject-matter study (Glaser 1984; Resn-ick and Klopfer 1989). Thinking skills serve as tools for achieving subject- matter learning goals, just as subject matter serves as a vehicle and context for applying these thinking skills. This symbiotic relationship between subject matter and thinking skills thus provides repeated opportunities for instruction in thinking skills while students apply them in the natural course of subject-matter learning. Subject-matter learn-ing and thinking-skill improvement can therefore readily proceed hand in hand, each reinforcing and contributing to the development of the other in an integrat-ed fashion (Joyce 1985; Prawat 1991).

Second, research indicates that stu-dent motivation to learn a new or com-plex cognitive skill is sharply enhanced when instruction in how to execute it is provided at a point where stu-dents perceive a need to use the skill to accomplish an assigned or desired subject-matter learning objective. When learning subject matter is what counts—as it seems to in most classes, as far as most students are concerned—learning how to better apply a skill required to learn the given subject matter takes on a special urgency for students. Conse-quently, they appear much more willing to attend to instruction in that skill when that instruction is provided at this point (Bereiter 1973; Dempster 1993; Posner and Keele 1973; Pressley and Harris 1990; Sigel 1984). Moreover, continued

academic success in applying think-ing derived from instruction motivates students to engage with increasingly challenging cognitive tasks encountered later (Bandura 1997).

Finally, research demonstrates that instruction in thinking skills built on the research findings and recommendations presented in this article significantly improves the quality of student thinking (Anderson, Marcham, and Dunn 1944; Bauman 1976; Doyle 1983; Edwards 1988; Frederiksen 1984; Glenn and Ellis 1982; Herrnstein et al. 1986; Lip-man 1985; Lochhead 1976; Resnick 1976; Schoenfeld 1979a, 1979b; Sigel 1984; Sternberg and Davidson 1989; Whimbey 1980; Whimbey and Whim-bey 1975). Perhaps even more impor-tant, however, this research demon-strates that in those courses that provide continuing, systematic instruction in the thinking skills needed to understand the subject matter, students score higher on assessments of their thinking and end-of-course assessments of subject-matter learning than do students in the same subject-matter courses in which such direct skill instruction is not provided (Edwards; Estes 1972; Nickerson 1989; Rosenshine 1997; Schoenfeld 1979a).

In short, instruction in thinking skills in subject-matter courses improves subject-matter learning as well as the quality of student thinking. Thus, sys-tematic, direct teaching of thinking skills is clearly worthwhile. Integrating or infusing direct thinking-skill instruc-tion with instruction in the subject mat-ter where these skills are needed to achieve valued subject-matter learning goals thus appears not only feasible but highly desirable.

Using Research to Teach Skillful Thinking

The research cited in this article is impressive in its breadth. It is also impressive for what is missing. Obvi-ously, all the research relative to teach-ing thinking skills that we may need or would like to have may not exist. There are gaps and omissions even in the research that exists. Education-al research is an ongoing enterprise

THE SOCIAL STUDIES SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

02 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

changing with the educational interests of the times.

In spite of these limitations, this research and its interpretations sug-gest useful techniques and strategies for improving the teaching of think-ing skills. To the degree that classroom teachers and instructional designers employ these techniques and strategies consistently and continuously through-out their thinking-skill instruction, we may reasonably expect the kinds of improvement in our students’ thinking that will also lead to their greater aca-demic success.

NOTE

An earlier version of this article was pub-lished in A. L. Costa, ed. 2001. Developing minds: A resource book for teaching think-ing. Alexandria, VA: Association for Cur-riculum and Development.

REFERENCES

Anderson, H., ed. 1942. Teaching critical thinking in social studies—13th yearbook. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.

Anderson, H. C., F .G. Marcham, and S. B. Dunn. 1944. An experiment in teaching certain skills of critical thinking. Journal of Educational Research 38 (4): 241–51.

Anderson, J. R. 1982. Acquisition of cogni-tive skill. Psychological Review 89 (4): 369–406.

———. 1983. The architecture of cogni-tion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

———. 1993. Rules of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Anderson, R. C. 1977. The notion of sche-mata and the educational enterprise. In Schooling and the acquisition of knowl-edge, ed. R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, and W. E. Montague, 415–31. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Anderson, R. C., E. H. Hiebert, J. A. Scott, and I. A. Wilkinson. 1985. Becoming a nation of readers. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.

Armbruster, B. B., R. C. Anderson, and V. C. Mall. 1991. Preparing teachers of literacy. Educational Leadership 49 (3): 21–24.

Astington, J. W., and D. R. Olson. 1990. Metacognitive and metalinguistic lan-guage: Learning to talk about thought. Applied Psychology: An International Review 39 (1): 77–87.

Ausubel, D. 1960. The use of advanced organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology 51 (5): 267–72.

Baker, L., and A. L. Brown. 1984. Metacog-nitive skills and reading. In Handbook of reading research, ed. P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr, and P. Mosenthal, 353–94. New York: Longman.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy; The exer-cise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bauman, R. P. 1976. Teaching for cognitive development: A status report. Birming-ham: Project on Teaching and Learning in University College, University of Ala-bama.

Bereiter, C. 1973. Elementary schools: Con-venience or necessity? Elementary School Journal 73 (8): 435–46.

Beyer, B. K. 1987. Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

———. 1988. Developing a thinking skills program. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

———. 1997. Improving student thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Beyer, B. K., and R. Pasnak. 1993. Helping children think better: The developmental lesson set approach. Journal of Research and Development in Education 26 (2): 97–105.

Bloom, B. S., and L. J. Broder. 1950. Prob-lem solving processes of college students. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brown, A., J. Campione, and J. J. Day. 1981. Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher 10 (2): 14–21.

Brown, A. L., J. D. Bransford, R. A. Fer-rara, and J. S. Campione. 1983. Learn-ing, remembering, and understanding. In Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development, 4th ed., ed. J. H. Flavell and E. M. Markham, 77–166. New York: Wiley.

Brown, J. S., A. P. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18 (1): 32–42.

Bryson, M., and M. Scardamalia. 1991. Teaching writing to students at risk for academic failure. In Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students, ed. B. Means, C. Chelemer, and M. S. Knapp, 141–67. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carretero, M., and J. F. Voss. 1994. Cogni-tive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Case, R. 1992. The mind’s staircase. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chi, M. T. H., R. Glaser, and M. J. Farr. 1988. The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, A., J. S. Brown, and A. Holum. 1991. Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator 6 (11): 38–46.

Commission on Reading. 1985. Becoming a nation of readers. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

CTGV (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University). 1993. Anchored instruction and situated cognition revis-ited. Unpublished paper.

Dempster, F. N. 1993. Exposing our students to less should help them learn more. Phi Delta Kappan 74 (6): 433–37.

Dillon, J. T. 1982. The multidisciplinary study of questioning. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology 74 (2): 147–65.

Doyle, W. 1983. Academic work. Review of Educational Research 53 (2): 159–99.

Dreyfus, H. L. 1984. Expert systems ver-sus intuitive enterprise. Paper presented at George Mason University Conference on Cognitive Development, Arlington, VA, May 29, 1984.

Duffy, G. G., L. R. Roehler, E. Sivan, G. Rackliffe, C. Book, M. S. Meloth, L. G. Vavrus, R. Wesselman, J. Putnam, and D. Bassir. 1987. The effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly 22 (3): 347–68.

Edwards, J. 1988. Measuring the effects of the direct teaching of thinking skills. Human Intelligence Newsletter 9 (3): 9–10.

Ennis, R. H. 1962. A concept of critical thinking. Harvard Educational Review 32 (1): 81–111.

———. 1985. A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Lead-ership 43 (2): 44–48.

Ericsson, K. A., and H. A. Simon. 1984. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Estes, T. H. 1972. Reading in the social stud-ies: A review of research since 1950. In Reading in the content areas, ed. James Laffery, 178–83. Newark, DE: Interna-tional Reading Association.

Feuerstein, R. 1980. Instrumental enrich-ment. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Frederiksen, N. 1984. Implications of cog-nitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Review of Educational Research 54 (3): 363–407.

Gersten, R., and D. Carnine. 1986. Direct instruction in reading comprehension. Educational Leadership 41 (7): 70–78.

Glaser, E. M. 1941. An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.

Glaser, R. 1976. Components of a psychol-ogy of instruction: Toward a science of design. Review of Educational Research 46 (1): 1–24.

———. 1979. Trends and research questions in psychological research on learning and schooling. Educational Researcher 8 (1): 6–13.

———. 1984. Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psycholo-gist 39 (2): 93–104.

Glenn, A. D., and A. K. Ellis. 1982. Direct and indirect methods of teaching problem

230 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 THE SOCIAL STUDIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

02 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

solving to elementary school children. Social Education 46 (2): 134–36.

Hayes, J. R., and L. S. Flower. 1980. Identi-fying the organization of writing process-es. In Cognitive processes in writing, ed. L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinberg, 3–30. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

———. 1981. Writing as problem solving. Visible Language 14 (4): 388–99.

Hembree, R. 1992. Experiments and rela-tional studies in problem solving: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Math-ematics Education 23 (3): 242–73.

Herrnstein, R. J., R. S. Nickerson, M. San-chez, and J. A. Swets. 1986. Teaching thinking skills. American Psychologist 41 (11): 1279–89.

Hudgins, B. B. 1977. Learning and thinking. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Hurst, J. B., M. Kinney, and S. J. Weiss. 1983. The decision making process. The-ory and Research in Social Education 11 (3): 17–43.

Jensen, E. 1998. Teaching with the brain in mind. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment.

Jones, B. F., M. R. Amiran, and M. Katims. 1985. Teaching cognitive strategies and text structures within language arts pro-grams. In Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 1. Relating instruction to research, ed. J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, and R. Glaser, 259–90. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Joyce, B. 1985. Models for teaching think-ing. Educational Leadership 42 (8): 4–7.

Joyce, B., and B. Showers. 1983. Power in staff development through research on training. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment.

Kaufman, E. L., and N. E. Miller. 1958. Acquisition of a learning set by normal and mentally retarded children. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychol-ogy 5:614–21.

Kepner, C. H., and B. B. Tregoe. 1997. The new rational manager. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Research Press.

Larkin, J., J. McDermott, D. P. Simon, and H. A. Simon. 1980. Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science 208 (4450): 1335–42.

Lehman, E. B. 1990. Some suggestions for the teaching of thinking from an infor-mation processing perspective. Teaching Thinking and Problem Solving 12 (1): 1, 3–4.

Leinhardt, G., I. L. Beck, and C. Stainton. 1994. Teaching and learning in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leinhardt, G., and K. M. Young. 1996. Two texts, three readers: Distance and exper-tise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction 14 (4): 441–86.

Lipman, M. 1985. Thinking skills fostered in philosophy for children. In Think-

ing and learning skills: Vol. 1. Relating instruction to research, ed. J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, and R. Glaser, 83–108. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

———. 1988. Critical thinking—What can it be? Educational Leadership 45 (1): 38–43.

———. 1991. Thinking in education. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lochhead, J. 1976. The heuristic laboratory. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

———. 1985. Teaching analytical reason-ing skills through pair problem solving. In Thinking and learning skills: Vol. 1. Relating instruction to research, ed. J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, and R. Glaser, 116–24. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

———. 2001. Thinkback: A user’s guide to minding the mind. Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum.

Martin, D., and S. Wineburg. 2008. Seeing thinking on the web. The History Teacher 41 (3): 305–19.

Mayer, R. E. 1983. Can you repeat that? Qualitative effects of repetition and advanced organizers on learning from sci-ence prose. Journal of Educational Psy-chology 75 (1): 40–49.

McTighe, J., and F. T. Lyman Jr. 1988. Cue-ing thinking in the classroom: Theory-embedded tools. Educational Leadership 45 (7): 18–24.

Means, B., C. Chelemer, and M. S. Knapp, eds. 1991. Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mulcahy, R., and Associates. 1993. Cogni-tive education project. Teaching Thinking and Problem Solving 15 (6): 1, 3–9.

National Council of Teachers of Mathemat-ics. 2000. Principles and standards for school math. Reston, VA: National Coun-cil of Teachers of Mathematics.

NCSS Task Force on Scope and Sequence. 1989. In search of a scope and sequence for social studies. Social Education 53 (6): 376–87.

Newmann, F. M. 1990. Higher order think-ing in teaching social studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies 22 (1): 41–56.

Nickerson, R. 1989. On improving thinking through instruction. In Review of research in education, Vol. 15, ed. E. Z. Rothkopf, 3–57. Washington, DC: American Educa-tional Research Association.

Nickerson, R. S., D. N. Perkins, and E. E. Smith. 1985. The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nisbett, R. E., and T. D. Wilson. 1977. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental process. Psychological Review 84 (1): 231–59

Olson, D. R., and J. W. Astington. 1990. Talking about text: How literacy contrib-utes to thought. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (5): 705–21.

O’Sullivan, J. T., and M. Pressley. 1984. Completeness of instruction and strategy transfer. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 38 (2): 275–88.

Palincsar, A. S., and A. L. Brown. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1 (2): 117–75.

Palincsar, A., and L. Klenk. 1991. Dialogues promoting reading comprehension. In Teaching advanced skills to at-risk stu-dents, ed. B. Means, C. Chelemer, and M. S. Knapp, 112–30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Paris, S. G., and P. Winograd. 1990. Pro-moting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. Remedial and Spe-cial Education 11 (6): 7–15.

Paris, S. G., K. K. Wixson, and A. S. Pal-incsar. 1986. Instructional approaches to reading comprehension. Review of Research in Education 13 (1): 91–128.

Pasnak, R. 1989. Teaching basic cognitive operations to at-risk students. Human Intelligence Newsletter 10 (2): 4–7.

Pasnak, R., K. Brown, M. Kurkjian, K. Mat-tran, and N. Yamamoto. 1987. Cognitive gains through training on classification, seriation and conservation. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs 11 (3): 295–321.

Perkins, D. 1985. Post-primary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology 77 (5): 562–71.

———. 1987. Myth and method in teaching thinking. Teaching Thinking and Problem Solving 9 (2): 1–2, 8–9.

———. 1992. Smart schools. New York: The Free Press.

Perkins, D. N., and G. Salomon. 1988. Teaching for transfer. Educational Lead-ership 46 (1): 22–32.

———. 1989. Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher 18 (1): 16–25.

Peterson, P. 1979. Direct instruction: Effec-tive for what and for whom? Educational Leadership 37 (2): 46–48.

Posner, M., and S. W. Keele. 1973. Skill learning. In Second handbook of research on teaching, ed. R. M. W. Travers, 805–31. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Prawat, R. S. 1991. The value of ideas: The immersion approach to the development of thinking. Educational Researcher 70 (2): 3–30.

Pressley, M., and K. Harris. 1990. What we really know about strategy instruction. Educational Leadership 48 (1): 31–34.

———. 2001. Teaching cognitive strategies for reading, writing and problem solving. In Developing minds: A resource book for

THE SOCIAL STUDIES SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

02 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

teaching thinking, ed. A. Costa, 266–70. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-sion and Curriculum Development.

Pressley, M., V. Woloshyn, J. Burkell, T. Cariglia-Bull, L. Lysynchuk, J. A. McGoldrick, B. Schneider, B. Snyder, and S. Symons. 1995. Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children’s academic performance. 2nd ed. Cam-bridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Resnick, L. 1976. Task analysis in instruc-tional design: Some cases from mathe-matics. In Cognition and instruction, ed. D. Klahr, 51–80. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

———. 1987a. Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Acad-emy Press.

———. 1987b. The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Edu-cational Researcher 16 (9): 13–29.

Resnick, L., and L. E. Klopfer. 1989. Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Roehler, L. R., and G. G. Duffy. 1984. Direct explanation of comprehension processes. In Comprehension instruction: Perspec-tives and suggestions, ed. G. G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler, and J. Mason, 265–80. New York: Longman.

Rosenshine, B. 1997. Advances in research on instruction. In Issues in educating stu-dents with disabilities, ed. J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, and D. Chard, 197–220. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosenshine, B., and C. Meister. 1992. The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leader-ship 49 (7): 26–33.

Schoenfeld. A. 1979a. Can heuristics be taught? In Cognitive process instruction, ed. J. Lochhead and J. Clement, 315–36. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.

———. 1979b. Explicit heuristic training as a variable in problem solving perfor-mance. Journal for Research on Math-ematics Education 10 (3): 173–87.

———. 1985. Mathematical problem solv-ing. New York: Academic Press.

Siegler, R. 1998. Children’s thinking. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sigel, I. E. 1984. A constructivist perspec-tive for teaching thinking. Educational Leadership 42 (3): 18–21.

Simon, H. 1980. Problem solving and edu-cation. In Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and research, ed. D. T. Tuma and R. Reif, 81–96. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sprenger, M. 1999. Learning and memory. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-sion and Curriculum Development.

Sternberg, R. 1984. How can we teach intel-ligence? Educational Leadership 42 (1): 38–50.

Sternberg, R., and J. Davidson. 1989. A four-prong model for intellectual development. Journal of Research and Development in Education 22 (3): 22–28.

Stonewater, J. K. 1977. Instruction in prob-lem solving and Piaget’s theory of cogni-tive development. PhD diss., Michigan State Univ.

Swartz, R., S. Fisher, and S. Parks. 1998. Infusing critical and creative thinking into secondary science. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Books and Software.

Swartz, R., M. A. Kiser, and R. Reagan. 1999. Infusion lessons: Teaching critical and cre-ative thinking in language arts, book C1, grades 5 & 6. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Books and Software.

Swartz, R., and S. Parks. 1994. Infusing critical and creative thinking into content instruction: A lesson design handbook for the elementary grades. Pacific Grove, CA: Critical Thinking Books and Software.

Taba, H. 1965. Teaching of thinking. Ele-mentary English 42 (15): 534–42.

Taba, H., S. Levine, and F. F. Elzey. 1964. Thinking in elementary school children. Research Project No. 1574, San Francisco State College. San Francisco: U.S. Office of Education Cooperative.

UCLA National Center for History in the Schools. 1995. National standards for United States history. Los Angeles: UCLA National Center for History in the Schools.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and lan-guage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Whimbey, A. 1977. Teaching sequential thought: The cognitive skills approach. Educational Leadership 59 (4): 255–59.

———. 1980. Students can learn to be bet-ter problem solvers. Educational Leader-ship 38 (8): 560–65.

Whimbey, A., and J. Lochhead. 1999. Prob-lem solving and comprehension. 6th ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Whimbey, A., and L. S. Whimbey. 1975. Intelligence can be taught. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Wineburg, S. 1998. Reading Abraham Lin-coln: An expert/expert study in the inter-pretation of historical texts. Cognitive Sci-ence 22 (3): 319–46.

Wineburg, S. S. 1991a. Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive process-es used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology 83 (1): 73–87.

———. 1991b. On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal 28 (3): 495–519.

Wineburg, S. S., and J. Fournier. 1994. Con-textualized thinking in history. In Cogni-tive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences, ed. M. Carretero and J. F. Voss, 285–308. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Winne, P. H. 1979. Experiments relating teachers’ use of higher cognitive ques-tions to student achievement. Review of Educational Research 49 (1): 13–50.

Wood, S. S., J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-try 12 (2): 89–100.

232 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2008 THE SOCIAL STUDIES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

02 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

014