1

CONCLUSIONS

In the Understandings, I responded to various questions related to my research question using information from published writing around my topic. As I close and reflect on my research experience and implications for other classrooms, I respond to these same questions.

Education: What’s the Purpose? In designing this project I was inspired by many educators who declare value in teaching

thinking to children. Dewey proposed that students have opportunities to cultivate thinking skills as part of the experiential process of learning (Dewey, 1938). Freire believed that teachers couldn’t expect their students to become active citizens unless we teach them to be active thinkers (Hooks, 2010). After eight years of teaching 9 and 10 year-olds I found myself compelled to directly address this important purpose of education: to teach and encourage deep thinking. In a fifth grade classroom, I envisioned deep thinking to look like students actively wondering about new material, asking questions to dig into a topic, and recognizing connections to make sense of new information encountered.

The summer before developing this research project I came across the book Making Thinking

Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding and Independence for All Learners (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011). It gave practical ways to make thinking an explicit task in the classroom. Eager to foster thinking in my day-to-day practice, I began planning a research project around teaching thinking strategies (with guidance from this book) to students.

As I read through research in this area, I realized that teaching students how to think was not

enough. I needed to develop the thinking dispositions of my students so that they not only had the ability to think deeper, but the inclination to use their new skills without prompting. To do this, I had to do more than just implement a thinking routine to develop skills. I had to create a whole culture of thinking in the classroom to foster the use of thinking techniques throughout each day.

My research question became: How can I create a classroom culture that nurtures in my

students the skill and will to think deeply? I planned to promote my students’ abilities to delve deeper into material, and also help to make the practice of engaging this way more habitual for them. I found research supporting this goal, but few studies written about the actual experience of implementation. I hoped my research would determine if actions taken toward creating a culture

of thinking–in which thinking actions are made visible to students and time and opportunities for thinking are built into each day–could make a difference in how I observe students questioning and engaging in the classroom.

I was encouraged to pursue this goal by previous educators, philosophers, and psychologists

who concur that the primary purpose of education is not limited to delivering material, but includes developing rational thought (Marzano, 1988). Furthermore, as Hooks states, “Enthusiasm for lifelong learning is promoted by critical thinking” (2010, p. 187). My action research was an attempt at implementing methods to develop the thinking skills and thereby enhance the engagement and active participation of my 5th graders in their learning.

When I began my research with a plan for enculturating thinking, the methods I planned

(Appendix E) seemed practical and feasible. I neglected to realize that they would actually take quite a lot of time. Early in the school year, teaching thinking, having conversations about thinking, modeling thinking by verbalizing it, and making displays of our thinking started to feel onerous. I was initially trying to introduce my students to several different thinking strategies (e.g., questioning, summarizing, making connections, and considering multiple viewpoints), but realized that using several thinking routines and reinforcing each of them through the culture of the classroom would be too much. I decided to focus on one critical thinking technique and selected this based on what I felt was appropriate and important for my students.

I chose to teach the skill of questioning (including discussing questions and making

connections from those questions) because I felt it was a skill my students were developmentally capable of learning and also noticeably lacking at the start of the year. In addition, I found a lot of research suggesting the value of this skill. According to Jones, “teachers often question students, but students should be taught to pose questions of their own, which is vital to critical thinking” (2012, p. 67). My purpose was not to develop all levels of thinking, but specifically to help students learn how to explore content on their own and discover interesting complexities in material through questioning and connecting, rather than see themselves as passive recipients of knowledge, waiting to be given information.

Why teach thinking skills? It seems an accepted fact that schools are environments that breed thinking in children.

Unfortunately, the activities that take place in classrooms rarely train students on how to think and often do not encourage students to use thinking skills (beyond memorization and regurgitation). Perkins wrote, “Education has the opportunity, and hence the responsibility, to improve students’ thinking. A variety of studies show that people often do not use their minds well, and can learn to do so better” (1993, p. 98). Paul agrees and states “we are still under the misconception that thinking more or less “takes care of itself,” that simply by studying “hard” subjects or “concentrating” we can think well” (1993, p. 14). Teaching students how to engage with new topics–to take new information and ask questions or make connections to get at deeper thinking about the content–is important in education. Just as children naturally dance or sing, but need lessons to develop these skills, the art of disciplining the mind to reach further and probe deeper also requires coaching (Paul, 1993).

Deep thinking requires training Early on in my research, I found my students lacking the ability to think about a topic

independently and to probe deeply into the possibilities or depth of the topic. This was evident

when I asked them to convey their thinking in writing by focusing on a topic with which they were at least somewhat familiar (i.e., hamsters) and jotting down everything that crossed their minds in considering this topic (questions, comments, stories, experiences, etc.). The students’ responses (both written and observed) demonstrated a limited understanding of what to do with new information. Many didn’t know what to put down on the paper or felt unsure about what they should think around the topic. A couple of students reflected later that they just wanted me to tell them about the topic and then they could think about it, suggesting that thinking required reflecting on information given to them. The written responses included few connections or questions and rather conjured the opinions or descriptions they had for the topic. Then, students had the chance to rethink about the topic after watching a video about it. Their new thinking varied little from regurgitating what they heard.

I recognized that my students were unaware of different activities they could do when thinking

about something. As thinking is an invisible action, they were not clear as to what other people did when thinking, so couldn’t readily mimic the approaches of the more experienced thinkers around them. Most viewed thinking as reflecting on what you already know or have heard, versus wondering about what you don’t know or connecting threads of something new to something you know well or have experienced before. I wanted to encourage them to see wondering and connecting as thinking, which meant reframing for them what it even meant to think. My students were echoing the need specified in the research for purposeful action toward teaching children to think and making more complex thinking visible to students (Costa, 2008; Jones, 2012; Perkins, 1993).

In my endeavor to teach thinking skills to my students I discovered that it is helpful to discuss

specific activities we do as part of thinking such as questioning, even when these activities seem fairly obvious (as children have been doing them naturally since before starting school). I had thought, asking them to simply brainstorm a list of questions about a topic (as part of the Question Starts Visible Thinking Routine) was requesting them to complete a simple task. I found this was not the case. Many students were stuck determining what kinds of questions to put down. Even after modeling once to show that all types of questions were okay, students were hesitant to put on paper what they were actually wondering and others suggested they wondered nothing and therefore, had no questions to write. Practice with developing questions is perhaps a task not required for younger children who seem to question incessantly. However, it is needed for older children who, accustomed to being discouraged to ask questions, have fallen out of practice doing so.

When I had conversations and reflections about questions with my students, they uncovered

purposes to questions and an understanding of thinking on a deeper level. Initially, the class agreed in their belief that questions were mostly important for finding answers. Then we talked about different types of questions and the value and purpose of each. And we practiced questioning–giving students time to develop lists of questions and to ask questions based on other questions, while hearing me respond to their questions with questions of my own rather than answers. With more discussion about questions and more practice, students discovered that questions helped us probe deeper and reveal aspects of new topics that weren’t initially obvious. The explicit conversation about types of questions led my students to realize and appreciate a greater value for questioning. For some, this removed the fear around asking questions, which was previously seen as revealing an embarrassing lack of knowledge instead of a thoughtful way to seek knowledge and pursue learning. The more I asked questions, rather than answered them, the

more they saw that questions led them in interesting directions and toward thinking more broadly about a topic. Here is an example of a dialogue I had with a student in which I responded with questions rather than answers.

Student (to teacher): Why didn’t the houses in Samoa have walls? Teacher: What purpose do walls serve? Student: They give us privacy? Teacher: What do you mean by that? Student: Well, people can’t see the things you’re doing, if you want to do things in private. The walls give you

your own space to be alone. Teacher: Is ‘being alone’ or ‘doing things in private’ something we need to live? Student: Well, no, I guess, but I hate when my brother bothers me in my room and I shut the door to keep him

out. Teacher: Can you imagine a group of people who might want to share their space more than keep people out of

their spaces? Student: I guess. But, there are other reasons for walls too, like to keep out the rain or cold. Teacher: Okay, so we agree that some people or cultures may not need privacy, but now what about weather?

Where is Samoa located? What is the weather like there... Figure 18. Example of student-teacher interaction with questions. This is a sample

conversation in which the teacher led the student to consider a topic more deeply by asking questions rather than answering them.

Is teaching thinking skills enough? Research suggests that merely teaching skills to students is not enough to make them

comfortable and willing to use these skills in different situations. As Ritchhart states, “dispositions aren’t so much taught as they are enculturated” (2002, p. 51). Providing an environment that encourages the use of skills is necessary. Student reflections throughout my research made it clear that thinking of the sort I was expecting (in which students were doing more than listening, remembering, and repeating) was not commonly encouraged in their previous classrooms. Even if students were taught to ask questions or make connections, the culture around them in the classroom did not promote using these practices frequently. Students were used to being asked for answers in school (which required repeating back information they heard), but not encouraged to ask questions, or to take information and make connections to it that required synthesis of some sort. Some students also noted that teachers usually do the talking and don’t encourage students to ask questions to drive the learning. As one student stated, “Teachers usually tell, tell, tell instead of give kids a chance to ask their own questions.”

Undoing misconceptions about thinking Focusing on questions over answers as part of the thinking culture in my classroom seemed

revolutionary for many of my students. In preparing for my research, I imagined my students to be inexperienced in doing the type of thinking I planned to teach and encourage. It hadn’t occurred to me that part of the reason they were not already practicing such strategies was that they felt discouraged toward doing so by previous classroom teachers. My students believed teachers wanted facts and information and didn’t value questions. Initially, they hesitated writing down questions or connections they had as they were ‘thinking’ about a topic because they thought these weren’t important. Not only were they inexperienced in using the strategies of questioning or connecting as part of their normal thinking routines, they did not recognize that

these strategies were valuable. Teaching thinking skills suggests to students that these skills (in our case, questioning and

connecting) are important to know. But, we must do more than just teach the skills. Students formulate opinions of what thinking is based on what they observe in reality more than what we tell them in direct lessons. If students see that we set aside time for practicing thinking strategies; value discussion around this thinking; and display the results of this thinking around the room they are more apt to believe in the importance of the thinking skills we teach, and to use them when not directly guided to in different scenarios. When teachers celebrate or respond positively to students who provide answers in class, students develop the notion that thinking is about remembering and regurgitating correct answers to the teacher. When teachers support questioning, students start to develop an expanded understanding of what thinking is and how it is useful. Supporting questioning means showing enthusiasm for and recognizing the new doors to learning that open up when a student asks a question. In my own research, students began to recognize that questioning helped us dive deeper into a topic, rather than simply providing us an answer. After several weeks in the classroom, Cayla reflected, “Thinking deeply is letting your ideas out, but also reflecting off of what you’ve heard, and asking questions. I can ask questions and then bounce off of other people’s questions and I go deeper and deeper.”

How are thinking dispositions developed? Students with ‘thinking dispositions’ have both the skill to practice deeper thinking and the will

to implement deep thinking practices without prompting. My vision of a student with a developed thinking disposition is a student who engages with new material or topics by asking questions and making connections without needing specific guidance to do so. A culture of thinking is recommended to develop thinking dispositions. As Ritchhart (2002) suggests for developing thinking dispositions, I modeled thinking, set expectations for thinking, taught strategies for thinking, and provided opportunities for thinking practice and reflection. The Question Starts Routine encouraged questioning and connecting; and the modeling, visual aids, and opportunities for using this routine and reflecting on it supported the internalization of the actions of questioning and connecting. Certainly, it was hard to determine when/if students were internalizing these skills and using them independently in different situations. Ritchhart warned me of such prior to beginning my research. He stated that,

“We have a tendency in education to want to measure everything, but dispositions by their very

nature don't lend themselves to easy measure. Here is a quick thought experiment to see why this is so: What would a test of loyalty, friendship, or honestly look like? All of those are dispositional attributes but next to impossible to measure because you make your assessment based on observation in situations across time. So while we can see behaviors and note those when they occur, it is not necessarily wise to try and give an exact measurement.” (personal communication, April 8, 2013)

I agreed an exact measurement of thinking dispositions was not possible as no quantitative

assessment could evaluate disposition development. Still, I believed there was potential for observing student actions that would suggest the development of thinking dispositions. Over time I saw:

• Active student engagement

When I asked students to think about questions around new topics prior to giving them any

exposure to or pursuing learning on these topics I noticed their interest was piqued. When we actually delved into studying it, more students were already hooked. Priming with questions helped students engage more deeply with texts. I noticed throughout the reading of a text I needed to provide more time for students to voice connections or ask additional questions. They also approached topics that seemed potentially boring like “food preservatives” with great fervor because they had their own questions about the topic prior to jumping into it.

"I think that when you’re reading an article all you’re doing is letting it sink in and you’re

just like, “oh, okay, I learned this” but when you write questions and talk about it you actually wonder about it and it sparks up more questions and you think about, “Oh, I remember this.” and can make connections and all that stuff but when you’re reading an article all you’re doing is reading it and letting it sink in.” –Kiki

• More student participation

Nearly all students were interested in contributing questions or connections in class discussions or when experts came to speak in the classroom whereas only five or six students were frequently heard from in the beginning of the year.

“It was easier to speak up because I just had to talk about questions. I didn’t have to have

the right answers for a change.” –May

• Increased questioning Students either became more comfortable sharing their questions in class or developed a

greater ability to generate questions as the year went on. “The only time I would ask questions was at my house. I would always ask questions–even

stupid questions–and my parents would get annoyed about it. Now I feel more confident about asking questions–it’s sort of like my companion.” -Mark

“I used to have no questions when the teacher told us to write down questions on a new

topic. I just wanted to find out information about the topic. Now I can come up with questions even when the teacher doesn’t ask us to, like when there’s a speaker in the room and I want to know more about what they’re telling us, I ask questions that I want to know about.” –Natalia

• New value for questions and connections

Students recognized that questions aren’t just to get immediate answers, but can be used to expose the depth of a topic. They demonstrated this understanding by asking questions to unpeel layers of a topic rather than merely asking the who, what, when and where to get the surface facts.

“I think asking questions is helpful because it makes you dig deeper. It is helpful because

you really get your brain juices flowing. That makes you think very hard and learn more. It's what makes you want to learn stuff and invent stuff. It's what drives learning.” -Marco

Based on these observations I concluded that the majority of my students developed thinking

dispositions. They learned skills for thinking and are visibly employing them. Some may be doing so because they now recognize the value their teacher has for such behavior. Are they really questioning because they are curious and value this technique or doing so because they want to

please me? I cannot truly know. Still, I am encouraged that students own and value these behaviors by parents who have accompanied us on field trips and witnessed the thinking behaviors from my students (when I was not present). Their observations suggest students were doing these things for their own benefit rather than to please or impress me.

Though encouraged by the growth I observed, I recognize there are limitations. While some

students noted that, with a focus on questions, they now feel comfortable speaking up in class because they don’t run the risk of being ‘wrong’, other students still refrain from asking questions in large groups. They recall vividly when they were laughed at for their comments in classrooms in earlier grades. It is hard to help students overcome the fear that this behavior will be repeated. Still, I work toward building their confidence to share thinking out loud. Rather than encourage answers from students, I celebrate when they make connections or ask questions. Then we pursue those questions so students see that their questions can drive learning. Also, we talk together as a class explicitly about how we can continue to encourage the students who are still fearful to contribute their thoughts to feel more confident. Sharing thinking, and talking about thinking, has become part of our daily conversation.

Lessons learned in creating a culture of thinking The current research around setting up a culture of thinking in a classroom suggests that there

are many different areas or opportunities within the classroom that can be used to direct or encourage thinking (Ritchhart, 2002). Perkins suggests that we first take notice of the absence of thinking in the classroom and then take action to make thinking explicit–both the practice of deep thinking and the discussion/modeling of it. I took actions to create a culture I hoped would encourage students to engage deeply with information rather than just listen and repeat what they heard in class. Here are some lessons I learned through this experience.

Lesson 1: It takes effort (and good modeling) to make a visible thinking routine feel routine. I naively thought that using a visible thinking routine with my students would be fairly

straightforward, and that repetition of this would lead to better engagement with material and more confident practice of the thinking strategies of questioning and connecting. When I initially read through the visible thinking routines developed by Harvard’s Project Zero (Ritchhart et al., 2011), I found the simple instructions for using the routines appealing. It turned out that the routine itself (Question Starts, specifically), while straightforward to some, required a great amount of scaffolding for my students to understand and become comfortable using. The routine is an activity consisting of a few steps that require students to ask (and write down) questions around a new topic, discuss their questions in small groups, and reflect on learning that came from the discussion. Instructing students to use this activity was not enough. I had to teach and discuss each part of the routine so that my students became comfortable trying it themselves.

It was helpful to model the whole routine first, but it was also very useful to model the routine

with my own thinking (rather than soliciting responses for the class). As I used the routine myself, I verbalized what I was wondering and displayed what I was writing to the whole class. One challenge many students had with this was recognizing that all questions were okay and that there were no limits to the kinds of questions you could ask. When I modeled my own question brainstorm, I took liberties to ask questions connected to other questions. I asked both simple and complex questions and I used sentence starters to help me formulate questions when I got stuck. I did this after finding students struggling with this part of the routine, but I would suggest starting with this prior to having students try it. We also ended up having multiple discussions throughout

the year about types of questions and quality of questions (as noted in my Findings) to help students feel comfortable and recognize the value in asking all kinds of questions.

I modeled the other important piece of the routine–discussing the questions–by including a

few students in my discussion and having the other students look on to see how a discussion can be carried out (which looked like two concentric circles, a smaller one that included me surrounded by the rest of the class). I only thought to do this after witnessing several iterations of discussions fail. In the future, I would model an effective small-group discussion with an empty seat in my inner circle of demonstrators. This way, when one student watching felt like contributing to the inner circle, they could join in, speak and then leave so the seat would be open to other students who wanted to participate. This strategy would have encouraged more students to practice the discussion piece, rather than just watch and try to apply what they observed in their own small groups. Taking time with the initial implementation of this activity in the classroom helped students develop shared expectations for their participation. For some, it helped change their preconceived notions about questions. They saw our discussions as a chance to play with questions and explore connections to ideas, rather than to merely seek answers.

Lesson 2: Integrating thinking takes time. Creating a culture of thinking required more than just a planned activity here and there to teach

or encourage engagement with material. The visible thinking routine I used (Appendix D) was something I scheduled into my daily plans to do with my students. Many of the other strategies I implemented to encourage development of thinking dispositions (e.g., modeling thinking or creating visual displays of thinking) extended the time of other activities. Integrating thinking into our overall classroom experience meant each classroom activity took longer. At the start of the year, I neglected to account for the fact that making thinking explicit–whether it be reflecting on thinking or modeling thinking out loud or visually–was something that would be a part of every activity in the classroom, thereby increasing the time needed for all activities. At first, this was frustrating and led me to scale back my efforts to focus on thinking in the classroom (using the thinking routine less frequently and visually capturing class thinking less often). I found that every time I took “a moment” to highlight thinking, a couple of minutes turned into fifteen as students asked questions about either what I was modeling or displaying for them about my own thinking. I couldn’t possibly do this all the time! Eventually, as students became more comfortable with the routine and I honed demonstrating my own thinking, I was able to include more of this in our daily classes. As students got used to seeing my thinking unfold, it took less time to model thinking or display it visually.

Lesson 3: Articulating our own thinking takes practice Making my own thinking visible to my students was harder than I anticipated. I talked out

searching for information using Google, or described what I was thinking as I read something new in an article to the class, but then found myself scrambling to truly describe that my mind was questioning or connecting at other (and most) points throughout the day. Sometimes, when a graphic representation didn’t come to me for conveying my thinking, I just talked about what was going on in my head. I worried that this was not helpful and sometimes seemed too complex to my class. With practice, I was able to share my thinking more succinctly and it became more natural to me to do so. Here’s an example of how I presented my thinking to the class after a speaker came to talk about her experience in the Marshall Islands.

As I listened to the presenter tell us about not drinking the water, I connected that to when I told this class

about not being able to drink the water in Uganda. I mentioned then that the Ugandans could drink it just like Mexicans drink their water, but Americans usually get sick when we do so. I wonder if the same is true on the Marshall Islands. Can the natives drink the water? Or, is it unsafe for them, too? The speaker talked about fecal matter in the water. That can’t be good for anyone, right? I wonder why the pigs poop in the water? I wonder if that happens in other places–even in OUR country–where pigs are raised. The speaker said they tested the water and there was an article in the newspaper about the poop levels in the water. Who tested it? Do we have testing here? Can we test the water that we swim in or that we drink? Does our government make sure that the water we drink is not contaminated by animal waste? I wonder what makes the water that is bottled so clean? Are there other things that could be bad for us in that water; is it processed in some way or just collected from a spring? Are some types of bottled water better than others? I should look at the labels of water and see what they really say.

So you can see, instead of just hearing from the speaker that she had to drink bottled water and that pigs poop in the water and keeping those facts in my head, I have extended my thinking by making connections and asking questions so that now I’m wondering about the water I drink in America and who monitors to ensure it’s safe here. Figure 19. Teacher verbalization of thinking. This is a transcription of a my think-aloud in

response to a presentation given to the class.

Lesson 4: A culture of thinking develops slowly I wanted this endeavor to be “actionable” for me in the classroom and then, if successful, easy

to convey to other teachers to try themselves. Like any culture, a culture of thinking develops as we take specific actions that value thinking, repeat these and then allow them to grow and impact other areas. To promote thinking in my classroom, I began with a set of planned activities. It started by trying these–actually doing a thinking routine, or attempting to make my own thinking explicit, or capturing a thought process in a visual display. Then, after repetition of these activities, thinking became part of the explicit discussion in the classroom at unscheduled times throughout the day. This is when our culture of thinking was truly felt. When thinking was a part of our focus outside of the scheduled activities, I knew it was part of our classroom culture. Students started to ask me more questions–not just about a new topic, but also about what I was thinking. I found myself spontaneously asking students to contribute to thinking displays on things we talked about (see Figure 20).

Figure 20. Display of thinking. This image shows an example of a visual representation of the

thinking of several students on a topic they explored during one activity. Sometimes I noticed I’d describe to students how I tackled thinking about something

completely new to me. In these moments, I realized that thinking or specifically, questioning and connecting, was something we obviously had grown to value and share together in our classroom. It took time to get to this point. I began with actions I had to specifically plan into my day, but eventually the culture developed and the actions came naturally.

Tips for parents aiming to develop a culture of thinking at home At several points throughout this research period, parents came to me to describe how their

children were asking more questions at home. It occurred to me that parents could support their children by developing a similar culture of thinking in their homes. Just as children learn from their teachers in the classroom, Jeffrey states, “consciously or subconsciously, they’re taking notes and watching their parents” (2007, p. 22). From my experience in the classroom I suggest a couple of steps to help facilitate this.

Make thinking heard. Parents can explicitly share their own thinking with their children. Jeffrey calls this strategy

“think-aloud” (2007, p. 24). For example, if parents are making a decision or trying to do something new or even responding (or attempting) to respond to one of the many questions posed by their children, parents can talk about what is going on in their heads so that their thinking is exposed to their kids.

Don’t supply answers. Encourage children to ask questions without giving them answers. If, for example, you’re

stopping at the gas station, ask your children to tell you what they wonder about gas stations. Push them to ask questions and talk about their questions with them, rather than giving simple answers to each thought. In addition, respond to questions with questions to enable children to see they can discover their own answers through questioning. In the classroom, it looks like the following:

Student: Why can’t we go for a walk in the canyon today? Teacher: Good question. [They’re all good.] That makes me wonder, what other things can’t we

do today and what things are we choosing to do today instead? Student: Well, you said we’re going to work on our writing. Why can’t we just go for a walk and

work on writing tomorrow? Teacher: What do you think helps me decide how to spend our time? Student: I don’t know. You make sure we do the important stuff first? Teacher: What do you think makes something more important than something else… Identify connections. Help children see connections between things they wonder about. Rather than responding to

questions with an answer or a suggestion that a child look up an answer, help children make connections between questions they have and things with which they are already familiar or experienced. For example, when a student in the classroom was trying to research how the holiday of Hanukkah is celebrated in Israel, he asked, “What should I talk about and where can I find information?” I compared Hanukkah to a holiday we celebrate here in the U.S. When he connected these two, he was able to recognize that he should look for foods, decorations, and activities people do to celebrate the holiday. Rather than offering this student a simple answer to his question, I tried to help him see that he could find the answer by relating it to something with which he is already familiar.

What are some limitations of this practice? It is here that I must remind readers that this research is drawn from one 5th grade classroom

experience, and limited to the decisions I made both at the start of this action research and throughout the school year. Most importantly, in choosing to focus on questioning and connecting, I limited the type of thinking we developed in our classroom. I was deliberate in my choice to encourage questioning and connecting, based on what I saw lacking in my students initially and what I saw helping them to think deeper about information as we progressed. If I were to teach these same students next year or a different set of students with different needs, I may modify our culture of thinking to focus on a different aspect of critical thought such as using evidence to support conclusions or looking at different perspectives when exploring new topics. A culture of thinking can look different in separate classrooms because the type of thinking aimed for can be different. Based on the type of thinking chosen for focus, the methods used to encourage this thinking (e.g., the thinking routine used or visual representations displayed) will also be different. What carries through all situations, however, is the embedded practice of making thinking (of whatever sort) explicit–talking about it, representing what happens in our heads in visual ways, reflecting on it, and providing time and opportunities to learn how to do it well.

A caveat here is that my classroom is part of a project-based school and projects (when

carefully designed) inherently lend themselves to critical thinking. According to Mergendoller (2012), project-based learning is a powerful pedagogy for developing critical thinkers. In many traditional schools, classes are designed to disseminate knowledge and skills to children without provision of time for real thinking. Our classroom naturally had many opportunities for thinking about content deeply. This doesn’t automatically happen with the institution of project-based learning, but projects can be structured to demand more critical thinking than other educative experiences (Mergendoller, 2012). It may have been more natural, in my project-based setting, to promote and practice critical thinking techniques. That said, any teacher in any context can do things to encourage thinking. Simply vocalizing thinking strategies teachers use can guide students

toward what they should or can do with their own minds. Taking time (even once) to have a conversation about questions (the various types of them and the value they each have) is helpful toward opening students’ minds about asking more questions to drive their own learning.

What are some limitations of this research? There are obvious limitations to this research associated with the fact that I was a part of the

process. Action research always assumes that the researcher impacts the results in ways that may not be exactly replicated in other situations. Still, I feel that other teachers could benefit from trying the activities mentioned throughout this study as there is evidence that even the simplest of tasks (e.g., merely talking about questions) can have a positive impact on students’ understanding about thinking.

The methods I chose to assess change in my students’ thinking dispositions could have been

different, as well. I limited myself to surveys, class discussions, observations and exit slips because I found these were all I could find time for. Merely embedding thinking practices into our days (including reflection on thinking) was time-consuming. Had I found time for focus groups (after school or at lunch) or individual interviews at periodic times throughout the project, I may have gleaned more information from my students to inform my actions. For example, it wasn’t until later in the year that I talked with one quieter student about her experience with the Question Starts routine. In our discussion, I was able to discern that she was struggling with the routine because she really wanted to have unique questions. She was frustrated with this activity because she felt like her questions were similar to classmates, and that was boring. Had I spoken to her one-on-one before, I may have been able to discuss this with the class and help them understand that questions did not have to be unique to be valuable. This may have alleviated her frustration (and perhaps others’) earlier.

Where does this leave us? One major goal of education is to prepare students for success in the world beyond school.

John Sculley (a past CEO and Chairman of Apple Computer) stated it well back in 1993 when he noted,

“our public education has not successfully made the shift from teaching the memorization of

facts to achieving the learning of critical thinking skills. We are still trapped in a K-12 public education system which is preparing our youth for jobs that no longer exist” (as cited in Paul, 1993, p. 15).

Though we like to believe our schools have changed in the 20 years since Sculley made this

statement, the behavior of my students prior to the implementation of this research suggests differently. They were comfortable with memorization and regurgitation, but not with particular actions that are suggestive of critical thinking. I realized that thinking–or at least active thinking–is not an action students learn simply by attending school. If schools are focused on information and facts, students develop the notion that thinking is listening, memorizing, and reiterating what they have heard. Classrooms that make aspects of critical thought explicit–that create a culture around developing this thought and allowing for it to be expressed–teach students that thinking is more complex and set students up to be more interested, active learners.

I spent a lot of this school year reframing students’ understanding of thinking based on what

seemed to be notions they had conjured from experiences in other classrooms. Perhaps many

teachers discourage a natural tendency to wonder and connect by focusing on information and facts (answers to questions) rather than the pursuit of new knowledge via questioning. Maybe the biggest lesson to be learned from this, as teachers, is that our classrooms must be environments that promote deeper thinking. This means we must give time for it, show value for it, and discuss the act of thinking rather than merely the content we teach. Even parents can afford to take lessons from this by recognizing that discouraging questions is harmful to children’s developing notion of thinking, and simply answering their many questions teaches them that facts and information are the only important part of learning. If we want children to learn and practice thinking techniques, we cannot do the thinking for them. We need to teach them how we think and give them plenty of opportunities to follow our lead by thinking for themselves.