i

How teachers’ dispositions towards critical thinking shape the culture of thinking they build

in their classroom.

Brendan Dale Zani (B.Ed., B.A.)

This thesis is presented for the degree of Master of The University of Western Australia

Graduate Research School of Education

2019

iii

ABSTRACT

Critical thinking is a global priority among educational reformers and policy makers.

Australia’s National Curriculum accords it priority as one of the general capabilities, a skillset

to be embedded and developed across academic disciplines. More recently, research has

examined cultures of critical thinking, and the significant role of culture. Australian education

has traditionally favoured the expediency of knowledge transfer over enculturation, with

classrooms that by their patterns, emphases, points of accountability and design have reinforced

a narrow construction of learning, a pattern echoed elsewhere. Concerned by the difficulty of

producing clear, long-lasting effects from critical thinking interventions, researchers have

examined the way in which the surrounding environment might reinforce the teaching of

critical thinking. This study sought to gain an understanding of individual teachers’

dispositions towards critical thinking, and the way it shapes their perception of the classroom

and the decisions that they make in structuring the classroom space to illuminate the dynamics

at play in this central task of education. The paucity of information on how critical thinking

dispositions shape educational practice means the dynamics that underpin education practice

in this regard are not well understood.

This study sought to illuminate how teachers dispositions toward critical thinking shaped their

vision of the place of culture, its enabling and inhibiting forces, how such a culture is cultivated,

and the effects it is seen to have on students inhabiting the culture. I pursued a retroductive

multiple case study design, conceptualised within the social theory of critical realism. The

cases focused on five secondary school teachers and one of each of their classes at an

Independent boys’ school in Western Australia. Participating teachers completed the California

Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory and participated in two semi-structured interviews,

the first prior to direct classroom observation, and the second interview after this observation

and informed by direct observation of participants. I transcribed all interviews and analysed

them using a directed coding method, independently of one another, and then at the cross-case

level, before engaging in a process of abduction and retroduction.

My analysis identified four major dimensions of a classroom culture of thinking, with 26 major

themes emerging from analysis. The four major dimensions identified in relation to a culture

of thinking were the outcomes of the culture as producing transformed learners, the necessary

features of the classroom environment at a relational level, as well as in terms of the teacher’s

iv

role and core pedagogical orientation, pedagogical strategies guided and governed by the

notion of an academic apprenticeship, and the conceptualisation of culture as a lens, mediating,

shaping and focusing student learning.

My findings are significant in that they draw extended interviews with participating teachers

to offer a critical realist analysis of cultures of thinking and the way in which teachers

dispositions shape the culture of thinking they create. The study provides insight into the

structures that mediate a culture of thinking, the enabling conditions that foster such a culture,

the inhibiting conditions that constrain this culture, and the ways in which teachers exercise

agency within these structures to cultivate a culture of thinking.

The study highlights three enabling structures of such a culture, as learning that mimics the

academic discipline, a relationship of trust between students and teachers, and teachers as

conductors, models and experts. In this environment, teachers exercise considerable agency to

navigate and enable such structures. Pedagogically, this study finds such cultures are enabled

by the necessary features of contextualized learning, the primacy of questioning in the

classroom, and a focus on fostering discipline-based thinking and metacognitive awareness.

As a mechanism, culture acts as a lens, mediating, shaping and focusing student learning. It

also identifies four inhibiting structures that constrain or dilute cultures of thinking, assessment

and curriculum, the time available to teachers, and students’ prior experiences.

The study also identifies a unifying approach governing the selection and application of

pedagogical strategies which can best be considered an academic apprenticeship, a rethinking

of the decision-making rubric of a culture of thinking. Across cases, the objective of this

apprenticeship was to transform learners, such that they embody the skills, character traits and

dispositions of effective thinkers, willing to make mistakes, curious to probe knowledge, able

to question with expertise, desiring to learn, playing with knowledge, possessing systems of

thinking, and learning autonomously. The goal is a learner having acquired not only a

discipline-based proficiency in critical thinking, but an understanding of the discipline and the

necessary character or disposition to drive future learning.

Critical realist analysis envisages a stratified ontology, the focus of which is in identifying

enabling and inhibiting structures, the nature of agency and how it is exercised within such

v

structures, and the deep causal structures that give rise to the social world we inhabit. Applied

to cultures of thinking, there are promising possibilities for situating empirically robust

pedagogical strategies within a better understanding the world in which they are fostered.

Future research would benefit from seeking to examine a wider range of contexts, and to

examine cultures of thinking as they function for students.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my lead supervisor Prof. Vaille

Dawson for her unceasing support, graciousness and generosity throughout this thesis. Her

patience with my work schedule, her willingness, at all times, to expend of herself on my

account, and her gentle wisdom have made this thesis a wonderful experience. I could not

have foreseen the astute guidance, nor the deep encouragement she would offer.

I would also like to thank my other supervisors, Loretta Dolan and Jennifer Shand, both of

whom were enthusiastic supporters and sources of wise counsel. The ideas, alternatives, and

feedback provided by them gratefully received, and always insightful.

I thank Dr. Rob McEwen for spurring me on to the noble task of scholarship. So many long

and patient conversations left me in awe of his wisdom, and his willingness to be shaped by

scholarship. It is a blessing to have had his friendship during this time.

I wish to honour the friendship, encouragement, counsel and comfort of colleagues who have

walked so much of this journey with me. I am indebted to many, but I particularly thank

Howard Loosemore, Sam Sterrett, Sam Rees, Courtney Ellis, Alex Wood and Cara Fugill for

their wisdom, loving support and curiosity. I also thank Peter Allen for his leadership and

vision, and Michael Scaife for being there through all things.

Finally, I wish to thank my wonderful family. My parents have exhibited long-suffering

patience for their absent son, lost in research and writing. I thank them for always rejoicing in

my joys, and commiserating in my difficulties, and for their unwavering love. I am dearly

thankful to my children, Jonathan and Gabrielle, who have provided the laughter, smiles and

cuddles that have sustained many late nights. To my precious wife, Rozlyn, who has loved

me with unimaginable devotion and good humour, who has carried the weight of so much of

this thesis, and with whom I am honoured to walk every day of my life, my richest thanks

must go to her.

Soli deo Gloria.

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Data Sources Overview According to Research Question

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1. Initial Coding Categories

Figure 3.2. Coding Reflecting Critical Realist Ontology and Research Concerns

Figure 4.1. Overview of Major Dimensions and Themes

Figure 5.1. The relationship between the academic apprenticeship and the transformed

learner

Figure 5.2. A Dispositional and Proficiency-Based Conceptualisation of the Transformed

Learner

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements vi

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction 1

Definition of Terms 2

Context to the Study 3

Research Questions 5

Significance of the Research 6

Positionality of the Researcher 8

Structure of Thesis 10

Conclusion 11

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 12

Introduction 12

Conceptions of Critical Thinking 12

Dispositional Constructs 15

The Contemporary Asia-Pacific Context 19

Conceptualising the Teaching of Critical Thinking 20

Cultures of Thinking in the Classroom 21

Impediments to a Culture of Thinking 23

The Efficacy of Explicitly Teaching Critical Thinking 24

Pedagogical Approaches to Developing Students’ Thinking 25

Conclusion 27

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD 28

Introduction 28

Theoretical Framework 28

Research Questions 31

Research Method 31

Research Design 32

The Cases 33

Data Sources 35

x

Data Analysis 40

Quality Criteria 43

Ethical Consideration 45

Conclusion 46

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 47

Introduction 47

What are Teachers’ Dispositions Toward and conceptions

of Critical Thinking?

48

What are Teachers’ Aims and Expectations Regarding

Thinking in the Classroom?

52

What strategies do participants use to develop a culture of

thinking?

Conclusion

60

88

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 91

Introduction 91

Participants Dispositions Toward Critical Thinking 92

Outcomes: the transformed learner 93

The Classroom Environment: necessary features 95

Conceptualising: a culture of Thinking 99

Strategies: the academic apprenticeship 101

Limitations 106

Recommendations 108

Conclusion 110

LIST OF REFERENCES 112

APPENDIX A: HARPAZ’S SUMMARY OF THE APPROACHES TO

TEACHING THINKING AS META-THEORIES OR META-

PROGRAMS

121

APPENDIX B: THE AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION CONTEXT 124

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE FIRST INTERVIEW 126

APPENDIX D: LIST OF CODES DEVELOPED DURING THIS STUDY

ACCORDING TO RESEARCH QUESTIONS

130

APPENDIX E: EXAMPLE OF CODING PROCEDURES FOR

INTERVIEW DATA

135

xi

APPENDIX F: INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORMS 137

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

There is a high priority on developing critical thinking capacities in Australian

students, reflected in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young

Australians (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and. Youth

Affairs (MCEETYA), 2008), echoing a similar concern internationally. It is

highlighted by the OECD (2016), and has been the subject of much investigation

across the US, Europe and Asia (Chalabi, 2013; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). Critical

thinking is highlighted as a central dimension of 21st century skill sets required by

employers for the knowledge economy and job of the future, and is therefore central

to the tasks of education (Foundation for Young Australians, 2018; Griffin, Graham,

Harding, Nibali, English & Alam, 2017; Ananiadou & Claro, 2018). Given the seminal

role of teachers in student academic development, examining teachers’ dispositions

towards critical thinking and the nature of their practice constitutes a worthy subject.

There is, simultaneously, an emerging focus on cultures of critical thinking, and the

significant role that classroom culture has. Issues of transference raise this concern

around culture, given that interventions struggle to produce clear, long-lasting effects

in the absence of reinforcement from their surrounding environment (Perkins,

Tishman, Ritchhart, Donis & Andrade, 2000; Ritchhart, 2015; Ritchhart & Perkins,

2008; Richhart & Perkins, 2005). This study sought to gain an understanding of

individual teachers’ dispositions towards critical thinking, and the way it shapes their

perception of the classroom and the decisions that they make in structuring the

classroom space to illuminate the dynamics at play in this central task of education.

The paucity of information on how critical thinking dispositions shape educational

practice means the dynamics that underpin education practice in this regard are not

well understood, and what interventions, if any, are necessary, to achieve better

practice.

The first aim of this study was to understand how secondary school teachers’

dispositions and conceptualisation of critical thinking shaped their vision of the

outcomes of a classroom culture of thinking. The second aim was to explore how these

dispositions shaped these teachers’ conceptualisation of a culture of thinking, its

2

necessary constitutive elements, the ways in which a culture of thinking functions, and

the strategies by which a culture of thinking is fostered. The thesis began by situating

this research within the broader field of conceptualisations of critical thinking and the

modes by which it might be promoted. The research problem was positioned within

the body of scholarship relating to the developing of dispositional and skill-based

constructs of critical thinking, higher-order thinking, metacognitive knowledge, skills

and meta-strategic knowledge, and the construct of cultures of thinking. My findings

reinforce the centrality of culture in developing students’ thinking, but challenge the

model of a culture of thinking, identifying its enabling features and inhibiting factors.

My research provides insight into the principles guiding teachers’ pedagogical

strategies and how they use these strategies to build a culture of thinking.

1.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Critical thinking is defined as:

“purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis,

evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual,

methodological, criteriological or contextual considerations upon which that

judgment is based’’ (Facione, 1990, p. 2).

The critical thinker is defined as:

“habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded,

flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent

in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in

complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the

selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which

are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit” (Facione,

1990, p.3).

The disposition towards critical thinking is defined as:

“the consistent internal motivation to engage problems and make decisions by

using [critical thinking]” (Facione, 2000, p. 65).

Culture, as it pertains to a classroom culture of thinking, is:

“the context and general surround in which we operate [evident] in the practice

of the group, the acts they engage in, the kind of work that is valued and

3

rewarded, and the method by which these tasks are undertaken” (Ritchhart &

Perkins, 2005, p. 793).

1.3 CONTEXT TO THE STUDY

1.3.1 Conceptualising thinking

There have been significant efforts to conceptualise thinking over the past thirty years.

Much attention has focused on critical thinking, which has been understood to

incorporate not only cognitive skills but also dispositions toward those skills (Ennis,

1987; Facione, Sanchez & Facione, 1994; Paul, 1995; Tishman, Jay & Perkins, 1993),

or intellectual character (Ritchhart, 2002), as well as the sensitivity to recognise

opportunities to apply such thinking (Perkins et al., 2000) and select appropriate

strategies (Zohar, 2012; Richland, Begolli, Levine, Mayer, Murphy, Newcombe &

Worrell, 2016). Facione et al. (1994) stated that a person may have the capacity to

think critically, but not be inclined to do so; with this recognition in mind, the subject

of teachers’ dispositions is more significant. Others have advanced notions of higher-

order thinking (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), used to describe similar skills as

conceptualisations of critical thinking, and in this point to the non-algorithmic, flexible

and responsive dimensions of this thinking (Zohar & Alboher Agmon, 2018; Richland

& Begolli, 2016).

The methods by which teachers create a culture of thinking has much to do with their

pedagogy, and pedagogy has much to do with conceptualisations of critical thinking

(Harpaz, 2007). There are many conceptualisations of critical thinking offered by a

range of scholars (Ennis, 1987; Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1998). The American

Philosophical Association offers a conceptualisation reached by a Delphi panel of 46

theoreticians from several academic fields, one that is widely accepted in the field,

and which is the definition used in this study, as well as that corresponding to the

critical thinker (Facione 1990).

We have historically had a culture in education in Australia that favours the

expediency of knowledge transference over enculturation, with classrooms that by

their patterns, emphases, points of accountability and design have reinforced a narrow

construction of learning (Tishman et al., 1993). Ritchhart (2001) argues that traditional

4

views of education and intelligence have focused on abilities and skills, neglecting the

intellectual character of the learner.

1.3.2 A culture of thinking

Numerous scholars affirm the centrality of culture to shaping learning behaviours

(Ritchhart, 2002; Ritchhart, 2015; Tishman et al. 1993); it is “the best teacher of

dispositions” (Ritchhart & Perkins, 2005, p. 787). Culture is manifested in the

“practice of the group, the acts they engage in, the kind of work that is valued and

rewarded, and the method by which these tasks are undertaken” (Ritchhart & Perkins,

2005, p. 793). The outcomes of this culture are conceptualised largely with respect to

dispositions (Ritchhart, 2002; Ritchhart & Perkins, 2005). Ritchhart and Perkins

(2005) point to the potential of cultures that foreground values of thinking and

encourage attention to thinking, instilling not just skills, but attitudes and patterns of

alertness to thinking. Its necessary features are considered in terms of forces and the

content of strategies under these broad forces (Ritchhart, 2015), but there is otherwise

little literature in terms of the nature, dynamics, necessary dimensions nor enabling

features. In addition, even the most ambitious voyages into these seas encounter

cultural headwinds; curriculum, assessment and examinations can encourage lower-

order thinking, and teaching in its wake, even when attempts are made to reform its

settings (Zohar & Alboher Agmon, 2018; Zohar, 2013; Zohar & Cohen, 2016). This

study aimed to illuminate how teachers’ dispositions towards critical thinking shaped

their vision of the place of culture, its enabling and inhibiting forces, how such a

culture is cultivated, and the effects it is seen to have on students inhabiting the culture.

1.3.3 The teacher in the culture

The tension at play more broadly, though, according to Hayes (2014) is that, “Many

teachers say they strive to teach their students to be critical thinkers … but … the truth

is that you can’t teach people to be critical unless you are critical yourself”. Teachers

are central to the classroom environment, but more importantly, there is an emerging

focus on pedagogical expertise (Abrami, Bernard, Borokhovski, Wade, Surkes,

Tamim & Zhang, 2008; Zohar, 2013). A dearth of such expertise undermines teachers’

capacity to develop a coherent pathway to develop student thinking and can act as a

critical constraint on teaching higher-order or critical thinking, and metacognitive

5

skills, understanding and strategies (Zohar & Barzilai, 2015; Zohar 2012). It gives rise

to the question of how teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking shape their vision

of the classroom and its culture, and their apprehension, design and deployment of

pedagogical strategies to those ends.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The aim of this study was to develop theory about how secondary teachers’

dispositions towards critical thinking shape the culture of thinking they build in their

classroom. My research focused on the central research question:

How do teachers’ dispositions towards critical thinking shape the culture of

thinking they build in their classroom?

Guiding research questions:

1. What are teachers’ dispositions toward and conceptions of critical thinking?

This question aimed to ascertain the teachers’ dispositions toward critical

thinking. It also explored what they considered critical thinking to refer to, and

what they considered to be its place in relation to the classroom and across the

broader aims of education. The use of the California Critical Thinking

Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) (Facione et al., 1994) provided a measure of

participating teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking (Facione, 1990).

2. What are teachers’ aims and expectations regarding a culture of thinking in the

classroom?

I sought to understand what participants considered to be the nature and

objectives of a culture of thinking, and the culture of thinking they created in

their classroom. As well as this, I aimed to understand participants’

expectations of what outcomes the culture of thinking in their classroom

produced for their students. I also sought to identify how they saw a culture of

thinking interacting with or mediating students’ learning experiences, and how

it was distinguished from classrooms defined by its absence.

3. What strategies do teachers use to develop a culture of thinking?

6

This guiding question explored the means by which teachers fostered a culture

of thinking in their classroom. It aimed to generate understanding as to what

strategies and pedagogical approaches were used, the purposes toward which

these were directed, and the ways in which they functioned in achieving the

objectives of teachers’ cultures of thinking, and how they helped to develop

the essential features of such cultures. I also focused on determining what

participants believed to be the enabling or necessary conditions underpinning

their deployment of these strategies and approaches in building a culture of

thinking in their classroom. I also explored what factors or forces inhibited or

constrained the development of this culture of thinking.

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

This research aligns with the ongoing priority of critical thinking at the national and

international level among education authorities and broader public policy formulators

(Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2013;

MCEETYA, 2008; OECD, 2016). The Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008)

affirms the centrality of critical and creative thinking to the success of students as

learners. The Australian National Curriculum identified critical thinking as one of the

seven general capabilities essential for Australian students, alongside literacy and

numeracy, describing it as:

Thinking that is productive, purposeful and intentional is at the centre of

effective learning … [and] at the core of most intellectual activity that involves

students learning to recognise or develop an argument, use evidence in support

of that argument, draw reasoned conclusions, and use information to solve

problems.

The definition offered corresponds closely to that offered by Facione (1990), and

which is used as the definition of critical thinking in this research. There resides in this

stated priority a fundamental question: if this is so important, to what extent are

teachers creating classrooms that will cultivate thinking and critical thinkers? Are

teachers themselves disposed toward critical thinking? How do these dispositions

shape their conceptualisation of and disposition toward thinking in the classroom?

And how does it shape the culture that they create with respect to thinking? Amid the

need for concerted study of this subject, there is a need for study related to an

7

Australian context, in relation to which little study has been done, and the

idiosyncrasies of which have not been explored.

In light of this priority, the report in The Australian newspaper in June 2015, citing

Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s book Academically Adrift, raised the need for

concerted study of the cultivation of critical thinking (Davies, 2015). The article

reported on a large-scale study tracking 2300 United States college students from

2005–2009, revealing “45 per cent made no significant improvement in their critical

thinking skills during the first two years of college and 36 per cent made no significant

improvement after an entire four-year degree” (Davies, 2015). Similarly, Paul, Elder

and Bartell’s (1997) study of 140 United States academic faculty members, although

89% identified critical thinking as a primary objective of education, only 19% could

explain critical thinking, and only 9% were clearly teaching for critical thinking on a

typical day in class. It is worth studying how teachers’ varying dispositions towards

critical thinking shape how they attempt to cultivate a classroom culture likely to foster

these skills and dispositions.

Finally, this study offers a critical realist analysis of cultures of thinking. In so doing,

it offers an understanding the world in which they are fostered, including the structures

and agency within which teachers build a culture of thinking, and the causal

dimensions that shape how this environment is enabled and inhibited. Critical realism

is underpinned by recognition of a stratified ontology, which has distinct implications

for notions of causality (Bhaskar & Lawson, 1998; Danermark, Ekström, Jakobsen &

Karlsson, 2002; Fletcher, 2017; Sayer, 2000). Firstly, critical realist approaches

recognise an empirical level that people construct or that mediates their reality, and

which, critically, can be causal; an actual level or external reality that exists regardless

of people’s interpretation or construction, and a real level at which causal structures,

the inherent properties of the case participants and their environment, act as causal

forces to produce events (Bhaskar & Lawson, 1998; Fletcher, 2017). A critical realist

approach recognises that within a classroom culture of thinking, there is a “complex

compound effect of influences drawn from different mechanisms”, mechanisms that

may enable or frustrate other mechanisms, and that give rise, therefore, to the potential

for some powers to go unexercised, and structures which govern these mechanisms to

8

be unknown even to those who belong to the environment (Danermark et al., 2002, p.

55). This means that critical realist analysis offers unique insight into how teachers

shape classroom cultures of thinking.

At an analytical level, critical realism confronts what Bhaskar (1998) refers to as the

‘epistemic fallacy’ (p. xxvii) of positivism and constructivism. Bhaskar argues that

positivism delimits reality to what we can empirically verify, and constructivist

accounts reduce reality to no more than that which is constructed as knowledge by

humans and offers. A critical realist approach to classroom cultures of thinking

provided for mechanisms of causation which “[could not] be reduced to those of the

level from which they emerged” (Scott, 2005, p. 10). Critical realist epistemology and

ontology draws into focus “social actors’ – in this case, teachers’ - descriptions of their

experiences, projects and desires” even if “social actors [cannot] always provide

complete and accurate accounts of their activities, plans, projects and histories” (Scott,

2005, p. 644). Critical realism addresses an intensional dimension of social life – the

composite elements that make the whole of a phenomenon – beyond behavioural

regularities (Sayer, 2000), of pertinence when examining a subject like the way in

which teachers’ critical thinking dispositions shape the way they create cultures of

critical thinking in their classroom.

1.6 POSITIONALITY OF THE RESEARCHER

This research was stimulated by my experiences as a secondary school teacher across

Independent coeducational and boys’ schools. My early career experience with low-

achieving students in teaching English, particularly boys, and seeing their

responsiveness when provided with authentic contexts and skills alerted me to the

learning potential in every student. Watching their motivation improve, and seeing the

benefits that arose from supporting them in developing effective ways for organising

and refining their thinking and written expression convinced me of the value of

modelling thinking and planning, not just answers. I saw students become proficient

in a discipline they had previously regarded as alien. I saw this same improvement

across achievement and proficiency levels, that when a discipline could be rendered

coherent, students grew in their ability to control and develop their thinking and

writing, and were able to more effectively map their understanding. In large part, this

9

fostered an enduring gravitation towards how transformative the classroom experience

can be, and the dynamics that govern or tend toward this.

More recently, implementing a generic critical thinking skills program drew my

attention to a set of skills and a vocabulary that had never been explicated in either my

own education or in my teaching, despite my focus on modelling thinking and

planning. I also recognised practical limitations my teaching team faced in explicitly

teaching a set of skills and attempting to cultivate a set of dispositions outside of a

specific and coherent body of content in terms of transferability. Simultaneously, I

was engaging with the research from Harvard’s Project Zero, Ritchhart, Church and

Morrison’s (2011) work Making Thinking Visible. These experiences illuminated to

me significant differences in how teachers conceived the classroom, and how they

structured the learning environment, and brought to the forefront of my thinking the

structures by which we reason, how we infer, interpret, explain, analyse and evaluate

information.

This coincided with beginning to teach a secondary school course in epistemology that

required examining the methods by which different disciplines constructed

knowledge, and the dimensions and constraints that existed within these disciplines as

they constructed knowledge. Explicitly teaching these constructs provided me with a

vocabulary for describing the patterns of the construction of knowledge in my own

area of specialty, History, which in turn altered the method by which I taught my own

classes. As such, it drew attention to the discipline-specific ways that critical thinking

is manifested. As I began to seek out ways to explicate the internal structures of my

own discipline, and to equip students with an understanding of History in its authentic

articulation, I encountered Ritchhart’s (2015) Creating Cultures of Thinking. The

work was a catalyst for re-examining how I conceived of the classroom, but I wanted

to understand how others conceptualised a culture of thinking, and how their

dispositions toward critical thinking might shape this.

10

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THESIS

Chapter 1 aims to provide an introduction to the research problem driving this study,

and the significance and pertinence of this research and a context to the research

problem itself. It outlines my research aim, and how this study contributes to

addressing this aim, as well as the guiding research questions emerging out of the

central question. It also introduces the study in terms of its context and the method by

which I pursued this research, as well as the significance of the research. Finally, it

provides an overview of the thesis itself.

Chapter 2 offers an overview of literature pertinent to this study, both in its object of

study and its methodological approach. It charts the emergence of critical thinking as

an educational priority, as well as the conceptualisation of critical thinking skills,

dispositions, awareness and strategies. It also explores the development of notions of

a culture of thinking, challenges or factors inhibiting such cultures, and prevailing

literature regarding the role of the teacher in the development of students’ thinking.

The chapter examines different unified strategies aimed at developing students’

thinking, and the pedagogical approaches that have been found to be effective in

improving students’ thinking.

Chapter 3 provides a detailed rationale for, and explanation of, the method used in this

study by outlining the theoretical underpinnings research design. The chapter situates

the study within the Critical Realist theoretical frame and research paradigm. It then

provides an overview of the research questions, accounts for the development of the

research method and design, and outlines each case and the data sources. The chapter

explains the administration of the study and data analysis. Finally, the chapter

considers ethical dimensions and my responses arising in designing and conducting

the study.

Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study with respect to the research questions. The

chapter outlines the major themes and sub-themes that emerged out of cross-case

analysis. Findings are organised under the guiding research questions, and organised

into themes and sub-themes that emerged during analysis. The findings for each case

are presented simultaneously, and compared and contrasted in analysis, highlighting

11

areas where case findings support one another, and those where nuances or contrasts

appear.

Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the findings and conclusions of the study with

respect to the prevailing literature, and offers an evaluation of the limitations of the

study, as well as a series of recommendations for future study. It discusses the major

themes arising from my findings with respect to the overarching question of this

investigation. The chapter situates my findings against literature pertinent to this area,

identifying and examining where it reflects and diverges from previous scholarship,

or extends, modifies or offers additional insight into previous findings and scholarship.

It considers the outcomes of a culture of thinking, the necessary features underpinning

this culture, the strategies by which this is pursued, and the way in which a culture of

thinking operates.

1.9 CONCLUSION

Developing students’ critical thinking is a seemingly universal priority in education

policy and reform. Research has focused on how to effectively develop students’

thinking, and against this landscape, there has been an emerging focus on cultures of

thinking as a means by which to foster not only skills, but also dispositions toward

critical thinking.

Adopting a critical realist stance to analyse this subject, and drawing from multiple

case analysis, the study illuminates the structures that mediate a culture of thinking,

the enabling conditions that provide for a culture of thinking, the conditions that inhibit

or constrain this culture, and agency teachers exercise to navigate these structures and

cultivate a culture of thinking.

12

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2 offers an overview of the importance of critical thinking, and how the

research into critical thinking contributed to this research. It charts the emergence of

critical thinking as an educational priority, as well as the conceptualisation of critical

thinking skills, dispositions, awareness and strategies. It also explores the

development of notions of a culture of thinking, challenges or factors inhibiting such

cultures, and prevailing literature regarding pedagogy in the development of students’

thinking. The chapter examines different unified strategies aimed at developing

students’ thinking, and the pedagogical approaches that have been found to be

effective in improving students’ thinking.

2.2 CONCEPTIONS OF CRITICAL THINKING

Critical thinking has traditionally been defined in terms of cognitive ability and skills

(Tishman & Andrade, 1995; Ritchhart & Perkins, 2005; Facione, 2000; Facione et al,

1994). From the 1980s, there was renewed focus on a broader conceptualisation of

critical thinking, reviving Dewey’s conceptualisation. Between 1988 and 1989, the

Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association

participated in a two-year, multi-round, strict-method Delphi project to develop a

definition of critical thinking (American Philosophical Association, 1990). The cross-

disciplinary international panel of 46 experts yielded a robust consensus definition that

has since been taken as the foundational concept for the widely used California Critical

Thinking Skills Test, and which has previously been cited. Critically, they recognised

that a person might have the skills to do something, but that does not necessary mean

that people will use it even when the situation calls for it — that is, there is a

dispositional quality to critical thinking which forms the basis of the present research

(Ennis, 1993; Facione, 1990, Tishman & Andrade, 1995; Ritchhart, 2001).

Facione (2000) describes the definition that emerged as characterising critical thinking

as a self-adjusting process of evaluating information, using a core set of cognitive

skills to judge, monitor and improve thinking. It requires that one take into reasoned

consideration of evidence, methods, contexts, theories, and criteria (Facione, 2000).

Paul (2005), not dissimilarly, defined critical thinking as “the art of thinking about

13

thinking in an intellectually disciplined manner” (p. 28), and located critical thinking

behaviour in three interrelated phases: “They analyze thinking, they assess thinking,

and they improve thinking … replacing weak thinking with strong thinking” (p. 28).

Both locate it as occurring across disciplines, as well as within disciplines (Paul, 1985;

Facione, 2000). It was for this reason that my study sought teachers from across a

range of disciplines.

While constructs of critical thinking are central to this study, the broader field

incorporates concepts of metacognition, higher order thinking and metastrategic

knowledge. Conceptually, Zohar and Barzilai (2015) position higher order thinking as

underpinned by metacognition and metastrategic knowledge. With reference to

metacognition, a concept originally developed by Flavell (1979), Moshman (2018)

notes a distinction between two significant dimensions of metacognition relevant to

critical thinking: metacognitive knowledge, and metacognitive monitoring and self-

regulation. He explains that metacognitive knowledge captures our knowledge and

theories about how we engage with cognitive tasks, and the strategies we adopt in

relation to these tasks. Zohar and Barzilai (2015) differentiate this from metacognitive

skills, “the skills and processes used to guide, monitor, control and regulate cognition

and learning”, which might be considered to fall under the categories of planning,

monitoring, and evaluation, a differentiation they draw from (Schraw and Moshman,

1995).

Zohar and Barzilai (2015) explain that learners control and regulate their thinking by

engaging metacognitive skills, the procedural dimension of metacognition, which in

turn draws on metacognitive knowledge. In this conceptualisation, metacognitive

skills serve as a strategic juncture between metacognitive knowledge and cognitive

performance. Zohar and Barzilai (2015) point to both domain-general and domain-

specific aspects of metacognition. Their analysis identifies an empirical evidence-base

supporting a predominantly domain-general understanding of metacognitive skills,

meaning such skills “might more readily transfer to new tasks and domains” (p. 5).

Significantly, they also identify a latent capacity that means learners “may not

spontaneously acquire competent metacognitive skills” (p. 5) or may require

assistance or prompting.

14

Zohar and David (2009), in their conceptual analysis of metastrategic knowledge,

distinguish between higher-order thinking and metastrategic knowledge as strategic

levels of thinking, as distinct from the conscious awareness and understanding of

higher-order thinking. Higher-order thinking, anchored in Bloom’s taxonomy, is

outlined by Zohar and Barzilai (2015) as delineating thinking that extends beyond

comprehension and recall to include applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating. It

also incorporates “constructing arguments, asking research questions, making

comparisons, dealing with controversies, and establishing causal relationships”

(Zohar, 2004 cited in Zohar & Barzilai, 2015, p. 3). Zohar and Alboher Agmon (2018)

offer, in addition, the distinction that higher-order thinking is “non-algorithmic …

complex … yield[ing] multiple criteria and solutions” and involving “uncertainty” (p.

244). “Metastrategic knowledge”, by way of differentiation, entails “knowledge about

what thinking strategies can accomplish, about when, why, and how to use these

strategies, and about the goals and requirements of tasks” (Kuhn, cited in Zohar &

Barzilai, 2015, p. 3). Zohar and Barzilai (2015) argue that development in

metastrategic knowledge manifests in the student drawing on an increasing repertoire

of strategies, selecting and employing effective strategies with increasing proficiency.

Empirically, it would seem that metastrategic knowledge, like critical thinking,

exhibits a domain-specific and generalised duality. In their study of 119 eighth grade

students (13–14 years old), Zohar and David (2008) examined the effects of explicitly

teaching metastrategic knowledge. The sample, drawn from six heterogeneously

grouped classes, including equal numbers of high- and low-achieving students,

randomly assigned into experimental and control groups demonstrated the ability of

students in the experimental group to transfer their acquired metastrategic knowledge

to new tasks, observable in near and far transfer tasks as well as retention tasks

conducted three months after the initial body of instruction. Zohar and David (2009)

argued in relation to these findings that they demonstrated that metastrategic

knowledge contained a “substantial degree of generality” (p. 191). Zohar and Barzilai

(2015) echo these remarks, citing developmental studies indicating the domain-

general quality of metastrategic knowledge before the age of 15 (Van der Stel &

Veenman, 2010, 2013; Veenman & Spaans, 2005; Veenman, Wilhelm, & Beishuizen,

2004). For instance, Veenman and Spaans (2005), in their study of 32 Dutch secondary

15

school students, examining the generality versus domain specificity of metacognitive

skills across age groups using students’ learning performance on six word-based

mathematical problems, found “virtually no relation between metacognitive skills in

math and inductive learning” for 12–13 year old students, whereas they identified

significant correlation for 15 year old students (p. 172). Thus, any proper survey of

the field must account also for alternative constructs, and the contribution they may

make in contributing vocabulary and empirical validity to what is by other scholars

identified as critical thinking.

2.3 DISPOSITIONAL CONSTRUCTS

The logic of the case for dispositions resides in the gap between our capacity to think

critically, and our actual exercising of those critical faculties (Facione et al., 1995).

The notion finds its contemporary philosophical origins in Dewey’s 1922 work,

Human nature and conduct; an introduction to social psychology. Dewey’s (1922)

philosophy of social psychology “sets forth a belief that an understanding of habit and

of different types of habit is the key to social psychology” (p. iii), and in seeking to

find a term to express acquired behaviour which systematises or orders action, used

“disposition” (p.41). Dispositions, described, he argued, described that element of

human behaviour that is “projective, dynamic … ready for overt manifestation, and

operative even if not visible”. Ritchhart (2001) comments that Dewey’s emphasis on

the importance of acquisition and development separates it from traits or innate

properties and makes it possible to explain and predict intellectual behaviour.

Ritchhart and Perkins (2005) identify several strengths in a dispositional model.

Firstly, dispositional constructs can recognise and accommodate the contextual

dynamics and individual motivational factors that affect how people think, where

thinking behaviors are seen as “emergent and not merely automatic”, unlike notions

of intellectual traits, which are more “top-down”, fixed, and do not account for these

contextual and motivational factors (Ritchhart & Perkins, 2005, p. 787). “A focus on

thinking dispositions” writes Ritchhart, “seeks to better explain intellectual

performance by acknowledging the deep, attitudinal patterns of intellectual behavior”

(2001, p. 144). Furthermore, they argue it better corresponds to emerging social-

cognitive theories of personality (Ritchhart & Perkins, 2005), which is of relevance

16

when examining teachers and how they both see and construct the classroom. Thirdly,

it takes into account situational factors and individual motivation, offering an

understanding of emergent behaviours, relevant for understanding graduate teachers

right through to experienced practitioners, as well as students (Ritchhart & Perkins,

2005).

Ritchhart (2001) explains that the concept of thinking dispositions has a long and

complicated history, crossing several fields, encompassing a variety of related

concepts, and obscured by a proliferation of analogous terms. Even with agreement

on the term ‘dispositions’, Tishman and Andrade (1995) argue, perspicuity is elusive.

Contemporary conceptions of dispositions divide along lines of their relationship to

critical thinking skill, their role in critical thinking, and the degree to which they impel

one to act, or exist separate from action. At the Sixth International Conference on

Thinking, dispositions were figured as conditional tendencies, habits of mind,

inclinations, characterological attributes, mindless reactions, response vehicles,

skillfulness, a source of energy, attitudes, values, and behaviors (Tishman & Andrade,

1995). Ritchhart (2001) points to ongoing debates around the learnability of

dispositions, differences between habits and dispositions, and the degree to which they

are reflectively deployed or automatic inclinations. Understanding these necessitates

intensive inquiry.

For the purposes of better understanding the dynamics of what is being when we speak

of such dispositions, it is worth surveying the most recent and most prominent among

this field. Here, the work splits along philosophical lines, and that which has, after its

conception, been empirically validated to varying extents. Ennis (1996) views

dispositions as latent tendencies, exercised reflectively rather than automatically,

disconnected from corresponding abilities, and exercised only under certain

conditions. Ritchhart (2001) warns that viewing dispositions as immutable and

inherent characteristics aids us little in understanding critical thinking behaviour, and

renders the term essentially non-operational for research, making it a fixed trait.

Norris’ (1992) conception is of a more volitional set of characteristics that are

deployed under the appropriate circumstances, either by choice or by habit. The two

conceptualisations at the heart of this research are those of Facione et al. (1994), and

17

that synthesis from those at Harvard’s Project Zero, including Ritchhart, Perkins and

Tishman. Facione defines disposition as “the consistent internal motivation to engage

problems and make decisions by using [critical thinking]” (Facione, 2000, p. 65) and

along with Facione et al. (1994), takes a more characterological view of dispositions,

what Tishman (1994) called “intellectual character”, and what Ritchhart (2001) argues

describes “those dispositions associated with good and productive thinking” (p. 144).

Ritchhart (2001) argues that the notion of intellectual character shifts the emphasis

away from skills, abilities and behaviours to recognise more contingent qualities of

critical thinking. He argues that such a notion “communicates a clear concern with

broad-based characterological aspects of intelligence rather than skills, abilities, or

specific behaviors”; that is, character is developed in “contrast to the content and

context of abilities-centric intelligence tests” (Ritchhart, 2001, p. 144). As opposed to

ability-based constructs, character is designed to recognise the “messier” nature of

critical thinking in the world, and explain the gap between ability and performance,

the capacity to think effectively and the “attitudes, beliefs, habits, sensitivities,

inclinations, and dispositions” required to do so (Ritchhart, 2001, p. 144). Ritchhart

(2001) argues that, “Character also implies depth and permanence rather than fleeting

states” and “Most importantly … has a natural sense … as an animator of actions (p.

144). This is an important consideration when examining the relationship between

teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking and their classroom culture of thinking,

but also, specifically, in undertaking critical realist analysis. It recognises the complex

of factors that might help to explain the culture of thinking teachers cultivate in their

classroom, and that various factors might enable or inhibit such cultures.

Along with variance in characterisations, multiple accompanying models have been

presented to describe critical thinking dispositions. Among the more prominent,

Ennis’ (1987) model identified 14 critical thinking dispositions, including the

tendency to be open-minded, to seek alternatives and pursue precision, and Costa and

Kallicks’ (2000) “habits of mind”, point to dispositions to be used to behave

intelligently when facing problems devoid of immediate answers. All agree on the

centrality of acquiring disposition as well as skills. There has been limited testing of

the construct validity of these models at an empirical level, but, nonetheless, there is

18

strong convergence around several central ideas, and it is for this reason that Ritchhart

(2001) argues that the Faciones’ model is, in particular, able to converse effectively

with other models.

The strength of scholarship attesting dispositions as a significant dimension of how

people function provides the rationale for trying to understand how critical thinking

dispositions shape teaching. Part of this is reflected in low correlation between

disposition and ability. Facione and Facione (1997), in their study of 1,557 nursing

students who completed both the Californian Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)

and the Californian Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) at entry to their

college programs, observed a correlation of r=.201, p<.001, meaning “only about 4%

of the variance in [critical thinking] skills test scores potentially can be attributed to

or associated with the variance of these college students' [critical thinking]

dispositions test scores” (Facione, 2000, p. 76). Given that skills and dispositions do

not inherently align, to the extent that dispositions toward critical thinking represent a

significant dimension of how teachers function, they warrant consideration as a factor

shaping teachers’ cultivation of a culture of thinking in their classroom.

The philosophical and empirical strength of the CCTDI underpin its utility as an

instrument to measure teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking, and its

preferability over other assessments of critical thinking disposition. The CCTDI is the

most widely used inventory to test dispositions towards critical thinking (Chen,

Cheng, Liu & Tsai, 2009). By way of background, the test contains 75 Likert-style

items and reports eight scores: a score on each of the seven scales (Inquisitiveness,

Open-mindedness, Systematicity, Analyticity, Truth-seeking, Self-confidence, and

Maturity) and an overall score of critical thinking disposition (Facione, et al., 1994).

The test is remarkably robust, reflected in Callahan’s 1995 study (cited in Lampert,

2007, p. 20) reporting alpha reliabilities as “between 0.90 and 0.91 across high school

and college students” (p. 2) well above the 0.80 considered to indicate very strong

reliability. Facione, et al. (1994) cite Cronbach alphas on the seven CCTDI sub-scales

as ranging from 0.72 to 0.80. Gupta, Iranfar, Iranfar, Mehraban, & Montazeri (2012)

in their evaluation of the validity and reliability of the CCTDI cite a Cronbach alpha

of 0.8 among their sample of 198 participants. Facione et al. (1994) cite the

19

consistently low scores on truth-seeking items in the test as evidence that the CCTDI

has avoided socially desirable responses. The CCTDI, significantly, examines

dispositions alone, as opposed to other critical thinking instruments, such as the

Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), which Bernard, Zhang,

Abrami, Sicoly, Borokhovski and Surkes (2008) consider the oldest and best known

test of critical thinking, but which does not examine critical thinking dispositions, and

the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment, which Ku and Ho (2010) laud for its

reliability and validity, but which does not isolate dispositions. The empirical validity

of the CCTDI, and its ability to isolate dispositions, make it a highly useful instrument

to use to examine teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking.

2.4 THE CONTEMPORARY ASIA–PACIFIC CONTEXT

There appear to be no studies on Australian teachers’ critical thinking, either in terms

of ability or disposition, at either a pre-service or practicing level. The only major

work from Australia’s immediate regional neighbours is Stapleton’s (2011) study of

72 in-service Hong Kong high school teachers. Stapleton drew on a relatively small

sample who taught a variety of subjects, and who completed an eight-item Likert-style

questionnaire, with an open-ended opportunity to define critical thinking, at a

professional development course on a different topic (Stapleton, 2011). Five teachers

were selected for interviews, surveying their attitudes towards the place of critical

thinking in their subject area perceived need for training to enhance critical thinking

pedagogy (Stapleton, 2011). Most in the sample had “clear ideas about the meaning

of CT, [but] their conceptions were incomplete and, in many cases, disturbingly

narrow. This was particularly the case among the science and math teachers, some of

whom believed their subject entailed little critical thought” (Stapleton, 2011, p. 21).

Stapleton (2011) concedes that the nature of the sample and the context of the study

are highly specific and there may be limits to the ability to extend their findings

beyond that context. The study reinforces Paul, Elder and Bartell’s (1997) study of

140 United States academic faculty members. In their work, 89% identified critical

thinking as a primary objective of education, but only 19% could explain critical

thinking, and only 9% explicitly fostered critical thinking on a daily basis in their

teaching. Stapleton (2011) identified a stronger awareness of critical thinking among

the Hong Kong teachers surveyed, but the comparability of a brief written answer and

20

the somewhat generous interpretive processes undertaken by Stapleton limit the

applicability of this study. Furthermore, Hong Kong represents a different context to

Australia. However, in the absence of substantive work closer to home, it at least

illuminates similar concerns spanning eastern and western shores of the Pacific.

2.5 CONCEPTUALISING THE TEACHING OF CRITICAL THINKING

In examining how teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking shape the cultures of

thinking they create, we must bear in mind how teachers and researchers approach the

teaching of critical thinking. Harpaz (2007) offers a conceptual map of the field of

approaches to teaching critical thinking, identifying three overarching meta-theories

or meta-programs, detailed in Appendix A. He designates these as the skills approach,

adopting a “pattern of impartation”, a dispositions approach, pursuing a “pattern of

cultivation”, and an understanding approach, following a “pattern of construction”

(Harpaz, 2007, p. 1849). He argues that each meta-theory or meta-program constitutes

a distinct, internally unified approach that, because of their respective conceptions of

good thinking, result in different patterns of teaching, and different notions of

shortfalls, metacognition and intelligence. Furthermore, Harpaz (2007) argues that the

typologies are consequential because they arise from contending notions of what

constitutes the good thinker, and render a simple combination of what would seem

essential dimensions of critical thinking impractical. The efficient thinker of the skills

approach, the wise thinker of the dispositions approach, and the learned thinker of the

understanding approach imply different messages in their pattern of teaching. He

argues that each approach absorbs elements from the other approaches. Harpaz

ultimately argues for an understanding approach on the basis that teaching necessarily

implies teaching of knowledge, which, without understanding, “is a corruption of

thinking” and “therefore teaching thinking has no choice but to teach for

understanding” (p. 1871). In this, he sees neither a curriculum-centred, nor student-

centred approach, pedagogically, but “an active, critical and thought-laden meeting”

(p. 1871). Harpaz’s (2007) distinction between these typologies is significant in

illuminating the principles underpinning teachers’ approaches to constructing a culture

of thinking, and, indeed, the project of a culture of thinking itself. Harpaz’s model also

points to the complex, layered relationship of the conception of good thinking and

pedagogy.

21

Among the seminal models that have emerged in this field are Perkins and Ritchhart

with their notion of “visible thinking” (Ritchhart & Perkins, 2008; Ritchhart et al.,

2011), and Costa and Kallicks’ “habits of mind” (2000). The “Visible Thinking”

scholarship represented a skills-based approach, a culmination of five years of work

from Harvard University’s Project Zero, working on thinking routines that offered

simple strategies for scaffolding thinking, “designed to be woven into a teacher’s

ongoing classroom practice”, with the outcome of also producing dispositions toward

thinking. Costa and Kallicks’ (2000) work identifies 16 habits of mind, adopting a

dispositional approach to cultivating the internalisation of the habits of mind necessary

for effective critical thinking, examining this from the level of conceptualising

intelligence, through curriculum, assessment, pedagogy, leadership and school

environments.

Not cited in Harpaz’s (2007) framework, but falling broadly under a skills-based

approach, Claxton (2014) conceives of education, and therefore of teaching, as an

epistemic apprenticeship, an “apprenticeship in how to think and learn” (p. 229).

According to Claxton (2014), education necessarily fosters a particular “epistemic

mentality” by which students approach encounters with complexity, uncertainty and

difficulty, resulting also in the formation of dispositions toward thinking and learning,

an “epistemic identity” (p. 230). He describes this as a process of “building learning

power” (Claxton, 2014, p. 232). The above approaches focus on exercising skills and

dispositions and tend to focus on learning exercises or dispositional exercises to

produce good thinkers. A further approach is that of enculturation, detailed below, and

to which my research is focused (Ritchhart, 2002; Tishman et al., 1993).

2.6 CULTURES OF THINKING IN THE CLASSROOM

The centrality of school and classroom culture for student development is well

established (Ritchhart, 2002; Tishman et al., 1993). The rationale for an emphasis on

educational culture resides in Tishman and Andrade’s (1995) notion of intellectual

character, and the notion that classroom learning must address students holistically.

Additionally, Ritchhart (2001) argues a culture of thinking is best disposed to achieve

the outcome of cultivating learners’ dispositions toward thinking.

22

Research into critical thinking in schools highlights that transference of skills across

contexts is a primary obstacle to their application in unprompted and unfamiliar

contexts (Ritchhart, 2002; Tishman et al., 1993; Ritchhart, 2015). Ritchhart (2001)

argues that skills and abilities “must be valued, nurtured, and deemed useful across a

variety of setting and occasions … the environments students encounter carry

expectations for good thinking and provide ample modeling of thinking” (p. 149).

Ritchhart (2015) identifies eight cultural forces that drive a culture of thinking in our

classrooms: time, opportunities, routines and structures, language, modeling,

interactions and relationships, physical environment and expectations. For example,

allocating time for thinking is described as providing time for exploring topics more

in depth as well as time to formulate thoughtful responses (Ritchhart, 2015). The

opportunities he believes shape culture refer to providing purposeful activities

requiring students to think and develop understanding as part of their ongoing

experience of the classroom (Ritchhart, 2015).

Within a culture of thinking in the school classroom, Zohar and Cohen (2016) argue

for several essential or enabling features. Firstly, that the role of a teacher in a

“thinking classroom” fundamentally “changes from transmitting information to

initiating, facilitating and guiding students’ thinking processes”, becoming “an active

participant in her students’ quest for knowledge and understanding” (p. 91).

Furthermore, with respect to the teacher, they identify expertise in higher-order

thinking, and expertise in the ability to model and teach that thinking, as well as deep

subject-based expertise as essential features (Zohar & Cohen, 2016). Moreover, as an

essential underpinning to this culture, for students to “feel comfortable to express their

views and to experiment with tentative ideas”, they identify an atmosphere where

students “feel ‘safe’” (Zohar & Cohen, 2016, p. 91). Zohar and Cohen’s findings are

significant because they point to the central role of the teacher and their expertise in

fostering a classroom culture of thinking, as well as the essential role of students

feeling safe in the environment.

23

2.7 IMPEDIMENTS TO A CULTURE OF THINKING

Research examining major impediments to cultures of thinking in classrooms points

to challenges in teachers’ pedagogical expertise in teaching thinking, as well as the

effects arising out of curriculum and assessment regimes. Zohar and Cohen (2016),

through a dual approach of historical policy analysis and case study, examined the

challenges of large-scale implementation of higher-order thinking in civics education

in Israel. They point to impediments arising from a “crowded curriculum” and the way

examinations, as a source of accountability, discourage explicitly teaching higher-

order thinking, even when the examinations themselves ostensibly attempt to engage

higher-order thinking (Zohar & Cohen, 2016). Zohar and Cohen also highlight how

“teachers’ lack of proficiency in teaching thinking” inhibits the teaching of thinking,

even when these goals are developed in curriculum, a challenge at the individual

classroom level as well as in system-wide attempts to foster a broader culture of

thinking in education (p. 89). Zohar (2013), in a similar study, examining the

challenges of implementing higher-order thinking reforms in science education, in her

analysis of semi-structured interviews with eight science education experts holding

leading positions in the reforms, identified a similar lack of proficiency in teachers’

pedagogical knowledge, manifesting in difficulty sequencing and planning for the

coherent development of students’ thinking, and the tendency for content goals to

retain primacy, even among those creating “thinking classrooms”. Zohar and Alboher

Agmons’ (2018) interviews with 20 senior science teachers in the context of their

implementation of the same Pedagogical Horizon — Teaching for Thinking policy

identify similar impediments to “thinking classrooms” in science education, owing to

teachers’ approaches to preparing students for assessment. Interviewees shared a view

that curriculum and assessment regimes calling for instruction in inquiry and higher-

order thinking evaporated under high stakes external examinations (Zohar & Alboher

Agmon, 2018). In their study, pressures on achieving rapid improvement in students’

performance on higher-order thinking resulted in teaching this mechanically, the result

“more like rote than meaningful learning” (Zohar & Alboher Agmon, 2018, p. 255).

This series of studies as a whole is significant at several levels: firstly, because it

addresses a system-wide attempt to foster critical or higher-order thinking; secondly,

because the central medium for approaching pedagogy in professional development

24

and in classrooms was a “culture of thinking” approach providing for a “thinking

classroom” (Zohar & Cohen, 2016, p. 91), and, finally, because Zohar was Director

of Pedagogy in the Israeli Ministry of Education, and, in Cohen’s case, he was

National Subject Superintendent for Civics, thus providing significant insight into

forces that inhibit a culture of thinking at the system level. In all three studies,

researchers observe a significant gap in resources and professional development

addressing and equipping teachers to teach critical thinking, especially in terms of a

theoretical framework and practical tools, some of which my research addresses and

contributes to addressing, but also bear out that when provided with these frameworks,

educators were able to exercise significant creativity and autonomy (Zohar & Cohen,

2016; Zohar & Alboher Agmon, 2018; Zohar, 2013). While all cases relate to an Israeli

context, they are nonetheless significant because they are situated in system-wide

attempts to foster higher-order thinking, and contexts where, contrary to the complaint

of so much of the literature, there was an attempt to align philosophy, pedagogy,

curriculum, assessment and examinations. My research examines, among other

dimensions, impediments to a culture of thinking from individual teachers’

perspectives, in a system that considers critical thinking a priority.

2.8 THE EFFICACY OF EXPLICITLY TEACHING CRITICAL

THINKING

The efficacy of pedagogical strategies associated with teaching critical thinking, and,

indeed, the value of the very act itself, are well established in the scholarship in this

field. However, given that my research focuses on the shape cultures of thinking take,

it is important to situate the research in the pedagogical focuses identified in the

literature around the teaching of critical thinking, including at the level of approaches

adopted, and the dimensions of these approaches.

The explicit teaching of critical thinking skills, dispositions and understanding is an

essential underpinning to improving students’ critical thinking, and the evaluation of

various strategies employed to achieve this is the subject of a number of meta-

analyses. Abrami et al. (2008) across their meta-analysis of 117 studies with 161

independent effect sizes, identified an average effect size in improving thinking of

g=+0.341 standard deviations for all critical thinking interventions, with instructional

25

approaches combining content and explicit teaching of critical thinking significantly

out-performing other methods (g=+0.54). This effect was even stronger in discipline-

specific thinking, across 198 effect sizes recording an average effect size of g=+0.52

(Abrami et al., 2008). In six of the eight studies reviewed by Behar-Horenstein & Niu

(2011), in their review of 42 empirical studies into teaching critical thinking in post-

secondary education, researchers identified significant improvements as a result of

explicit teaching. The value of explicitly teaching critical thinking skills and

dispositions is widely supported, as well as teaching the selection and application of

strategies pertinent to higher-order thinking contexts (Marin & Halpern, 2011;

Ritchhart, 2002; Tishman et al., 1993; Tishman & Andrade, 1995; Zohar, 2013; Zohar

& Barzilai, 2015; Costa & Kallick, 2000). The findings of their meta-analysis are

significant in that it points to the efficacy of developing students’ thinking in the

context of content, as well as the value of both explicit instruction and the explicit

teaching of thinking strategies.

2.9 PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING STUDENTS’

THINKING

Research into pedagogical approaches to enhancing students’ thinking provides clear

evidence of those approaches that achieve the greatest effect size, as well as providing

principles with respect to more specific pedagogical design. Critically, there is

recognition of the benefits of, and necessity for integrated, multi-dimensional

approaches (Abrami, Bernard, Borokhovski, Waddington, Wade & Persson, 2015),

providing a foundation for a cultural approach to fostering students’ thinking.

Research into fostering higher-order thinking identifies major principles in

pedagogical design. Abrami et al. (2015) identified two essential features of classroom

pedagogical design that had the greatest effect size in developing students’ critical

thinking: “opportunity for dialogue … especially where the teacher poses questions”,

both in whole-class and group contexts, and “exposure of students to authentic or

situated problems and examples”, especially “applied problem solving and role-

playing” as especially fruitful in improving critical thinking skills. (p. 302). These

findings are significant, in that they point to major features that bear on the design of

classroom cultures of thinking and provide an empirical basis for the dimensions such

26

cultures adopt. Likewise, Zohar and Barzilai (2015), from their review of 178

empirical studies, and deep analysis of 66 studies in teaching of higher-order thinking

in science, identify four underlying principles for effectively fostering higher-order

thinking: “deliberate attention to thinking structures and skills”, “fostering explicit

awareness of metacognition” (p. 8), “teaching in a meaningful way” designed to

“trigger and facilitate active thinking and experiences that fosters deep understanding”

(p. 9), and “thinking across and beyond specific contexts” (p. 9). These principles are

pertinent because, Zohar and Barzilai (2015) and Zohar (2012) argue, they permit

learners to form generalisations enabling transfer to new contexts. Moreover, the

longer such explicit exposure continues, the more significant the effect size on

students (Behar-Horenstein & Niu, 2011). In addition, Zohar and Barzilai (2015)

identified nine strategies effective in experimental interventions aimed at fostering

metacognitive skills and knowledge: metacognitive prompts, explicit instruction,

practice and training, teacher-led discussion, reflective writing, student-led discussion,

visual representations, modelling, and information communication technology (Zohar

& Barzilai, 2015). These findings offer insight into the pedagogical foundations of

fostering metacognition, and, in concert with the other principles outlined, establish

an empirical foundation for the design of pedagogy for classroom cultures of thinking.

In addition to these overarching principles, research findings also point to the necessity

for integrated approaches. Significantly, in Abrami et al.’s (2015) findings, “a

combination” of opportunities for dialogue and authentically situated problems and

examples, accompanied by mentoring, “produced the highest effect size” (p. 299).

With respect to a combined approach, Abrami et al. (2015) cite Pellegrino’s (2007)

study of 118 students across three schools, into the effects of teaching through an

“historical thinking” approach on the manifestation of critical thinking in secondary

American History students resulted in an effect size of g=+1.13. Likewise, Zohar

(2012), in her review of trends in the teaching of metacognition in science,

recommends integrating approaches. In particular, Zohar (2012) argues that teachers

must integrate the scaffolding students’ thinking, moving between cognitive and

metacognitive knowledge, as well as opportunities for students to communicate their

thinking processes, introduction of a language of thinking into classroom discourse,

making thinking goals explicit in activities, and engaging in long-term planning for

27

repeated opportunities to apply thinking strategies across contexts. These findings

offer an integrated template for the cultivation of a classroom culture of thinking, but

are also significant for providing a rationale for an integrated approach itself.

2.11 CONCLUSION

This, then, is the philosophical, empirical and theoretical landscape for this study. Of

central importance to this study are constructs of critical thinking, and within that,

dispositional conceptions, and the context of the Asia—Pacific region in which this

research has taken place. At the level of teaching, conceptualisations or approaches to

teaching critical thinking, especially the notion of cultures of thinking, as well as the

forces that impede such cultures is vital territory. Likewise, mapping the empirical

efficacy of teaching critical thinking, and the pedagogical approaches that underpin

this seems an essential foundation. Finally, the epistemic and ontological frame of this

research, critical realism, warrants significant treatment to provide a portrait of the

overarching understanding of the social world to which all this belongs.

28

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter aims to delineate the bounds, illuminate the theoretical underpinnings,

and elucidate the research design pursued in this study. It locates the study within a

theoretical frame and research paradigm, orients the study to its governing research

questions, traces the development of the research method and design, details the

composite cases, and outlines data sources. It then describes the administration of the

study and the analysis of data, as well as the methods by which the study provided for

robust data and findings. Finally, the chapter accounts for ethical considerations and

responses arising in the design and conduct of the study.

3.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study adopted a critical realist stance. Critical realism emerged out of the work

of Bhaskar in the 1970s and 1980s as an alternative to both positivism and

constructivism (Sayer, 2000), and has since been developed by figures such as Archer

(1995), Lawson (1997), Sayer (2000) and Scott (2005). Case studies pursued through

a critical realist approach are differentiated from other interpretivist approaches in

relation to ontology, notions of causality, and analytical approaches. Like other

interpretivist approaches, critical realists maintain that social phenomena are “concept

dependent” and require interpretation, recognising the subjectivity of that knowledge

(Sayer, 1992, p. 5). However, critical realism recognises an independent, stratified

reality that, though mediated by subjective and contextual experiences, nonetheless

“exists independently of our knowledge of it”, populated by objects in the world that

“necessarily have particular causal powers or ways of acting and particular

susceptibilities” (Sayer, 1992, p. 5). In that, it preserves notions of causality rejected

by phenomenological approaches, for instance, and pays “particular attention…to

processes…especially those that produce and reproduce the ordering of events and

social institutions” (Easton, 2010, p. 120). Finally, critical realism is distinctive in its

approach to data-generation and analysis, recognising a world that is “theory-laden”

(Sayer, 1992, p. 5). It permits theory-driven approaches to data-generation, and

abductive — moving iteratively between theory and data — rather than inductive

approaches to analysis (Pawson & Tilley, 1996; Danermark, et al., 2002).

29

Critical realism addresses what Bhaskar (1998) refers to as the “epistemic fallacy” (p.

27) of positivism and constructivism, which he argues reduce ontology to

epistemology. Critical realism offers a way to “bridge the divide” (Scott, 2005, p. 637),

overcoming the inadequacies of positivism, which Bhaskar (1998) argues consigns

reality to that which is empirically verifiable, and constructivism, which insists that

no objective reality exists to study, but that reality is entirely constructed by and

delimited to human knowledge. As such, Scott (2005) claims that critical realism is

“better able to account for the socially constructed and non-solipsistic dimensions to

reality” (p. 634).

It thus offers the most plausible ontological and epistemological lens through which

to understand how teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking shape their

classroom culture. That is, it offers the most plausible lens through which to

understand the nature of our reality, and the relationship between the elements that

comprise it, and what it is we know and how it is we come to know it. Furthermore,

although previously methodologically flexible, drawing on both positivist and

constructivist methodologies, the emerging body of methodological literature also

provides a means by which to illuminate the dynamics, tendencies and demi-

regularities of such a world (Fletcher, 2017). Scott (2005) asserts the foundational

necessity of an underpinning meta-theory and epistemic stance in making decisions

about the way data are collected and analysed about the social world, which is evident

in the methodology I have pursued in this study, and for which Pawson and Tilley

(1996), Edwards, Mahoney and Vincent (2014), and Fletcher (2017) have been most

useful.

Critical realism recognises the fallible nature of attempts to study the social world, but

is realist because it asserts that “there are objects in the world, including social objects,

whether the observer or researcher can know them or not” and argues for “an ontology

of emergent properties located within an open system (Scott, 2005, p. 635). According

to Sayer (2000), “For realists, social science is neither nomothetic (that is, law-

seeking) nor idiographic (concerned with documenting the unique)” (p. 3). There is an

independent reality, but absolute knowledge of the way it works is impossible (Sayer,

2000). The implications are that critical realism “accepts neither the view that there

30

are fixed philosophical first principles that guarantee epistemic certainty, nor the idea

that first-order activities are self-justifying” (Cruickshank, 2002, p. 54). Instead,

critical realism envisions a “theory-laden, but not theory-determined” world, theories

which can help us arrive at explanations that are closer to the nature of reality, and for

which, in the case of analysing social problems, the adoption of critical realism as a

paradigm is especially useful (Fletcher, 2017, p. 182), as I would argue is the case

with respect to the development of thinking classrooms.

In adopting a critical realist stance, the design of my study reflects a stratified ontology

(Fletcher, 2017). That is to say, it recognises an ‘empirical’ level, the realm of events

as the teachers experience them (Fletcher, 2017), that they construct or that mediates

their reality, and which, critically, can be causal; an ‘actual’ level or external reality

that exists regardless of their interpretation or construction, and a ‘real’ level at which

causal structures, the inherent properties of the teachers and their environment act as

causal forces to produce events (Fletcher, 2017). Scott (2005) argues that critical

realism “seeks to bridge the divide” between positivist and relativist positions, to

reconcile the “context-bound and emergent descriptions that are made about the world

with the [independent] ontological dimension” (p. 636).

Critical realism addresses this intentional dimension of social life, neglected by

quantitative methodologies; that is, the composite elements that make the whole of a

phenomenon, like the ways in which critical thinking dispositions shape the creation

of cultures of critical thinking in the classroom (Scott, 2005). In adopting this

paradigm, I am recognising that the social is more than a “composite … of behavioural

regularities” akin to the laws of natural science, that “social systems [are] necessarily

open” (Sayer, 2000, pp. 4–5). I adopted a critical realist paradigm because it draws

into focus “social actors’ descriptions of their experiences, projects and desires” even

if “social actors [cannot] always provide complete and accurate accounts of their

activities, plans, projects and histories” (Scott, 2005, p. 644). It permitted me to better

examine the relationship between structure and agency, which is the focus of critical

realism, bearing out in a focus on interviews and observations, and in the design of

those interviews, outlined below.

31

As a second foundation, analysis must recognise the potential for mechanisms of

causation the “cannot be reduced to those of the level from which they emerged”

(Scott, 2005, p. 10). This is the corollary of the critical realism’s stratified ontology

and the “belief that objects and generative mechanisms in the world have causal

powers which may or may not be exercised, but still exist independently of human

perception or of the individual’s ability to know them” (Scott, 2005, p. 10)

3.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The central research question is:

How do teachers’ dispositions towards critical thinking shape the culture of

thinking they build in their classroom?

To explore this central question, a number of guiding questions needed to be explored:

1. What are teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking?

2. What are teachers’ aims and expectations regarding critical thinking in the

classroom?

3. What strategies do teachers use to develop a culture of thinking?

3.4 RESEARCH METHOD

This study pursued a retroductive multiple case study design, combining the central

analytical frame of critical realism (Bhaskar, 1998; Lawson, 1997) and multiple case

study design (Stake, 2006). Yin (2014) defines case studies as a research design as “an

empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life

context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not

clearly evident” (p. 13). That is to say, Yin (2014) recommends the case study design

because of its ability to understand complex variables, and to uncover mechanisms

and dynamics at play that cannot be controlled for or sufficiently disentangled by

experimentation, nor sufficiently accounted for by survey instruments, permitting a

more nuanced portrait than a survey permits and more comprehensive analysis of

variables than an experiment grants researchers.

The cases focused on five different teachers — described and analysed under the

pseudonyms of Harvey, Joanna, Stefano, Stuart and Michelle — and one of each of

32

their classes. While these teachers work in the same school, they nonetheless comprise

discrete cases, as the primary locus of analysis and the major distinction in their

context is focused on the teacher themselves, and their classroom. The boundaries are

rendered as between teachers — given the focus of the research questions on the

teacher — and not the school as a case in itself. Such a design coheres both with Yin’s

(2014) differentiation of cases as contextually anchored phenomena and Merriam and

Tisdell’s (2016) emphasis on delineating cases based on the boundaries of their

analysis — the “in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system” (p. 37).

While each case was of intrinsic interest to the phenomenon under study, it was the

way these cases relate to one another, illuminating the way teachers’ dispositions

towards critical thinking shape the culture they create in their classroom that provided

the primary heuristic objective of the study. Stake (2006) argues that this is the context

in which a multiple case study design is most appropriate, as it provides the best

method by which to address the research question.

3.5 RESEARCH DESIGN

Scott (2007) argues that epistemological and ontological choices guide the design of

research and the methods adopted in its pursuit. He argues “critical realism has

significant implications for a resolution of the quantitative/qualitative divide” (p. 15),

and that research design must reflect the capacity of data types and strategies to

account for properties of objects in the social world, of the structures they inhabit and

the agency they possess (Scott, 2007). This study adopted, in one sense, an explanatory

sequential design, a mixed-methods approach that Creswell (2017) describes as

involving the collection firstly of quantitative data, and then of qualitative data

designed primarily to explain or explore in greater depth a dimension of the data.

Fletcher (2017) endorses the use of what she calls extensive (quantitative) and

intensive (qualitative) data to explore the fundamentally stratified reality critical

realism conceives of as comprising the object of study. In this study, I first established

a profile of the extensional dimension of critical thinking dispositions of the teachers

themselves, and then collected qualitative data, aiming to explore how critical thinking

dispositions shaped the culture of thinking teachers created in their classroom.

Fletcher (2017) argues for a complementary relationship between extensive and

33

intensive data. Based on the aim of understanding teachers’ conceptions of critical

thinking, and the way in which their dispositions shape their classroom culture, this

study emphasised intensive data collection. This is what Scott (2007) designates a use

of qualitative and quantitative methods to compensate one another.

3.6 THE CASES

3.6.1 Case Selection

This study used intensity sampling (Patton, 1990). Intensity sampling is a purposeful

sampling method. Patton (1990, p 169) argues:

The logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich

cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can

learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the

research.

Patton characterises intensity sampling as “… involv[ing] the same logic as extreme

case sampling but with less emphasis on the extremes”, seeking “information-rich

cases that manifest the phenomenon of interest intensely (but not extremely)” (Patton,

1990, p. 171).

In this study, the sample was drawn from secondary school teachers at the Independent

boys’ school at which I work. The study involved a sample of five teachers (identified

by pseudonyms), teaching across English, Mathematics, Business and Economics. All

teachers had significant upper-secondary teaching loads, but in two of the five, the

observation context was lower-secondary. I was known to the teachers as a colleague

who is also a teacher.

At a meeting of secondary school teachers, I provided a context and overview of the

study, its context, its aims and the nature of participation sought from case study

participants, inviting expressions of interest by email or in person from those who

wished to take part in the study. This was followed by an email providing a written

overview of the study and the nature of participant involvement sought. I received a

number of expressions of interest. I selected teachers based on their identification of a

desire to cultivate such an environment, which suggested that they would manifest the

34

phenomenon being studied intensely, albeit in varied ways. My selection of teachers

was not based on a presumption of their proficiency in cultivating a culture of thinking,

nor the strength of their disposition towards critical thinking.

3.6.2 The Context of the Cases

While each case participants constitutes their own discrete case, the teachers all work

within the same context. Alexander College (pseudonym) is an Independent K–12

boys’ school in Perth, Western Australia. It delivers the Western Australian Certificate

of Education (see Appendix B), a certificate overseen by the School Curriculum and

Standards Authority. It has approximately 1500 students, of whom 3% are indigenous,

and 12% are from language backgrounds other than English. St Andrews employs

approximately 200 teaching staff. The College has an Index of Community Socio-

Educational Advantage (ICSEA) score of between 1150 and 1200, against a national

average of 1000. Of 186 Year 12 students in 2017, 182 were awarded their senior

secondary certificate, 86.7% of whom qualified for admission to university.

3.6.3 The Case Studies

Harvey has taught for 15 years at Alexander College. He holds a Bachelor of

Economics (Hons) degree and a one-year Graduate Diploma of Education. He teaches

Economics, Accounting and Finance (A&F), and Business Management and

Enterprise (BME) at both Year 11 and Year 12 levels. At the time of this study, he

was teaching Year 11 and Year 12 A&F, Year 11 BME, and two Year 12 BME classes.

The class observed in this study was his Year 11 BME class, which had 11 students.

Joanna is a teacher of Mathematics who has taught for 20 years. Joanna holds a

Bachelor of Civil Engineering (Hons) and a one-year Postgraduate Certificate in

Education. She has taught in secondary schools in England, Brunei, and within

Australia in the Northern Territory and Western Australia, predominantly in

Mathematics, but she has also taught Physics. Joanna’s teaching experience extends

across the United Kingdom curriculum, Australian curriculum and the International

Baccalaureate. At the time of this study, she was teaching a Year 9 intermediate class,

a Year 11 ATAR intermediate class, and a Year 12 basic class, as well as being the

Head of Mathematics at the College. I observed her Year 9 intermediate Mathematics

35

class of 25 students.

Stefano has taught for 11 years, teaching across both the government and Independent

school systems in Western Australia, as well as in England. Stefano holds a Bachelor

of Arts and a one-year Graduate Diploma of Education. At the time of this study he

was completing his Masters of Education. He has taught English from Year 6 to 12,

as well as International Baccalaureate Diploma Theory of Knowledge, a lower-

secondary critical thinking skills course, and coordinates the College’s Gifted and

Talented program. At the time of this study, he was teaching a Year 12 ATAR English

class, Year 11 ATAR English class, a Year 11 epistemology class, and Year 9 and 10

critical thinking skills classes. The class under observation was his Year 12 ATAR

English class of 19 students.

Stuart has taught for 10 years, across both the government and Independent school

systems in Western Australia, including the primary and secondary contexts, and in a

remote Indigenous context. Stuart holds a Bachelor of Science degree and a one-year

Graduate Diploma of Education. He has predominantly taught Mathematics. At the

time of this study he was teaching two Year 12, and one Year 11, one Year 10 and one

Year 9 Mathematics class. I observed his Year 10 Mathematics class of 26 students.

Michelle has taught for 7 years. She holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of

Education, and at the time of the study was completing her Postgraduate Diploma of

Psychology. She taught predominantly in the Catholic sector before joining Alexander

College, predominantly teaching Year 11 and 12 Economics and History, as well as

Years 8–10 English and Humanities, and Religion. At the time of this study she was

teaching two Year 11 BME classes, and a Year 12 BME class, both for the first time,

as well as two Year 11 Economics classes. I observed her Year 11 Economics class of

21 students.

3.7 DATA SOURCES

The CCTDI was used to establish teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking. With

respect to qualitative tools, semi-structured teacher interviews and classroom

observations were used to gather data.

36

3.7.1 California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory

This study aimed to capture teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking. It also

aimed to set their dispositions within the broader context of the school within which

each of the teachers teach. This was done using the CCTDI. The CCTDI contains 75

Likert-style items and reports eight scores: a score on each of the seven scales

(Inquisitiveness, Open-mindedness, Systematicity, Analyticity, Truth-seeking, Self-

confidence, and Maturity) and an overall score of Critical Thinking Disposition

(Facione et al., 1994). In this case, inquisitiveness refers to “Continuous attention to

learning”, open-mindedness to “tolerance for a diversity of ideas”, systematicity “the

habit of taking an organized approach”, and the scale of analyticity describes “a

practiced anticipation of consequences”. Additionally, truth-seeking describes “the

honest pursuit of best knowledge”, while confidence in reasoning pertains to “reliance

on well-reasoned judgments”, and, finally, the scale of maturity of judgment is “the

expectation of making a timely and well considered judgment” (Insight Assessment,

2017, p. 8).

The CCTDI was useful for developing the extensional dimension of the phenomena,

that is, the relative disposition respondents have towards critical thinking. This

provided for my aim of establishing teachers’ in these domains against pre-existing

constructs, rather than creating theory per se with relation to these elements. Thus, a

quantitative approach was most suitable. Likewise, given the robustness of the

construct underpinning the CCTDI, the use of the CCTDI provides a reliable basis

upon which to draw distinctions between the relative dispositions toward critical

thinking of teachers.

The CCTDI was completed by the teachers participating in the case study.

Participation was at all times voluntary. Teachers were emailed a link and unique login

and password to access the instrument, and completed the CCTDI on their own

computer, in their own time.

3.7.2 Semi-Structured Interviews

In addressing research questions 2 and 3, I conducted semi-structured interviews with

teachers, permitting open responses, but balanced that with greater structure and

37

consistency than entirely open interview structures (Turner, 2010). The semi-

structured interview format ensured consistency in the information sought from each

participant, but did not preclude or limit freedom to probe and explore within these

areas of inquiry. Hoepfl (1997) recommends this strategy to ensure effective use of

interview time and to keep interactions focused.

Edwards, Mahoney and Vincent (2014) argue that critical realism uses the interview

not only because it values teachers’ interpretations, but that they also provide an

opportunity to “analyse the social contexts, constraints, and resources within which

those informants act” (p. 5), to evaluate the account the interviewee provides of the

phenomenon being studied. Further to this analytical value, Pawson (1996)

conceptualises a theory-driven model of developing interviews where the researcher's

theory becomes, in a sense, the matter of focus, which the interview confirms or

falsifies, and so the theory is refined.

The first interview was heavily informed by Ritchhart’s (2015) domains of a “culture

of critical thinking”, focusing on expectations, opportunities, modeling, time,

interactions and routines, interactions, environment, and language. In keeping with

Pawson (1996), I developed questions that examined relationships between underlying

causal mechanisms around the critical thinking dispositions and cultures of thinking

in the classroom, including teachers’ understandings and rationales for choices, the

differing contexts under which different features, strategies and dynamics function,

and the anticipated and unanticipated outcomes of such choices. As can be seen in

Appendix C, questions focused on separating different mechanisms, differentiating

their effects, and the effects of their absence, drawing from participants their relative

priorities, and examples of their practice. Questions for the first interview were piloted

with one of the researcher’s former colleagues, as well as a non-participating

colleague, seeking feedback on wording and structure.

The initial interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes. A schedule of questions was

prepared, listing questions to be explored in the first round of interviews. Teachers’

interviews were coordinated with participants’ non-teaching times, conducted on the

school campus, using the teacher’s classroom or office space, in order to promote a

38

relaxed atmosphere and providing for greater anonymity of participants. Interviews

were audio-recorded, and the researcher made detailed notes on content, aspects for

follow-up, and preliminary reflections. The schedule of interview questions was

modified within interviews in order to focus on areas that emerged as significant to

the study, and to exclude lines of inquiry that have proved unfruitful or elicited little

additional information. Interviews were transcribed between the initial interview and

the first observation of each case participant so as to provide focus for observation,

and angles for greater insight into teachers’ social reality.

Each participant was interviewed a second time, with the second series of interviews

lasting between 30 and 60 minutes for each case participant. The second interview

occurred after classroom observations, and used these observations to guide the

development of questions, inviting teachers to reflect on decision-making relating to

overall class experiences and significant incidents as they relate to the major domains

of cultures of critical thinking (Ritchhart, 2015). With the teacher’s permission,

interviews were digitally recorded, and the researcher took further notes. Participants

were advised that the second interview would relate to the lessons observed by the

researcher but did not receive questions in advance. Each interview was transcribed

afterwards. Teachers received a copy of the transcript in order to verify the accuracy

of its contents.

3.7.3 Classroom Observations

In addressing research question 3, this study also generated data through direct

observation of teachers, using multiple observations of research subjects in their

natural contexts, their classrooms. The observations lasted between 50 and 60 minutes.

These observations were used to gather data on what occurred during observed classes,

especially as it related to domains identified in Ritchhart’s work (2015): expectations,

opportunities, time, modeling, routines, interactions, environment, and language.

Hoepfl (1997) argues:

Observation can lead to deeper understanding than interviews alone, because

it provides a knowledge of the context in which events occur, and may enable

the researcher to see things that participants themselves are not aware of, or

are unwilling to discuss (p. 53).

39

Each participant was observed twice. Lessons were digitally recorded using an audio

recorder to permit accurate transcription of teachers’ questions, comments and

explanations in their classroom. This was pertinent for follow-up questions on

language, scaffolding and questioning in the classroom. Additionally, the researcher

wrote detailed descriptive notes, focusing on the structure and sequencing of lessons,

the language used by teachers, the nature of modelling used, the learning opportunities

provided to students, visible classroom routines, and the nature of the case

participant’s interactions with students. The researcher sat at the back of the classroom

on each occasion, and did not interact with students. Schedules were negotiated

between the researcher and each teacher involved in the study. Audio recordings were

selectively transcribed, and notes were reviewed and formalised after observation.

3.7.4 Overview of Data Sources

Table 3.1 summarises the data sources used to explore each research question.

Table 3.1 – Data sources overview according to research question

Research question CCTDI Semi-structured

interviews

Classroom

observation

What are teachers’

dispositions towards and

conceptions of critical

thinking?

What are teachers’ aims and

expectations regarding critical

thinking in the classroom?

What strategies do teachers

use to develop a culture of

thinking?

3.8 DATA ANALYSIS

3.8.1 Quantitative Analysis

Teachers’ CCTDI scores were compiled and analysed using the CCTDI User Manual

and Resource Guide (Insight Assessment, 2017) to generate a description of their

40

relative dispositions with relation to each attribute, as well as an overall profile. Each

participating teacher received a score based on their survey responses. Insight

Assessment’s User Manual (2017) stipulates that a score of 30 and below on any of

the scales shows “poor valuation or aversion”, a score of 30–39 as “indicative of

ambivalent or inconsistent endorsement”, scores of 40–49 as indicating “consistent

endorsement and valuation” and scores above 50 as reflective of consistent or strong

endorsement of the attitude or attribute being tested (p. 41).

3.8.2 Qualitative analysis

After interviews and observations were transcribed and checked with participants, this

study used what Fletcher (2017) calls a directed coding process, deductive in its

original basis but flexible and inductive in its application, to analyse interview

transcripts and classroom observations. Because Ritchhart’s (2015) work on cultures

of thinking heavily informed the construction of my interview questions and the focus

of my observations, these categories were used deductively, although flexibly, in the

first round of coding.

This first stage involved identifying tendencies or categories (called demi-regularities

in critical realism) in each case (Fletcher, 2017). This focused at the empirical level of

reality — that is, the level experienced by participants. I began with 18 coding

categories — the dimensions of culture identified by Ritchhart (2015), and codes

which began to address the research questions and to identify the causal mechanisms

at the actual level of reality and to identify the different levels of reality identified in

critical realist literature, as can be seen in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 – Initial coding categories

Ritchhart (2015)

• Expectations• Time• Opportunity• Interactions• Routines• Language• Modelling

Critical Realist Categories

• Inhibitors• Enablers• Empirical• Actual• Real• Structure• Agency

Research Questions

• RQ1• RQ2• RQ3

41

As coding went on, other tendencies emerged, and the provisional codes were

expanded, modified, deleted or substituted to 97 across the cases. These codes are

listed in Appendix D. These codes focused on tendencies in each participating

teacher’s conceptions of critical thinking and disposition toward it, the cultures of

thinking each teacher created, and aimed to create, and the strategies by which they

did this. In the example in Appendix E, the initial coding draws on research question

3, “opportunities” and “interactions”— a code drawn from Ritchhart (2015) — and

the notions such as “stories as heuristics”, “buy in”, “appeal to trust” and “academic

problem-based learning” which reflect the actual level of reality in critical realist

theory, that is, the intended strategy and results.

Secondly, because I focused on a theory-driven interview structure (Pawson, 1996), I

used the data also to focus on differentiating causal mechanisms, following Fletcher’s

(2017) emphasis on coding reflecting critical realist ontology and research concerns,

including differentiating between structures and agency, enabling and inhibiting

structural factors that affect the ways in which aims, expectations and strategies either

do or do not actualise, or the ways in which they manifest. This process is illustrated

in Figure 2, where the interview question, focused on inhibiting factors, reveals

structures at play that inhibit the creation of a culture of thinking. Codes were

developed from multiple readings of the text, including revisions to codes made in

light of other data that informed better or more refined coding.

I developed these codes into accounts of each case. At this phase, my accounts of cases

involved the development and synthesis of the data into a framework representing the

central emphases, recurring themes and mechanisms understood by participants,

including the structures within which they operate and the areas in which they exercise

agency. I then established comparative tables to engage in multiple case analysis,

examining the tendencies or demi-regularities that emerged in participants

conceptions of critical thinking and disposition toward it, the dimensions of cultures

of thinking participants aimed to create, and the structures and strategies that promoted

or inhibited such cultures developing. From this, I drew together text or data associated

with these tendencies, constituting the evidence and dimensions of these categories or

tendency, and illuminating the nature and content of the category or tendency.

42

Transcript Coding Interviewer: [00:46:16] What are the major challenges,

if any, to creating the culture of thinking you’d like to

create in your classroom?

Joanna: [00:46:22] Um, time. So, having a curriculum

that says you must get through x, y and z. Time with the

boys. This is Alexander College. This is the least amount

of time per cycle I’ve ever spent with a class. That’s at

any of the three age groups that I’ve currently got. Yeah,

it’s um ... Students rating themselves against a scale. And

that being the all-important thing. Did I get it? Band …

you know, did I get a Level 6? Did I get a Level 7, as

opposed to, ‘Let’s have a look at what you got right, and

let’s have a look at where … those areas where we made

mistakes. Let’s have a look at those mistakes, and learn

from them. Whether you get a Band 7–8, it really doesn’t

matter as long as you learn from these bits in here.

RQ2

Structure

Inhibitors

Curriculum

Time poor – lack of

contact time to develop

depth

Student extrinsic

motivation – marks –

based rather than

driven by learning

Figure 3.2 – Coding reflecting critical realist ontology and research concerns

After identifying the codes, I moved to what Danermark et al. (2002) call abduction

and retroduction. Danermark et al. differentiate abductive analysis in that they analyse

and ‘redescribe’ findings against pre-existing theory, foregrounding the constructs of

that theory as a starting point, though not working in a deductive way that assumes the

validity of that theory. By way of contrast, retroduction is a mode of inference, by

which we attempt to discern the fundamental or essential characteristics constituting

a phenomenon and necessary for its existence. In the abductive phase, I examined

participants’ conceptualisations of critical thinking under existing constructs of critical

thinking and higher-order thinking, especially those of Facione and Facione (1992)

and Zohar and Barzilai (2015), Ritchhart’s (2015) “cultures of thinking” and

associated strategies for critical thinking, as well as Zohar and Barzilai’s (2015)

instructional strategies for higher-order thinking. I took into account categories,

emphases and mechanisms postulated by these theories to the data, but interpreted my

43

data in light of these, testing their applicability — meaning my findings remained

distinguishable from the existing theoretical constructs. I then moved to the

retroductive phase, analysing the relationships between the elements of a culture of

thinking, and between these elements and the strategies used to cultivate such cultures,

examining also the structures necessary for their emergence.

3.9 QUALITY CRITERIA

Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olsen and Speers (2002) argue that it is important to focus on

strategies for ensuring what Lincoln and Guba (1985) call the “trustworthiness” of a

study, during the study. This creates a self-correcting mechanism. Shenton (2004)

points to Lincoln and Gubas’ (1985) four dimensions of effective qualitative research:

credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Credibility refers to

internal validity; that the findings of the study are congruent with the reality of what

is being studied (Shenton, 2004). Transferability refers to the ability to extrapolate

findings to other contexts. Dependability, in this context, refers to methods adopted to

lend a sense of replicability to the findings, even if the study itself cannot be identically

replicated. Finally, confirmability describes the steps taken by the researcher to ensure

that their findings arise from case participants’ experiences and ideas, not their own

(Shenton, 2004).

My role as a teacher at the research site warrants consideration of a range of challenges

to the trustworthiness of the study. There are four immediate risks at the

methodological level. Firstly, there is the risk that I carry significant confirmation bias,

existing at two levels. My own positionality as a researcher, supportive of educational

goals of cultivating students’ capacities to engage in critical or higher-order thinking,

and of culture as an essential mechanism to achieve this, pose a significant challenge,

as does favourably interpreting observation and interview data from participants with

whom I share a professional and personal relationship. Likewise, I am simultaneously

part of the environment being studied, even if the cases were distinct from me. Finally,

I bear a challenge of analysing data in the context of ongoing personal and professional

relationships. I am a colleague to these teachers, and while there is not a relevant power

relationship, given that I do not hold any management position in relation to these

teachers, the research context does present a challenge.

44

I have resisted the potential confirmation bias in sampling by adopting intensive

sampling, based on teachers who identify as prioritising a culture of thinking in their

classroom, rather than extreme or deviant sampling. Selecting participants based on

their proficiency suspends the presumption participants will demonstrate particular

proficiency in their disposition towards critical thinking or their capacity to create a

culture of thinking. The analytical risks of the researcher’s professional capacity at the

site must be set in the context that understanding the site provides additional analytical

insight, and the fact that the site itself is not the case, provides a level of distinction.

Transparency in the research, and thick description, provide for greater reliability in

the conclusions reached.

The sample size and the single location of the participants constrains the transferability

of the conclusions reached in the study. Nonetheless, given the paucity of scholarship

on this topic, the common context of the cases at this stage permits greater analytical

focus on individual teachers, rather than pervasive cultural variations in the

environments of the cases. It does, however, limit the degree to which the structures

of the school can meaningfully be illuminated as a causal mechanism.

Both Morse et al. (2002) and Shenton (2004) argue that sampling in qualitative studies

is an important component of transferability of research, or its capacity to be

transparently replicated or evaluated in application. Morse et al. (2002) argue for the

selection of “participants who best represent or have knowledge of the research topic

… [ensuring] efficient and effective saturation of categories, with optimal quality data

and minimum dross” (p. 12). By using an intensity sample, the teachers were likely to

provide the greatest insight to the phenomenon being studied for the sample size,

further promoted by basing participation on the open and willing consent, and

providing for anonymity, all of which foster trust and confidence.

Another relevant aspect to this process is establishing credibility. Morse et al. (2002)

suggest that checks during the study, which I did in relation to transcripts and

observation. Morse et al. (2002) suggests this ensures that case participants are

45

confident their words have been accurately transcribed and the appropriately

attributed.

3.10 ETHICS CONSIDERATIONS

In undertaking this study, I submitted an ethics application through my university’s

Ethics Approval Board, outlining the nature and methods by which the study would

be completed, and received ethics approval. I sought the informed consent of all

participants, including parental consent of those students who would be observed in

participating teachers’ classes. I also sought the consent of the school that comprised

the site of this study. These forms are detailed in Appendix F.

At an ethical level, the sampling method has been designed with the professional

standing of participants in mind. By seeking participants based on intensive sampling,

rather than a maximum variation sample, this avoids the risk to professional

reputations inherent in seeking a sample including the least proficient.

This study employed an array of strategies to maintain the anonymity and

confidentiality of participants. I sought expressions of interest by email or in person

from those who wished to take part in the study, so as to ensure confidentiality of

participation. Teachers’ participation in the study was kept confidential; managers and

school leadership were not informed of which teachers were participating in the study.

Participating teachers and the parents of students in the classes that I was to observe

provided written consent for participation in the study. I emphasised the anonymity of

teachers during recruitment of participants, and made clear to participants verbally and

in writing their capacity to withdraw their participation at any point in the research. In

order to strengthen the validity of the study, I did not select teachers with whom I had

a vertical power relationship, thus avoiding a conflict of interest.

I interviewed participants during their non-teaching time to ensure that they did not

have to seek time off from their teaching duties for their participation, which would

have revealed their role in the study. Moreover, the anonymity of the school and

participating teachers was protected by providing a pseudonym for each in all written

analyses and in the thesis. In contextualising the study, I also provided ranges and

descriptive data, rather than specific figures, to ensure that the participating school

46

was not readily identifiable. Comments during interviews that risked identifying the

school or colleagues were excised.

The security of data was maintained at all times. Audio-recorded interviews were

transferred to password protected computers. Original recordings were deleted. All

electronic data collected was password protected and backed up in cloud storage.

Physical copies of written notes were stored in a locked drawer cabinet.

3.11 CONCLUSION

This study is located in the critical realist paradigm and was conducted using a

retroductive multiple case study design. The study used an explanatory sequential

design, first collecting quantitative data through teachers completing the CCTDI,

followed by semi-structured interviews and classroom observations. This study

focused on an intensive sample of five teachers, teaching across English, Mathematics,

Business and Economics, drawn from the secondary teachers at the secondary school

at which the researcher is employed. The intensive sampling and thick descriptive

methods adopted in this study were designed to foster the credibility, transferability,

dependability and confirmability of the study, especially addressing the challenges

arising from conducting the study in the context of the school at which the researcher

works. These challenges also required adopting strategies to protect the confidentiality

and anonymity of teachers participating in the study, and guarding against conflicts of

interest in the selection of the sample.

47

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides the findings of the investigation with respect to the research

questions that underpin the central question of this investigation, which is:

How do teachers’ dispositions towards critical thinking shape the culture of

thinking they build in their classroom?

The following chapter reports on the findings from the CCTDI semi-structured

interviews and observations — with respect to the following guiding questions:

1) What are teachers’ dispositions towards and conceptions of critical thinking?

2) What are teachers’ aims and expectations regarding a culture of thinking in the

classroom?

3) What strategies do teachers use to develop a culture of thinking?

The findings are organised in order of the guiding questions, and under the major

themes that emerged out of my findings, as shown in Figure 4.1. My analysis identified

four major dimensions of a classroom culture of thinking, with 23 themes emerging

from the analysis. The four major dimensions are identified in Figure 4.1: ‘Outcomes:

the transformed learner’, ‘Classroom Environment: necessary features’,

‘Conceptualising: a culture of thinking’ and ‘Strategies: the academic apprenticeship’.

48

Figure 4.1 – Overview of dimensions and themes

4.2 WHAT ARE TEACHERS’ DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS AND

CONCEPTIONS OF CRITICAL THINKING?

4.2.1 Dispositions towards Critical Thinking

Table 4.1 shows teachers’ results in the CCTDI. Harvey received an overall result of

349, Joanna of 327, Stefano of 345, Michelle of 340 and Stuart a result of 323. The

sample size in this study was too small to yield meaningful data on measures of

Outcomes: the transformed

learner(Chapter 4.3.1)

Willing to make mistakes

Curious to probe knowledge

Questions with expertise

Desires to learn

Plays with knowledge

Possesses systems of thinking

Learns with autonomy

Classroom Environment:

necessary features(Chapter 4.4.2)

Relationship of trust

The teacher as conductor, model

and expert

Driven by contextualised

learning

The question at the heart of the classroom

Fostering metacognitive

awareness

Discipline-based thinking

Conceptualising: a culture of thinking(Chapter 4.3.2 and

4.4.3)

Disposed toward critical thinking

Conceptualising critical thinking

Culture as a lens

Inhibiting factors

Strategies: the academic

apprenticeship(Chapter 4.4.1)

Academic problem-based

learning

Essential questions

Scaffolding

Modelling thinking not

content

Feedback

Planning Teaching

49

distribution and central tendency. It should be noted, though, that case participants’

scores across all attributes except ‘Systematicity’ revealed universally ‘positive’ to

‘strong positive’ dispositions. The composite scores above are a sum of the total of

each of the scale scores, listed in Table 4.1, recorded as a score out of 60. A ‘strong

positive’ score (50 to 60) reflects is indicative that “the attribute or attitude is a positive

habit of mind and likely to factor into the individual’s approach to all higher order

thinking” (Insight Assessment, 2017, p. 41). Scores from 40 to 49, indicating a

‘positive’ disposition, reflect a “consistent endorsement and valuation” (p. 41) of the

attribute measured. With respect to those scores between 30 and 39 — Harvey’s score

of 38 and Stefano’s score of 35 for ‘Systematicity’ — they reflect an inconsistent or

ambivalent attitude toward the scale attribute. Scores from 20 to 29 are considered

“indicative of poor valuation or aversion toward the attribute being measured”, whiles

scores of 10 to 19 are “indicative of strong negativity or hostility” toward the attribute

(p. 41).

Table 4.1 - CCTDI results for teachers

CC

TDI

Ove

rall

Trut

h-se

ekin

g

Ope

n-

min

dedn

ess

Inqu

isiti

vene

ss

Ana

lytic

ity

Syst

emat

icity

Con

fiden

ce in

Rea

soni

ng

Mat

urity

of

Judg

men

t

Harvey 349 50 55 54 51 38 49 52

Joanna 327 46 44 51 48 41 48 49

Stefano 345 43 52 59 47 35 56 53

Michelle 340 43 50 49 51 48 48 51

Stuart 323 41 50 47 44 45 52 44

50

4.2.2 Conceptions of Critical Thinking

The way in which participants conceptualise critical thinking is important as a basis

for understanding the objectives, content, mode and dynamics of a culture of thinking.

The evidence provided below draws from participants’ first interviews. The sub-

headings framing the analysis are derived from sub-themes that emerged during

abductive analysis of the participants’ responses during interviews (Danermark et al.,

2002), and reflect analysis and ‘redescription’ against pre-existing theory, especially

those of Facione and Facione (1992) and Zohar and Barzilai (2015).

Analysis and evaluation

Teachers characterised critical thinking as, primarily, analytical and evaluative.

Harvey describes a general conception of critical thinking as “at its core” being “a

process of thinking deeply and reflectively about what it is we know and why we know

it”, the composite elements of which he describes as being “inquiring and analysis …

evaluating information”. The description is echoed by Michelle, who says, “It’s about

the students ... evaluating … Being able to break down information, analyse it, and

form a response”.

In terms of a Business classroom, Harvey describes this evaluative process as

questioning “where the data’s coming from, the integrity of the data, who it is that will

be affected by the decision, the competing motivations of different internal and

external stakeholders” to “be able to formulate … the right conclusion”. This

description crystalises a process that is purposive, deeply interrogative, and that

involves careful observation and systematic analysis using well-developed tools.

Joanna echoed this, describing critical thinking as “critical analysis, leading towards

some sort of judgments or action”. The judgment or action arising from critical

thinking is distinguished, as in Harvey’s description, by a reflective, self-regulating

quality. Where, in Harvey’s case, knowledge is evaluated, for Joanna, critical thinking

interrogates one’s mathematical method, “you spot the mistake you made … it might

be that there's a concept missing, or you’ve made an assumption that you're not

allowed to make”.

51

Methodical approaches

Critical thinking, according to these teachers, is also about methodical approaches.

Joanna said that in Mathematics she “sort of move[s] straight into problem solving”,

the “ability to look at the problem, analyse it … based on those observations, based

on that analysis … what judgments you’re going to make”. Like Harvey, critical

thinking is purposive, taking a problem and dealing with it systematically, breaking it

into operable elements.

Stuart, also a Mathematics teacher, considers critical thinking to incorporate

“processes and skills where they can actually have an idea of how to … solve the

problem”. Like Harvey and Joanna, he points to systems or structures, ordered

approaches by which one generates a response. Critical thinking, he says, “Isn’t

necessarily to … question everything … it’s more … reflecting back”.

Dispositional qualities

The teachers all identify a significant dispositional quality in critical thinking, a self-

propelling dimension that engages with knowledge on a principled level, driven

toward improving the quality of knowledge. It is evident above, but it is also evident

in Stefano’s rendering of critical thinking: “I would say fostering a questioning of the

world around us, analysing the world around us to arrive at … a greater understanding

of the truth”.

Conclusion

There are a number of features that emerge in common across participants, common

characteristics that transcend the disciplines within which these teachers operate, but

also a number of important ways in which their perspectives diverge, some of which

appear to reflect the dynamics of their respective disciplines. Much of what

participants consider critical thinking to be is borne out by their aims and expectations,

in practice by the strategies they choose, and the reasons they provide for using those

strategies, the outcomes they anticipate, and the culture that is evident in their

classrooms. Their perspectives coalesce around critical thinking as purposive and self-

regulatory, focusing on analysis and evaluation, reaching reasoned perspectives and

52

following methodical, discipline-based approaches and strategies in order to come to

responses.

4.3 WHAT ARE TEACHERS’ AIMS AND EXPECTATIONS

REGARDING THINKING IN THE CLASSROOM?

When asking how teachers’ dispositions towards critical thinking shape the culture of

thinking they build in their classroom, we must necessarily consider what is it case

participants’ conceive as the objectives of a culture of thinking, and what effects they

expect a culture of thinking to have on students within the classroom. This section

addresses two dimensions that emerged from the findings of this study, ‘Outcomes:

the transformed learner’ and ‘Conceptualising: a culture of thinking’. Interview data

in this section was overwhelmingly drawn from the first series of interviews conducted

with participants.

4.3.1 Outcomes: the transformed learner

Teachers overwhelmingly characterised a culture of thinking as transforming learners

within its structures. Several distinct aspects arose under this theme: a disposition

toward learning, equipped to question, curiosity, autonomy, creating systems of

thinking, learning how to make mistakes, and playing with knowledge.

A disposition toward learning

An important aspect of how a culture of thinking transforms students is in the

cultivation of a disposition toward critical thinking. Harvey “deeply believe[s] that

students should leave high school with a broad skill set that is fundamentally

underpinned by an understanding of the academic disciplines in which they’ve been”,

but also possessing “a love of learning … a motivation combined with a disposition

towards critical thinking that will mean they’re lifelong learners”.

This transformative project was endorsed in Stefano’s description of education as

engendering a personal legacy of a “curiosity in students for learning … a lifelong

learner …” who will “take those skills and that enthusiasm and curiosity for learning

into every aspect of their life”. Likewise, Michelle, while pointing to education as

engendering “deciphering human beings … inquiring, not taking things at face value,

53

and having the ability to search for information that isn’t easily apparent”. Her

description was also about an inclination toward knowledge.

Equipped to question

Teachers emphasised that a culture of thinking ought to produce students equipped to

question. The message Joanna extols to her students throughout a school year is,

“Question things. Ask more questions”. In terms of “what sort of student … we want”

she identified students that “are able to go back in and problem-solve for themselves

… that are confident to … ask questions”. In startlingly similar terms, Harvey saw

developing in students the ability to question effectively as central to his objectives as

a teacher. He identified that the fundamental tool a student must possess is to “be a

great questioner”. Harvey identified this questioning as possessing a qualitative

dimension, a sense of contextualisation, “to question, to critique, not in a cynical way,

but to seek understanding, to consider bias, to consider stakeholders”.

Stefano saw a culture of thinking as a place where students “acquire a questioning

approach to their studies”, “fostering … [a] perpetual questioning of everything”.

Concomitant with this was “a place where that’s made explicit and visible to all

students, so … that they can identify the tools” used to achieve this. The “focus”,

Stefano said, was:

… on the process … of interrogating that information independently, and a

focus on the tools by which you're interrogating … the information and

knowledge you’re gaining rather than just … content itself ...

He emphasised “generating questions rather than answers”, “the process of

questioning, which leads towards … fine-grained … knowledge”.

The dividend of this in student learning, in Stefano’s experience, was that “they’re

more actively engaged in their own learning when they are equipped with the tools …

to interrogate what they’re learning; they have greater ownership”.

Curiosity

Another major element of the transformed learner was the development of their

curiosity. Stefano’s outlined that his “consistent message … is that the world is … an

54

endlessly curious place”. He believed focusing on “critically thinking about the world

and having the tools to do it … almost help[ed] to turbocharge or accelerate that

curiosity”. His message to students was that:

… fostering this questioning, and the kind of mindset that it brings … opens

you up into new and exciting ways of seeing the world that you would

otherwise, perhaps, be shielded from …

It was an underlying element of the narrative of Harvey’s classroom as well. In

exploring the relationship between customer experience and marketing, Harvey

explained how he was stimulated to explore the neurological underpinnings of

customer experience. Harvey argued that it “might only take five minutes” but “what

you’re illustrating to students there is: ‘I’m thinking more deeply than this and I’m

encouraging you to read about that’”.

Autonomy

A culture of thinking encourages students’ autonomy. Stefano aimed to leave students

with “a level of independent thought”, a classroom culture where “rather than just

being taught what to think” students are “being taught how to think for themselves and

being given that the tools with which to do that”. He located in this a dual aim of

personal engagement and responsible apprehension of learning, “a sense of boldness

… and character to follow through on what they feel is right … to be active participants

in society”. This autonomy and proactive orientation in response to knowledge was

echoed by Stuart. He indicated a belief that effective education meant “not having to

wait for everyone else to do it for them … to be able to think for themselves”.

Creating systems of thinking

An important attribute of the nature of learning in the culture of thinking is discipline-

based systems of thinking. Stefano insisted that essential to a culture of thinking was

the transfer from a teacher-driven ordering and structuring of thinking to a student-

driven, internalised behaviour, the necessary foundation of which was enabling

students to “make their own thinking visible to them”. It was a description that

resonated with the way Joanna’s described developing a student’s “inner voice” to

replace or assume primary responsibility in driving student thinking. She explained,

in relation to her current Year 10 Mathematics class, how “At the moment I’m a voice

55

that keeps coming in over the top of the work, but, actually, I want that to become part

of their workings”.

There is a similar systematic quality in what Stuart points to about aiming to develop

in students the ability to critique their own thinking: “going back … being able to

analyse what they’ve actually done, so they can improve”. Harvey described a

corresponding process of metacognition, internalising the analytical questioning

structures of Business as a discipline, such that when students approach a problem,

they understand how to proceed to responsible decisions themselves.

Learning how to make mistakes

Teachers identified the recalibration of student responses to error as a critical enabler

and outcome in cultures of thinking. Joanna explained how she sought to reposition

errors in students’ minds:

I like to say there’s no actual wrong answers in maths. There’s just some that

get marks and some that don’t get you marks … Because, if you learn from

that mistake you made, well it wasn't a bad pathway to take to start off with.

It is that learning from mistakes that was central. For Joanna, that included the teacher:

“If I make a mistake … I leave that as part of my worked solutions and then I annotate

… going, ‘Whoops, went in the wrong direction’”.

Harvey echoed Joanna’s notion of “stick[ing] your neck out”, and of teachers

accepting their fallibility. He outlined “a culture of openness, good communication …

underpinned by a total intellectual humility”, where no one is “the repository of all

knowledge” and “it’s okay to be wrong”. Harvey referred to the array of qualities that

produce this realignment, this reconciliation with being wrong, as distinctive

symptoms of “good culture”. The portrait of its absence was more layered. The

“antithesis of it”, is “shallow, competitive, ‘academic-ness’”. The individual, in this

environment, demonstrates “no actual willingness to … think deeply”.

Playing with knowledge

Finally, teachers saw it as important to a culture of thinking that students play with

knowledge. Joanna saw play — manipulating and experimenting with knowledge —

56

at the heart of her classroom culture. She portrayed an environment where students

experiment, hypothesise, make errors, and come to understand the working parts. She

explained that with her Year 11 advanced Mathematics class, she had “implemented

at the end of last term a choose-your-own-adventure concept for two weeks and it was

a series of hands-on play and explore, rather than, ‘Here is the — the theory. Apply

it’”. In a similar sense, Michelle finds playing with economic knowledge a necessity

in underpinning students’ holistic vision of Economics, and their motivation to move

beyond reproduction into exploration. She found that such forums give them a chance

to “justify”, “evaluate”, to “change their mind” on the basis of evidence, and to “see

its relevance”. Echoing this, Stuart draws mathematics problems from as far as

Brooklyn-Nine-Nine, a popular television show, because they are “quite a bit more

engaging potentially”, drawing upon students’ knowledge of inequalities and grouping

strategies, a vehicle for discussion and extension of problem-solving skills.

4.3.2 Conceptualising: a culture of thinking

Disposed toward critical thinking

Teachers’ accounts indicated that the shape classroom culture takes arises out of

teachers’ own idiosyncrasies, their motivations, dispositions and experiences. Harvey

described the source of the culture he tries to foster as a “burning internal drive”, a

“benchmark” to which he holds himself “as an internal concept of professionalism”.

He called this “professionalism on the part of the practitioner”, but it might better be

thought of as a behaviour of self-correction and modification. He said of his teaching,

“When I hit my job here, I did have a disposition toward critical thinking, and that’s

been the most useful asset”. He said that because he is “time poor”:

It’s so often too easy to just fall back be lazy … If you purely think of your job

is too pour X content into your child’s head, pat them on the bum and say

goodbye, ’cos you think an exam rewards that … it’s certainly not the

benchmark I internally hold myself.

His conceptualisation of the role of the teacher, and his internal drive to refine his

practice, to reflect and to improve, shape the trajectory of his thinking about his own

practice.

57

Stuart’s pursuit of a culture of thinking is similarly underpinned by an internal drive,

which he revealed was constructed in opposition to the expediency of pursuing linear

performance-based goals:

We’re seen to be good teachers if we get these results and the best way to get

those results isn’t the way that I teach … if I did want to get better results … I

could very easily do that by becoming a lot … more prescriptive with what I

do.

Joanna related much of her vision of a Mathematics classroom, both in terms of her

role and the emphasis on students playing with Mathematics, to her own experiences

of Mathematics. She cited her “personal learning” experiences in explaining this, and

what she recognises as “very much about needing to understand, not just being able to

regurgitate and repeat”.

Joanna’s experiences at school and university as a student were seminal in shaping her

emphases in the classroom, “very much about needing to understand, not just being

able to regurgitate and repeat and move on”. She “was the one that was able to go in

and play around … and explain what was … happening”. It crystalised into a

conviction regarding mathematical learning when she encountered students during the

second year of her Civil Engineering degree that were “struggling with the maths”.

This dissonance, among capable mathematics students, informed a priority on

teaching and learning for understanding, and the strategies she has developed to

accomplish this.

Michelle’s experiences of education have also informed her sense of empathy in the

design of learning in her classroom. She recalls that, “Back in high school, Economics

was just theory and that was it. And I just rote learnt it”. It has informed her desire to

avoid decontextualised learning, arguing, “I think they switch off if you’re just

spouting theory at them”.

Harvey also identified an empathetic sense arising from his own education, if

somewhat in resistance to his formative experiences. He says, “I like to invert the

learning, and consider, how would I want to be taught? How could I have been better

taught?” He notes that, “Some of my favourite teachers were terrible, didactic, you

58

know, the worst of the chalk and talk”. He said he “venerated their content knowledge,

not their pedagogy”. He pointed, though, to “a great university experience”, which,

along with his intrinsic dispositions, coalesced in the “most useful asset” when he

embarked on teaching, “a disposition toward critical thinking”.

Stuart sees his professional experiences as having shaped his pursuit of a culture of

thinking in his classroom. He described his work on a semi-annual, design-thinking

research project with Learning Environments Australia, as having had “a massive

impact” and “quite a large influence on how … I have been … adapting, altering my

teaching in my classroom”. The experience of engaging with other professionals

expanded his horizons beyond the mathematics classroom.

Culture as a lens

Teachers participating in this study conceived of culture as a dynamic, but not coercive

force. Where participating teachers elaborated on the mechanism by which they saw

culture operating, they framed culture as a lens, with comprehensive scope for

reshaping learning.

Harvey characterises the classroom as inherently governed by a culture, whether

explicitly so or not. He describes the classroom as “a pair of glasses” through which

“the focal object” is knowledge, and “the sunlight” is “your disposition”. To his mind:

If one doesn’t have a disposition towards inquiry and learning, then there is no

sunlight and there is no illumination of knowledge. It’s your choice whether

you choose [firstly] to apply any light. Secondly, where you point the glasses.

The “culture of learning” then constitutes the “forces” or the “the physical mechanism

of drawing it into a focal point”, but it is mediating how learning is fostered — it does

not replace the student and their desire to learn.

Stefano also uses this metaphor: “The application of lenses through which you see the

world. You know, offering students a chance to … to adopt a different lens and tell

them what lens that is, and give them the vocabulary for that”. In both cases, it

describes the adoption of modes of thought, the adaptation of cultural settings so as to

bring into clarity the nature, texture and interrelationships of a discipline and its parts.

Stuart’s description of “culture is very much something that … people that are within

59

the cultured don’t quite notice as much … something that’s embedded that … is just

there and innately sort of happens and everyone understands it”. While the explicitness

of culture seems to vary between case participants, and the strategies they pursue

reflect this, Stuart’s description describes a sensation that is as immersive as one

looking through a lens, for whom the world of the classroom and how knowledge is

brought into perspective is an experience into which they are immersed.

While culture was portrayed as a lens that had the capacity to reshape how learners

saw knowledge, in its exercise it is not a coercive instrument. Harvey saw his

classroom culture as something that, “in a caring and trusting way, not in a cynical

exercise in trying to humiliate” makes students “feel socially pressured, because if

they do not think in these terms … they will quickly find themselves falling silent, but

in the presence of a teacher who’s not going to let them fall silent”.

In Stefano’s account he argues that a student who resists the thinking culture of the

classroom will “survive to the extent that they won't be harmed by a culture of thinking

going on around them, but they … won’t tap into the great benefits of it”. He suggests

that there are indirect benefits for students who “haven’t bought in as much yet”,

though, “… because just by osmosis even if they’re not applying … rigorously those

skills themselves, they’re around it; the more exposure they get the better”.

Conclusion

Teachers primarily conceived of the objectives of a culture of thinking as transforming

learners into people effectively disposed toward critical thinking. The students they

sought to produce were inclined toward learning, and defined by a perpetual curiosity,

a willingness to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes, as well as a playfulness

with knowledge. They were also equipped to question and to engage autonomously

with knowledge, having built systems of thinking. With respect to the culture of their

classroom, teachers saw classroom culture as corresponding with and reflecting their

own idiosyncrasies, motivations, dispositions and experiences. They considered

culture to be a dynamic, but not coercive force, with comprehensive scope for

reshaping learning.

60

4.4 WHAT STRATEGIES DO PARTICIPANTS USE TO DEVELOP A

CULTURE OF THINKING?

Understanding how it is that teachers’ dispositions towards critical thinking shape the

culture of thinking they build in their classroom requires that we consider the strategies

teachers use to build the classroom culture of thinking they seek. This section

addresses the dimensions arising from the findings of this study, ‘Strategies: the

academic apprenticeship’ and ‘Classroom Environment: necessary features’. In doing

so, it identifies five major themes related to ‘Strategies’: academic problem-based

learning, essential questions, scaffolding, feedback and planning teaching. It also

identifies six necessary features of the classroom environment: a relationship of trust,

the teacher as conductor, model and expert, an environment driven by contextualized

learning, questions at the heart of the classroom, with a focus on fostering

metacognitive awareness, and structured around discipline-based thinking. Interview

data in this section was drawn from both interviews with participants, but particularly

the second interview, conducted after observing participants’ classrooms.

4.4.1 Strategies: the academic apprenticeship

Academic problem-based learning

Participating teachers identified academic problem-based learning — that is, learning

driven by tasks anchored real-world problems, to which students must respond — as

a central pedagogical strategy in developing a culture of thinking. This was delineated

in terms of asking questions in context, using such problems to tease out the

relationship between theory and practice, and manipulating content. Teachers also

identified questions as a device of critical importance deepening students’

understanding, for modelling routines for approaching unfamiliar content and

concepts, and as a way to shift students to more self-regulated thinking.

Providing problems in context

Harvey described the core of his teaching strategy as a focus on “academic problem-

based learning”, claiming: “I teach almost everything through this lens”. Harvey’s

cultural priorities of a culture of questioning find their form in pedagogical emphasis.

It is, for him, “the perfect tool, because you can’t create a culture of questioning unless

61

you are asking open-ended questions in context”. The tool he described is one of

theory and concepts taught in real-world contexts:

When I have context, I can ask questions that are far deeper and cognitively

higher-order process than I could if it’s done in utter abstraction.

He explained that he chooses to use questions “having some built some content

knowledge” to “broaden and deepen the depth of understanding of content”. His

develops students’ understanding of Business by providing them with a series of

questions to ask of the problem: “What is the dilemma? What is the context? Who are

the stakeholders? What is the motivation? What is the information that we’ve got?”

For Joanna, like Harvey, asking questions in context permitted deeper understanding

and greater metacognitive and conceptual awareness. Joanna explained that “asking

them to visualise it … if I know what a quadratic equation looks like … it should spark

different thought processes and because we’re trying to apply that to a problem”. For

her, the process of visualising mathematics assisted in the development of strategies

and an iterative pattern of reasoning, self-checking and self-monitoring. Joanna also

claimed that immersing students in the real-world when asking questions also made

Mathematics more meaningful:

With Statistics, we do a lot of work with … medicine and … outliers … if we

know that two people out of every 20 … have a temperature that … goes to

107, well, we’re killing two people out of every 20 by using this drug … Where

do we actually draw the line when we’re doing our testing? … That suddenly

becomes a little bit more relevant to them.

Stuart shared this concern for contextualising knowledge and questions. He used the

example of building the Sydney Harbour Bridge to introduce quadratic equations,

explaining how they built it from each end toward the middle, providing a concrete

example of mathematical phenomena. Visualising the mathematics lends concepts and

mathematical processes meaning, and supports a shift from seeing mathematical

knowledge in an abstract operational sense, pointing to its practical value.

62

Finally, for Michelle, her primary method of resolving conceptual understanding is

economic case studies. She argued understanding in the Economics classroom is

fostered by making connections with “… how we can implement or apply” Economics

in “real-world situations” and “having discussions about current affairs … linking

back our theory to those topics”.

In a Year 11 Economics lesson I observed, Michelle assigned different press articles

and recent speeches from economic policy-makers to groups, focusing on different

macroeconomic objective. It is, she said, something she does “fairly frequently”. This

pattern anchors and contextualises conceptual knowledge.

Making abstract concepts concrete

Analysis of the interview data identified that teachers used contextualised problems to

resolve the apparent gap between theoretical dimensions of their academic discipline

and the concrete outworking of those same concepts, and in so doing, extended and

solidified students’ understanding.

Harvey described using problem-based tools to tease out a tension between

contextually-anchored and abstract dimensions of Business. In teaching ‘leadership

styles’, he uses “a totally different context that they’re not expecting … a survival

scenario”, requiring the class to navigate a plane crash, ordering a series of items in

terms of their importance for survival. He designed the scenario to simulate errors and

styles of leadership. Harvey explained that “this is not an exercise … testing their

understanding of … survival [priorities]. He used it as a metaphor, the “metaphor

being, we’re constantly presented with problems in the business world. Leadership is

going to be integral to solving them”. He also liked “to pull back from the context”

and critically evaluate leadership styles used in the exercise. The strategy drew out a

tension in the theory, the practical outworking of leadership, and built understanding.

In Joanna’s classroom, she uses a similar focus on real-world problems as a tool to

develop exploratory mathematical thinking and to draw out a similar contextual-

abstractive tension. In a series of Year 11 lessons, Joanna assigned her students “a

choose-your-own-adventure concept”, a “series of hands-on play and explore”

63

lessons, where they were working towards a theory. She explained that while “all

students know that angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees”, the challenge was “How

do you prove that?”. She used the strategy to illuminate the tension between it “being

a fact” and a veil of ignorance, a sense of “let’s pretend we don’t know it”, to examine

the question of “How do we use a certain set of facts to make that proof viable?” and

to take the abstract theory “and then start to build parallel line rules, and angles inside

of any sort of polygons and working our way through”. In this case, it inverted the

contextual-abstractive tension by making foreign the familiar and replicated the

process of forming mathematical knowledge.

Connecting with case examples

In addition to contextualised academic problems, teachers also emphasised the role of

case examples as important at three levels. Case examples were used, firstly, as

heuristics for key concepts; secondly, to promote active links between discipline-

based concepts and the practice of academic disciplines in their natural environment;

and, finally, to engage students in the relevance of the concepts and content being

taught in class.

Stefano conceived of real-world examples not only as a means to engage students, but

to elicit thinking, in a microcosm, that links to broader goals. When Stefano introduced

students to the racial context of Australian indigenous playwright Jack Davis’ play No

Sugar (1986) he used what he described as an “extremely controversial image” by the

cartoonist Bill Leak (2016) as “a way of engaging the students right off the bat in a

lesson”. He chose the image because “controversy is one … interesting and quick way

to get the boys thinking”. At a deeper level, Stefano used the cartoon as a “way of …

starting them to get them to think about some of the … stereotypes and ways of

thinking … and assumptions that we make when examining some of these kinds of

issues”.

Stuart also identified value in using the history of the discipline to build tangible

connections with concepts. He explained how:

… when we taught them networks, we talked about how it was invented by the

Americans … in the Second World War, and in terms of trying to disable them

64

for their train networks, and so that’s part of where maximum flow in our

network stuff has come from …

This was a strategy of building a culture of thinking echoed by Harvey. He described

using student knowledge of the outside world to connect with concepts in the Business

course. He cited introducing the notion of market research by discussing bad

experiences of cafés: “the conclusion I want them to get to about service”. He

connected this with more formal academic knowledge from the field of psychology to

explore the reasons for which customers experience service this way. Such

conversations, he said, reflect a way of approaching knowledge, and a modelling of

thinking: “If you’re motivated and passionate, you create that passionate culture, and

then … students will begin to think deeply”. Like Stefano, he believed that these real-

world examples helped students to reflect on the world around them, link knowledge,

and illuminate the subject at hand.

Harvey reflected on teaching entrepreneurialism, and offered the examples of two

stories that he used as heuristics in this context:

I started that lesson with the story — and it usually intrigues them — a story

about a group of workers working on a railway line, and they’re making

exemplary progress cutting through the jungle line perfectly straight tracks,

level tracks, until at some point someone climbs a tree and shouts down and

say[s] we’re going the wrong way.

He uses the story “to illustrate the differences between leadership and management”.

Harvey explained:

I start there … because I fundamentally know that one of the problems when

students learn about leadership, is they don’t and cannot articulate …

leadership and management. So, I first need to disentangle those two.

Management was about perfectly laying that straight track, management

worked brilliantly in this example … Leadership failed to tell them the right

direction in which to move.

65

Harvey’s description of the way he used stories pointed to them as heuristics enabling

students to clearly grasp concepts. His account pointed to stories as valuable not only

for the clarity or illumination they yielded, but also for their role in building rapport.

Harvey described employing the case of Richard Branson as an archetype for

illuminating an autocratic leadership style:

I picked that one because he was an academically weak student. And … that’s

endearing for students, particularly weak students.

Harvey affirmed the value of the story as “a body to carry and to illustrate as I work

through that first lesson, which was about autocratic leaders”.

Manipulating matter — Playing with knowledge

A final dimension of problem-based learning was the idea of manipulating problems

in order to promote conceptual understanding, and to help students understand the

dynamics at play. Joanna used problem-based pedagogy and manipulating

Mathematics as a strategy to engage students in research, and to build meaningful

connections with an abstract concept. Joanna explained how in order to teacher linear

equations to Year 9 students, she has students manipulate linear equations within a

computerised simulation of landing a plane. She explained: “y=mx+c … is a bit of a

turn-off … whereas trying to get something to crash or not crash, and by lining it up,

they’ve got something to hang that off”. She explained that if she simply outlined the

theory once to student, “maybe 10% of the class remember[s] it”. Conversely, by:

… mess[ing] around with some numbers, and … start[ing] to refine the way in

which they’ve messed around with it, many of them will have experienced that

by changing the number that multiplies the ‘X’ bit … that’s changing the

steepness of it… They’ve explored …

She considered it research and purposeful exploration rather than mindless

manipulation or “trial and error”.

Stuart also emphasised this sense of playing with mathematical knowledge. With his

Year 10 mathematics class, he used a problem drawn from an episode of Brooklyn

Nine-Nine involving 12 islanders, 11 of whom are the same weight, requiring students

66

to determine within three uses of a seesaw which islander was the odd one out. He

said, “I think it helps … everyone … they’re really engaged and find that sort of thing

interesting”. Such exercises, involving students in academic problem-based learning,

engage a confluence of students’ knowledge and strategies, and require them to select

and flexibly apply their understanding.

Essential questions

Unpeeling the layers

Participating teachers saw questioning as the foundational approach by which to

provide students with a context in which to improve the sophistication and depth of

their understanding. Joanna framed questions as an essential device in developing

students’ thinking. She claimed “… the question needs to be more than just ‘I have

remembered a fact’ or ‘I am reproducing a skill’”. Rather, “… those questions need to

be tailored quite gently early on to sort of transition from that … initial knowledge …

to taking it forward and into being able to apply it in an environment”. Her explanation

framed questions as a mechanism by which student thinking was formed, and

understanding was not only consolidated, but extended. She viewed questioning as the

means of shifting students from superficial thinking to “analysis and synthesis and

evaluation of what they are doing”. In further developing students’ thinking, Joanna

used questions to draw out contradictions in student thinking where students reach

logically inconsistent responses.

Joanna’s questioning, though, served not only to extend the individual student’s

thinking, but was also designed to promote mathematical communication and to

scaffold and extend other students’ thinking as well, particularly students who may be

otherwise reluctant to ask for assistance. When teaching her Year 9s, she asked, “Why

does it line up? ... I want you to use your words … to explain what you’ve been doing”.

She described this eliciting this reasoning as “the more important part of this process”.

She explained that this questioning was “not purely for that one-on-one setup”, that it

also “for the group that's around in some cases”, for less confident students that might

be “listening in … a few desks away” and “hearing that bit, and they go, ‘Okay, I’ll

try this’, and away they go”. Thus, it serves a secondary purpose to provide an

exemplar of mathematical reasoning that might resolve an impasse for other students.

67

Stefano, by way of some distinction, designed questioning as a methodical device used

to elicit understanding in increasing depth and sophistication. He emphasised “an

ongoing effort to question in a way that, peels away more and more layers of

understanding and perspective, and drawing more and more insights from that”.

Stefano said that a “key ingredient” of this culture of thinking “is having students

reflect on their own thinking”. He fostered that understanding and supported students

in processing information in his classes by developing “scaffolded frameworks” and

“various stages of questioning”, and worked through a “taxonomy”, he “would

consider … to take students from more superficial understandings to deeper

understanding”.

Stefano drew heavily on what he called “communities of inquiry”. In this forum,

students:

… are forced to layer questions on top of what has been previously spoken

about, so this kind of layering of questions and … starting the group out by

feeling comfortable that they can contribute, but also … to … not stop short

…

He saw the progressive chain of questions as a collective experience of peeling away

layers of understanding, and refining knowledge.

Questioning routines

Participating teachers outlined routines for questioning that were designed to structure

students’ thinking. Stefano emphasised predictable, well-constructed thinking

routines, such as the ‘See-Think-Wonder’ routine, which he explained was “a thinking

routine developed by Project Zero at Harvard University”. He described this routine

as “a means [of] taking them through, essentially … a Bloom’s Taxonomy … going

from the literal to the inferential and … walking them through that process”. Questions

progressed from a focus on detailed description to identifying “some of the ideas or

issues emanating from the piece” and then “getting them to address what kind of

questions they have in their mind … are there any tensions, or other any areas they're

unsure about”. His aim in drawing on routines was that “if used enough, the idea …

[is] to make it almost like an unconscious routine in their thinking … to sort of

internalize the process of thinking through those routines”.

68

Michelle pointed to less rigid, but still highly-patterned use of questions that she

adopts in her classroom, designed to develop or extend students’ thinking. Michelle

regularly gives students statements in relation to which they must adopt a position,

such as “Economic growth is inherently good”, and have to defend or justify the

position they take. It is, she says, about “getting them to go through a process” of

justifying and evaluating, but it also fosters a habit: “it was the opportunity for them

to change their mind”. She argues, “The role of an economist is you have to be able to

read the environment, read the history, and use that knowledge to make a change, and

you also have to be aware of the change and the impact of that change”. Like Harvey

and Stefano, this strategy aimed to mirror the nature of discipline-based thinking.

Student generated questioning

In analysis, student-generated questioning was adopted as a strategy to foster

improved self-regulation. Joanna addressed her priority of shifting students to more

self-regulatory patterns by inverting the structure of problems. Rather than assigning

questions and identifying for students the mathematics in the real-world, she said she

“spend[s] a lot of time with, ‘Okay, I’m going to tell you the answer, you now have to

tell me the question’ … Or, ‘I’m going to show you a picture and I want you to tell

me the maths about it’”. This transfers the identification of mathematics to students,

encouraging active, self-reflective learning.

Stefano pointed to a similar inversion of learning, focused on question generation,

using explicit structures. In examining the racial context of Jack Davis’ No Sugar

(1986), Stefano had students individually, and then in pairs, generate questions in

response to a political cartoon. He used a routine focused on “the idea of generating

questions rather than answers”, designed “to model the process of inquiry”. He said

that “the process of questioning … leads towards … fine-grained … knowledge …

it’s the fostering of this sort of perpetual questioning of everything”. Student-

generated questioning therefore not only served to promote the development of

nuanced understanding, but also fostered a disposition toward inquiry that Stefano

believed was at the centre of a culture of thinking. He said that models like

“communities of inquiry”, a student-driven group discussion protocol, “allows for all

69

boys to contribute … in a way that … they’re not criticised for any of their

contributions” and where “they have to contribute”. This mode of discussion, in

Stefano’s mind, was “setting up that environment that they are a community of

learners learning together for a common goal … [to] pull apart the competitiveness”.

Scaffolding

Analysis identified a focus on strategies that sequentially established the basis of

discipline-based thinking structures, and then built the structures that support

increasingly proficient and sophisticated reasoning within the discipline. It was also

evident that teachers focused on teaching language as scaffold or structure for

developing subject-specific understanding and thought.

Harvey delineated a sequence of building blocks in developing a culture of thinking.

At the core of this is a process of teacher-led scaffolding, a kind of intellectual

apprenticeship. He said he begins with “simple things”. He explained:

I scaffold; I don’t assume very much … So, I build it up. I show them how to

synthesise, draw conclusions. Whenever we get to a piece of information, I ask

them to stop — I show them myself. When presented with this information,

what is the cognitive process I go through?

His descriptions echoed his explanation of the nature of knowledge in the field, and

of his cultural objectives. He aimed, through this, to “show them and teach them in a

really rudimentary sense, how can you build a scaffold for critiquing and evaluating

information?” It was a process of “teaching claim-testing” that “takes a really long

time”. He also emphasised strategies of teaching students “how to break down

questions and marking schemes”, not, primarily, because of the examination

imperative, but “because you’re modelling critical thinking skills” and “[writing]

model answers, but with the emphasis, at that point, not being so much on the content

as much as why and how I structure the answer … which we’re in”. Michelle revealed

a similar focus on scaffolding writing and thinking, albeit more of a focus on what she

called a “formula”. She explained that “question breakdown is obviously a big

[strategy]”, how “to implement case studies”, and the explicit teaching of writing

structures.

70

Language as a scaffold

Harvey identified building fluency in the language of the discipline as foundational to

all other learning. “The building block”, he said, “is terminology. Then, on top of that,

I would place in content knowledge and only then would I begin to put case studies in

context. And that’s what links in to my problem-based learning”. His goal was to place

problem-based learning at the centre of his classroom, but terminology was essential

in service of this higher pedagogical priority. Michelle also viewed terminology as a

critical foundation for learning, not only reflective of understanding, but necessary for

it, and for communicating economic concepts. She said of her own emphasis on

terminology in the classroom:

I think it’s a very conscious thing … it’s so important that the boys get used to

using that terminology … because I think boys really struggle when they’re

not implementing the appropriate terminology.

Like Harvey, terminology was a building block to be able to be conversant, in any

meaningful sense, with a discipline.

Joanna, rather differently, layered in language after establishing a concrete sense of

mathematical concepts. In explaining her exercise using landing planes to manipulate

linear equations, Joanna described how “many of them will have experienced that by

changing the number that multiplies the ‘X’ bit” and added that “you don’t have to

have the right word in there”, explaining that “They’ve explored. They’ve actually

done a lot of the research before I start to then put in the vocabulary over the top of

it”. She introduced the language of “gradient” and “y-intercept” afterwards, and is

happy to ask, “Okay, so what vocabulary could we be using to … start to do that …

and by lining it up, they’ve got something to hang that off. Then we put the vocabulary

in”. This language, as a result of establishing it in the context of meaningful

experiences with those concepts the language described, has far greater concept-

bearing capacity.

71

Modelling thinking, not content

The modelling strategies that participating teachers described as significant in

developing a culture of thinking revolved around modelling thinking, and the

structures of thinking underpinning analysis, evaluation and written communication,

not the content thereof.

Harvey explained that he has shifted his focus from modelling content to

demonstrating systematic thinking. He has shifted from doing “a lot of model

answers” that were “too long” to an emphasis on modelling thinking: “If I set any

question … I want you to write me a couple of points considering the marking

allocation and the command term, and parts to the questions”. He had become

frustrated that students were “poor at pulling apart those command terms, and

ultimately … poor at analysing”. Harvey explained that this addressed a

disconnectedness in students’ thinking, that in “asking them to write a skeletal outline

for a growth essay … in the student's mind … they’re compartmentalising it”. From

Harvey’s perspective, there has emerged in his classes a discourse around implications

of questions, relevant and irrelevant elements, and “far, far better writing”.

Joanna emphasised a strategy of modelling through questioning as a means of

developing in students an internalised sense of Mathematical thinking. She

comprehensively documents her working for a problem, “because each of these phases

is part of the thinking process”. She described modelling in her classroom as a

“running commentary alongside, ‘So why did you do this?’ Why did you make that

decision? Why did you choose that angle over that angle?’”. She used these questions

and direct feedback as part of a broader strategy designed to develop students’ inner-

voice. She explained that she asks students questions to prompt self-reflective

behaviour, questions like, “Well, you got the answer coming this way, but what if you

went the other way? Would that have been more efficient?” She also outlined a

differentiated application of this strategy for students demonstrating more limited

conceptual proficiency, developing that internal commentary carefully and

sequentially. Scaffolding thinking was a way to “still allow them success” and “for

them to then feed back to you and say, ‘This is how I’m going to approach it’”. It was

72

a strategy that she saw as having diverse applications for developing and extending

thinking.

Stuart, when modelling how to approach the Brooklyn Nine-Nine problem to his class,

focused on explicating his thinking, rather than providing a model solution, reminding

students, “Part of the problem with this riddle is that it works like a tree diagram. Once

you get to one answer it creates other possibilities and now you have to remember how

it weighed it the first time”. He stepped out the available options, guiding them through

a process of observation and exploratory thinking, saying, “If it doesn’t change, what

does it actually mean? So, what if it did change?” Stuart explained that “Students need

to see … an exemplar of ways to approach things … a ‘talked through one’ …

[because] there are so many background processes that are … happening that you

don’t see [when] you work through a problem on the board”. Stuart’s emphasis reflects

a concern for explicating the underpinning structures and processes that comprise

mathematical thinking, not just the surface-level process.

Feedback

The teachers used feedback to empower students’ capacity to evaluate their own

thinking, and focused in their feedback strategies on the quality of students’ thinking,

and on fostering student-driven feedback. Analysis of participating teachers observed

a focus on creating regular opportunities for feedback, focused on improving students’

thinking. Harvey designed opportunities and structures into his lessons for students to

receive regular, meaningful feedback. Harvey conceived of feedback as an ongoing,

ubiquitous dimension of the culture he created in his classroom. He described his

students as “constantly getting feedback”. It was also a process that encompassed all

students. Harvey was insistent on this point:

The quickest way that I’m doing it every day is by deliberately peppering the

classes with questions … I’m making sure that unless … I’m going to lose that

student, then I’m going to make sure I come around and ask … There’s

nowhere to hide.

For Harvey, there emerged a clear sense of the ends to which his feedback was

directed. He said it:

73

… should be personalised, at times … it should be mindful of the skills that

you’re trying to achieve in answering that question. So, speak to what it is that

you wanted them to achieve … it should be … accessible. It shouldn’t be

judgmental. It should have a positive rather than negative quality to it …

Harvey’s description of feedback reflected a growth mindset. Harvey described the

central thrust of his feedback as informed by:

… a great two words that Carol Dweck is quite enamoured with … ‘not yet’

… You’ve tried really hard. But you haven’t quite got this concept …

To a similar end, and in a similar way, Joanna explicitly focused on teaching students

how to make mistakes so as to promote their improvement. She said:

I reckon it’s taken me all the last term to get them making mistakes out loud

in class with my Year 9s … they don’t want to make mistakes … I said to stick

your neck out there and have a go, for us to learn from it …

Joanna described how in her classroom,

I feel a bit mean from time to time in the classroom because … someone will

say the wrong answer, and I’m, like, ‘I’m so glad you said that’ and they’ll go,

‘It’s wrong, isn't it?’ And, I’m, like, ‘Yes, it is. But I’ll show you why’.

Joanna outlined a strategy of designing a pivot in these situations that she used to

unpack students’ thinking. She outlined a typical interaction: “We’ll have a look and

say, ‘Well, how come the answer … seemed quite sensible? … What assumptions did

we make?’” This emphasis on using erroneous thinking as a learning opportunity was

formalised, Joanna explained, in classroom activities: “I’ve got a lot of worksheets

where I have made all the mistakes, and they’ve got to find them”. This was part of

Joanna fostering a classroom environment where it was safe to make mistakes, a

critical driver of extending student thinking.

Participating teachers also drew attention to strategies designed to shift feedback away

from the teacher and toward other students and the student themselves. Harvey uses a

student-driven feedback model, which he considered important in the disposition it

74

fostered, and in the way it built a culture of thinking. Harvey pointed to feedback

empowering students to critique and improve their own work, but also to disempower

resistance. Harvey prioritised “exemplars of student work”, because:

… that’s very disempowering to kids who are resistant to learning. It tends to

get them, because they go, ‘Oh well, sir, you — you can write that because

you’ve been doing it forever’. Mmm-hmm. Well, this is what a peer wrote, and

I think it’s excellent writing …

When students wrote in class, Harvey said he will provide feedback, but “someone

else in this class will critique it” as well, which “is important … because it … forces

them to think”. He also believed that “if you do it well enough, if you do it in a positive,

collegial, way, students … buy into that process” and by its design “it means that the

feedback they’re getting is daily”. Harvey outlined a mode of feedback that actively

worked to diminish resistance, enhance student openness to correction, emphasised

systematic improvement and metacognitive awareness, and shifted the feedback

model to one of mutual responsibility.

Joanna emphasised developing in students a practice or habit of giving voice to their

own thinking, of feeding back on their thinking by sharing both successful learning

and mistakes. Joanna partnered students in this, with feedback that “happens in tiny

little bits with just a … ‘This looks good’, ‘That looks interesting’”, but that included

opportunities for students to share their learning. She said that when she observes them

having success, “You sort of come back in and ask them to explain to you, ‘This is

what I’ve just done. I’m quite proud of it’ … and [give] them that opportunity to show

success”. Joanna considered students sharing their successes as being as important as

developing students’ ability to critique their own thinking.

Joanna, by adopting an approach of students explicating and critiquing their own

thinking in relation to errors, using worked solutions, and annotating those, providing

a “running commentary on the side”, accounting for the source of their own errors:

“they can possibly explain it, and once they’ve explained that [they] go, ‘Ah, the

mistake I made was that assumption or this assumption’”. It represented in her thinking

an informal way of students driving their own improvement through critiquing their

75

own mathematical knowledge and approaches to solving problems. With respect to

feedback from formal assessments, Harvey similarly emphasised engaging students in

the process, and helping them to develop a critical mindset with respect to their own

thinking and writing. It involved a process of students critiquing their work. From this,

students were able to identify, “I forgot to define. I forgot to use an example. I forgot

to consider that, in fact, there’s another stakeholder here, that employees are affected

by this decision”.

Planning teaching

A number of clear sub-dimensions emerged in analysis of teachers’ reflections on their

planning processes, reflecting a sense of selecting and applying strategies with an

overarching purpose in mind.

Analysis of teachers’ approaches revealed a complex of decisions made in planning,

guided and governed by an understanding of the trajectory of learning, and made to

serve that purpose. Harvey explained a complex of decision-making around the

relative emphasis and dimensions of his teaching:

When we talked of principles, concepts, terminology, content, I have to be

crystal clear in my own mind about what it is that I do and do not, and the

depth to which I want to pursue that … I’ve always thought deeply about what

I will and will not place emphasis on.

Harvey detailed that such critically-focused decision-making was necessitated by the

implications that planning decisions have:

… at the very beginning, whenever we’re framing the teaching program …

I’m thinking, how far do I want to go down the wormhole? That shapes

everything to me because from there, I go, ‘Right, I know how deep I have to

go now. Now I’ve just got to consider the mechanisms to get down there and

the mechanisms to bring me back’ …

Harvey’s reflections on his planning processes pointed to an appreciation of the

compounding nature of decisions made in planning, and an attentiveness to the

necessity of critically situating planning decisions to reflect points of emphasis.

76

Stefano also pointed towards complex decision-making. Stefano originally prioritised

the central and enabling tenets of his classroom culture as engagement and the safety

of students, and identified himself as a disciple of Vygotsky and his notions of “social

constructivism”. He described those tenets as:

… always lurking in my mind when I frame a unit, a lesson. Are they going to

feel comfortable? Are they going to be engaged and curious in the subject

matter? … and it needs to be as highly relevant for them to be curious and

engaged, so how am I thinking about it’s going to be relevant to them, how am

I going to connect it with prior learning? … and push them into territory that

where they have to take some risks with their thinking …

His framing of units was driven by the Vygotskyist connections with prior learning,

but the other central dimensions also provided for, or were aligned toward the

independent thought, curiosity and active engagement Stefano identifies as his

overarching cultural vision. It represented a kind of teleological and critically

reflective planning, where the complex of decision-making reflected his overarching

cultural vision and his understanding of how students construct knowledge.

The particular sequence, timing and regularity with which strategies are deployed —

the rhythms and routines of participating teachers planning processes demonstrated a

continuity between what they identified as drivers of a culture of thinking, their aims

and expectations, and the structure of their time. Harvey said that in developing a

lesson:

I would often begin [with a] little motivator, and demonstrate critical thinking,

and then in the structure we might go to a bit of abstracted content with

questioning and then straight, as fast as possible hopping back into … context.

The rhythm and routines here reflected his previous identification of the abstractive-

contextual nature of Business as a discipline. Even with respect to abstracted content,

he pointed out that “often the questioning is in context, so I’m forcing students to

constantly jump between two”.

77

Harvey emphasised, though, that he uses “different approaches depending on the

nature of the content”, that in building student proficiency, he was highly aware of

prior knowledge, and of the nature of the knowledge itself. He says, “It’s a mixture of

constructivism, but I don’t know always start with constructivism”. He explained that:

I don’t apply a constructivist approach when I’m pitching a balance of

payments because it’s an utterly human … set of arbitrary rules. So, what

knowledge they do have … is probably not particularly useful to me.

In these contexts, he used strategies that are:

… fairly didactic, particularly where the information is abstracted, and

particularly where I don’t feel that they are going to have much base

knowledge or experience …

His approach was informed by the overarching goals and imperatives of the situation.

The rhythms and routines of how Joanna structured her classroom environment

aligned with her conceptualisation both of mathematics as a discipline, and of how

mathematical understanding is formed. She outlined, in relation to her mathematics

class, that:

…[at] the start of these lessons, probably about 15–20 minutes of explore …

probably another 15–20 minutes of, ‘Let’s actually extract the important

information from that’, and then we really go into another couple of lessons

of, ‘Right, let’s apply this to as many different scenarios as we possibly can’.

She revealed a cycle of exploration, structured consideration, and application or

transfer of knowledge. She also developed regular opportunities for students to engage

in a “sharing mistakes bit”. In this sense, the major features of the cultural landscape

she portrayed are reflected in her decisions in allocating and structuring the rhythms

of the classroom.

For Stuart, he saw routines as underpinning a sense of safety, helping learners to

situate themselves. He argued:

78

It’s very important that a culture of thinking cannot just be a free for all …

There still needs to be a process to it … They still need to have guidance. They

still need to have structure set in place, and people respond to that.

He reserves time for “performance analysis”, which he says, “I try to make that sort

of reflection or that … looking at what you’re actually trying to achieve quite a feature

… because there’s much more buy in”. It underpins a pattern of observation and

reflection he says is “very important” for “further maths” and extended proofs or larger

problems.

In apportioning time in his classroom, Stefano pointed, like Harvey, to “balancing

acts” of competing elements: “The relative time would vary depending on the depth,

the complexity of the material, and based on students’ attention and ability to focus”.

He said that in his classes, like in Joanna’s description of the rhythm of her lessons,

“You always see a mix of classroom discussion, individual work, teacher-direct

instruction interesting … material … and time for reflection at the very end”. Stefano

cast the time devoted to reflection, as sacrosanct: “Reflection is such a critical part of

the classroom and of learning … that whole notion of metacognition and thinking

about your own thinking, reflecting on your own thinking, needs space”. Rhythms and

routines of his class were aligned with the overarching purpose of building a culture

of thinking.

4.4.2 Classroom Environment: necessary features

Relationship of trust

Teachers pointed to the necessity of students’ sense of safety as a key precursor to

effective learning. It goes beyond this, though, to incorporate dimensions of agency

and efficacy in the classroom, and embodies a sense of boundaries and respect.

Joanna sees the relationships within the classroom as a critical enabler and potential

inhibitor of creating a culture of thinking. She describes “respect and responsibility”

as her major priority in establishing culture: “I think in my first ever classroom I had

those two words up above my board”. It is the key to creating an environment within

79

which learning, firstly, and mathematical thinking, secondly, can take place under the

cultural settings she aims to establish. She recognises that it:

Seems like an odd thing … coming into a maths classroom that respect and

responsibility would be those core things, but unless you’ve got those things

in place, then I can’t do any of the sort of the activities … or the work that I

would like to do.

It is a priority vindicated by her experience teaching juvenile offenders, that “first ever

classroom”, where it was as simple as “I have the responsibility to teach and allow me

… to do it”. Michelle believes that this dynamic is the primary enabler of the other

dimensions that mark a culture of thinking. For her, the “classroom [is] a good place

to be, a place where … students in general feel that they’re respected, are going to be

listened to”. Likewise, Stefano affirms that it is “really, really important that they feel

safe to voice their opinions”, and says that “a culture of thinking is where students feel

free and confident to question”.

Stuart’s discussion of cultures of thinking seems to echo these sentiments, but he

unpacks further the mechanisms at play:

There’s a very fine line between having control of the class, but also letting

them expand and explore … some people will be far too prescriptive in how

they… manage the class, and because of that students then can’t — or don't —

feel like they can explore or they can think critically because if they do if they

… don’t do it the correct way, then they'll get reprimanded for that.

Similarly, Stefano identifies that “there has to be a level of comfort and safety in that

classroom environment for students to feel that they can question”. He points to

“relationship building” as “the key thing” in fostering an environment where a culture

of thinking can be built, a place where “they feel that their voice is valued by myself

and the group”. Michelle affirms what other case participants point to: “Respect. First

and foremost, because they want to feel like they’re being listened to and that their

ideas or thoughts won’t be judged”.

80

The teacher as conductor and expert

The teacher emerged from analysis as the fulcrum of a culture of thinking. The role

they occupy is akin to a conductor, expert and as the inspiration of the shape of culture

in the classroom. The result of these cultural dynamics or priorities, in terms of the

role of the teacher, is a self-driving culture in which the role of the teacher in driving

or generating thinking is gradually minimised rather than elevated. Joanna explains:

You, as a teacher, you actually almost become a little bit superfluous to the

environment. Once it’s up and running, if it’s set up well, and you can suddenly

stand back and go, ‘Job done’.

The students drive the momentum in such a classroom. Joanna describes such an

environment as one where students are “just bouncing off each other around you”,

“going through and trying things, and working things out”. This is a portrait of a

classroom in which students are driving a pattern of exploratory thinking, of

methodically attempting to solve problems.

This stands in contrast to Joanna’s experience of cultures of dependency she has

encountered where students are reluctant to engage with a culture of thinking, where

“… you get silence … they’re desperately waiting for me to tell them the answer so

that they can write down the notes, and … they just want the worked example, and so

[they] can do lots and lots of those again”.

Stefano similarly envisages the role of the teacher as conductor rather than the source

of the music. He is reluctant for his own perspectives and responses to dominate the

landscape. Instead, he sees himself as facilitating the development of student thinking,

rather than dictating its course. He explains:

It’s important as a teacher to … intuitively gauge where the students’

understanding is at … and to guide them back towards the central concepts that

I am trying to get them to understand … my role is to anchor the lesson in

those concepts, and to some extent … draw them towards those concepts.

Michelle contrasts this role of the teacher with the role teachers are often pressured

into adopting:

81

I need to stop myself falling in the trap, because our boys here ask a lot of

questions and they ask questions that they know the answers to, but they have

a real need to affirm and confirm that they’re on the right track.

In conceiving of her own role, she instead aims to “change from just answering their

question to actually making them go through a process and assess it first”. It points to

a belief that the role of the teacher in relation to student construction of knowledge is

important.

Analysis revealed a belief among teachers that discipline-based expertise was a central

element underpinning the development of a culture of thinking, permitting more

flexible learning pathways, greater awareness and more effective pedagogical design.

Harvey argued that teachers “need a really good solid depth of content” in order to

establish the patterns of an effective culture of thinking. He said, “If you can only

describe and explain and discuss your subject at the level of a strong ‘A’ student in

your class … I think you'll struggle to ask the sort of questions that you need … to

build those critical thinking skills”.

Joanna believes that an absence of content expertise narrows a teacher’s ability to

reconstruct the discipline in a classroom, and ties them to didactic pathways. Joanna

sees it in the broader context of students’ prior experiences:

… we have maths qualified teachers [in Years] 9, 10, 11, 12, but we don’t

necessarily have maths qualified teachers any earlier than that. So how do we

actually look at those questioning skills coming through that takes them … to

it being more than just remembering or representing that skill …

She argued an absence of content fluency produced a very narrow way of seeing

mathematical knowledge and an inability to forge pathways or permit divergence.

Driven by contextualised learning

Teachers described their own strategies and a culture of thinking in terms of

contextualised learning, questions and problems anchored in the world of the

discipline. Harvey argued that the Business classroom requires contextualised

examples as a driver of teaching. It is more than a strategy — its relationship is to

82

enable all other strategies, and it functions as a driver of the culture itself. The thinking

classroom, to him, is one of theory and concepts taught in real-world contexts:

When I have context, I can ask questions that are far deeper and cognitively

higher-order process than I could if it's done in utter abstraction.

He says that, “having built some content knowledge”, contextualised examples are

critical to “broaden and deepen the depth of understanding of content”. This pattern

of driving greater depth in understanding and thinking was identified in other teachers’

accounts of their classroom culture in terms of the dominant strategies they employ in

their classrooms.

Harvey sees a synchronicity between these dimensions, that “there’s [no] tension in

interplay between those two” and that “both have to work hand in hand”, describing

as “utterly ridiculous” conceptualisations of abstracted generic skills and structures,

that “to teach the skill of investigation, one must contextualise at some point” and

seeing that as anchored in and contingent upon “a body of knowledge”. Joanna

described a set of “core skills” and a process of “problem-solving with those skills”

and “reasoning with them”, both of which were central to her classroom. Stuart also

saw the need to pair concrete examples with the “pure, simple algebra” prioritised in

many textbooks to provide students with a sense of connection, “why they’re doing it

all”.

The question at the heart of the classroom

Questions will be asked in a classroom. The type of question asked is seen by all

teachers as central, as the fundamental unlocking device of the classroom. The

question structure, type and mode may vary, but the centrality of questions in the

classroom is unwaveringly attested to by all participating teachers.

Joanna sees questioning at the heart of her classroom culture. She insists, “It’s how

you question your students … the question needs to be more than just ‘I have

remembered a fact’ or ‘I am reproducing a skill’”, even if “that’s a safe place for

them”. She sees questions as the mechanism by which student thinking is modified

and improved, and believes they need to be designed toward that end: “… those

83

questions need to be tailored quite gently early on to sort of transition from that …

initial knowledge … to taking it forward and into being able to apply it in an

environment”. She views questioning as the means of shifting students from

superficial thinking to “analysis and synthesis and evaluation of what they are doing”.

Joanna argues that a “question needs to be very carefully formed” and that she needs

to be “mindful that it can go in different directions for a variety of different reasons

and each of those reasons could be quite valid”. Notwithstanding this, Joanna uses

questions to draw out contradictions in student thinking where students reach mutually

exclusive responses, asking them, “How can you do both with the same thing?”.

Stefano describes questions as “critical” to cultures of thinking, “an ongoing effort to

question in a way that, peels away more and more layers of understanding and

perspective, and drawing more and more insights from that”. Questioning, in this

portrait, occupies the place of a methodical device used to elicit understanding in

increasing depth and sophistication.

Fostering metacognitive awareness

While it may seem that metacognitive awareness is an outcome of a culture of

thinking, it was conceptualised by participants as rather more an enabling feature, both

outcome and in its emergent sense, driver. Joanna describes it in the Mathematics

classroom as “that running commentary alongside, ‘So why did you do this?’ ‘Why

did you make that decision?’” It represents a self-regulatory mechanism of refining

thinking.

Stefano argues that the thinking classroom is “a place where that's made explicit and

visible to all students, so … that they can identify the tools” used to achieve this. The

“focus”, Stefano says, is “on the tools by which you’re interrogating … the

information and knowledge you’re gaining rather than just the focus being on the

knowledge itself”. To do this, he teaches “the terminology of the nature of the first-

order, second-order questioning”, explicating a metalanguage around student-

constructed questions essential to helping them understand how to process

information, how to construct probing questions. For Stefano, the “key ingredient” or

84

factor of a culture of thinking “is having students reflect on their own thinking”. It is,

then, an explicit self-awareness about thinking that underpins such classrooms, a kind

of metalanguage permeating the culture, not just as an outcome but itself as a shaping

force.

Discipline-based thinking

What was clear from the case participants’ interviews is that the types of thinking they

emphasised in their classroom were linked to their own discipline. The thinking

classroom was not a generic structure, setting or template, but a product that arose out

of the constitution of their own discipline.

Michelle anchored her lessons in a tacit sense that the classroom ought to reflect the

nature of economics itself: “I would say … the role of an economist is you have to be

able to read the environment, read the history, and use that knowledge to make a

change, and you also have to be aware of the change and the impact of that change”.

Harvey explicated the kinds of thinking in his Business classroom by saying:

The kinds of thing I want are what is and is not relevant information here …

to question the integrity of the source … to draw conclusions, to consider the

underpinning philosophies, principles, biases of different stakeholders.

He added to this the capacity to think in such a way that “even if … they do not agree

with those principles or values, that they don’t let that obscure their ability to still have

the debate and the question”.

The portrait of a culture of thinking in Mathematics was quite different. Joanna

outlined how she prioritises divergent, exploratory thinking, discovering the

mathematics embedded in real-life contexts, and theorising, rather than merely

computing. She cited an example from her Year 11 students, “We’re working towards

a theory, but I’m not going to tell you what that theory is. You’re going to … play in

amongst these, and then see what maths we can actually find and discover”. Joanna

differentiates problem solving from other mathematical types of thinking as a higher-

order mode of thought and skill-set that she prioritises. Joanna explained the shape

this took in her Year 9 classroom, where she tells students to:

85

Prove to me that you’re right … Can you actually break that down and prove

to me algebraically that you're right? … Is that the only answer? What other

methods could you have used? Was yours the most efficient method?

The teachers prioritised understanding and transference of learning as necessary

features in acquiring discipline-based proficiency. Joanna resisted what she

considered a “traditional style” classroom culture. She pointed to an anæmic, content-

delimited construct of mathematical knowledge that drives classrooms that lack a

culture of thinking. She said that in these contexts, teachers “show someone a skill,

repeat that skill lots of times. That’s not learning; that’s just doing a skill” because it

“doesn’t place that learning in any sort of context anywhere else. And, therefore, it’s

not transferable”. Joanna sees mathematics as “that type of discipline where we can

look at those things in quite short sharp little stages”, but that “we can also have a look

at a much bigger problem and start to have a look at how the same processes can

inform our planning for … tackling something that is much, much bigger”. Joanna

sees mathematical knowledge in its more robust rendering as an interplay between

thinking at the micro and macro level, understanding the internal dynamics of

mathematics, as well as patterns of methodical and self-regulated approaches to larger

problems.

Stuart made a comparable observation, and criticised learning contexts where students

must “do it a very particular way for every single thing” involving “just getting them

to rote learn”. This, he said, meant “They will go into an exam and they will be able

to do pretty well. [But] they'll have no idea what they're doing”.

Harvey, likewise, was profoundly critical of the mindset or disposition toward

knowledge of teachers who suggest, “This is it guys. I’ve got the bubble, and I’m —

I’m handing it to you”. His criticism was anchored in a conceptualisation of the

discipline:

Recognise that, in fact, there is a world outside this, that business is a social

science. Can you understand the universal principles that underpin it? Can you

see the connections between subjects?

86

Like Joanna, he saw his academic discipline as contiguous — not distinct — from the

classroom.

Harvey pointed to the “symptoms” of the absence of this culture, which he described

as “horrific for me to diagnose”, where a student:

… takes this formulaic approach to one context and just cut-and-paste it across

others … they didn’t consider the validity of information we were putting in.

Like Joanna, Harvey also pointed to transferability as the goal for the classroom. He

described it as a dynamic emerging out of teaching effectively: “I don’t want them to

see it in isolation. So, if they can’t see the universal principles and how these connect

to other learning areas then I think of fundamentally failed them”.

4.4.3 Inhibiting Factors

When asked what the major challenges were for her in establishing a culture of

thinking in her classroom, Joanna identified two major factors: curriculum imperatives

and student sources of motivation. The former, “having a curriculum that says you

must get through x, y and z”. She also observes the challenge of “students rating

themselves against a scale — and that being the all-important thing”. This is “as

opposed to, ‘Let’s have a look at what you got right, and let’s have a look at … those

areas where we made mistakes … and learn from them’”.

Harvey identifies time as a major constraint on the nature of the culture teachers pursue

and produce in their classes. He argues that “time pressure is huge thing”. He goes on:

I could always chase one, two, three levels further deeper down on any given

syllabus point on my knowledge ... But then how much time can I apply to

that, and how much would that enrich the students’ knowledge, experience and

understanding, and value add?

There is, he argues, “An awkward trade-off … that’s pretty brutal”. The trade-off is

made in light of the end point — the examination context. When embarking on a new

course, in weighing the depth of his teaching, he says, “You’ll place an appropriate

amount of time and emphasis and resources because you know the extent to which

87

that is likely to be examined”. Likewise, this extends to the problem of investing time

in feedback:

I do not feel that we are given sufficient time, for example: how many people

will, after these first semester exams, spend a genuine week pulling apart that

paper?

Joanna sees culture operating at a stronger level in lower secondary contexts than

upper secondary, where the examination imperative curtails the strength of cultural

settings. She says, “I keep going back to my Year 9s, because they’re the ones that I

can really mould”. In this context,

For those students that are, I suppose, resistant to that other bit of thinking …

it’s putting them in an environment … to be able to explain and share that

knowledge with others … [which] can start to make them think”.

In this sense, culture in the lower secondary years is a stronger lever. On the other

hand, in upper secondary classes, she argues, “If your reward is always, ‘Well, I’m

getting 95 to 100% in tests’, and the culture of the school is very academically

focused” then it disincentivises a culture of thinking: “Students are happy; parents are

ecstatic. There.”. Moving students toward exploratory thinking, being more

comfortable with making mistakes, developing alternative approaches, and arguing

proofs, takes longer, and is difficult against a backdrop of an incentive to adopt the

easier route: “I possibly could have done it in 10–15 minutes by saying, ‘Here’s a new

theory. Let’s go and apply it to these different scenarios.’”

Stefano believes that time constraints and “current assessment models in some

curriculum hinder, or … challenge your capacity to best foster a culture of thinking”,

framing them as dimensions of the prevailing environment that constrain and delimit

the classroom environment. He explained:

Time constraints hamper the ability to really employ a culture of thinking in

that scenario because you have an assessment requirement, and a certain

amount of content to cover for boys to even be able to adequately respond to

that assessment, and what ends up happening is … they don’t really make any

88

inferences themselves — you’ve given the inferences … which they

regurgitate back to you … in the framework that you ask for.

Stefano rues this tension, saying, “I’ve got to satisfy the culture of thinking and the

curriculum constraints”. He claims that “constraints of assessment … are terrible and

limiting and frustrating” and limit his capacity to “foster a culture of thinking”.

Conclusion

This section addressed the dimensions arising from the findings of this study,

‘Strategies: the academic apprenticeship’ and ‘Classroom Environment: necessary

features’. Five major pedagogical strategies emerged from analysis of teachers’

interviews: academic problem-based learning, essential questions, scaffolding,

feedback and planning teaching. The strategies deployed, though, are heavily shaped

by contextual settings that underpin culture. Analysis identified a series of enabling

features: a relationship of trust, the teacher as conductor, model and expert, an

environment driven by contextualized learning, questions at the heart of the classroom,

with a focus on fostering metacognitive awareness, and structured around discipline-

based thinking. However, the imperatives syllabus requirements and modes of

assessment and accountability — the imperatives of upper-secondary study — have

the potential to inhibit the cultivation of a culture of thinking and to dilute its ability

to achieve its objectives. Additionally, the sources of student motivation in light of

these factors also appeared to a factor potentially inhibiting the strategies teachers

employed to create a culture of thinking.

4.5 CONCLUSION

Four key aspects emerged in relation to teachers’ dispositions towards critical

thinking, their aims and expectations in relation to the cultures of thinking they

produce in their classrooms, and the strategies by which they pursue these aims and

expectations. These aspects were organised under four dimensions: ‘Outcomes: the

transformed learner’, ‘Classroom Environment: necessary features’,

‘Conceptualising: a culture of thinking’, and ‘Strategies: the academic

apprenticeship’, as seen in Figure 4.1.

89

The first major dimension of these findings, ‘Outcomes: the transformed learner’,

related to the function of education in fostering curiosity, critical, autonomous

engagement with the world and a disposition toward lifelong learning. Furthermore, a

culture of thinking, for these teachers, aims to develop in students systems of

discipline-based thinking, a willingness to make mistakes, and a playfulness with

regard to knowledge.

The second major dimension, ‘Classroom Environment: necessary features’, related

to the essential features of a culture of thinking. Students’ trust in the teacher and their

sense of safety within the learning environment was seen to underpin agency and

efficacy in the classroom, which, combined with a sense that their voices are heard,

are critical enablers of students having the confidence to think deeply and test ideas,

and the courage to be wrong. Teachers saw their role essentially as conductors and

models of effective thinking, but also considered their expertise as enabling the

emergence of an effective culture of thinking. Additionally, teachers saw

contextualised learning as a necessary and inherent feature of building skills and

conceptual proficiency. They also pointed toward questions and questioning as being

at the heart of a culture of thinking, modifying and refining student thinking.

Furthermore, teachers portrayed learning in their classrooms as inextricably

intertwined with the real-world articulation of their own discipline, transferable across

contexts, and deeply applicable to real-world problems. Finally, teachers identified

metacognitive awareness as an inherent and intrinsic orientation in the pedagogy and

nature of student learning in a culture of thinking, providing the foundational context

in which students might become effective, autonomous thinkers and learners.

Thirdly, with respect to teachers’ aims and expectations, was their conceptualisation

of how a classroom culture of thinking functioned, identified as ‘Conceptualising: a

culture of thinking’. Teachers’ aims with respect to a culture of thinking in their

classroom were deeply shaped by their dispositions, and their educational and

professional experiences. Classroom culture functioned, for these teachers, as a lens

through which students encounter a discipline. Nonetheless, participants did not see

culture as a hegemonic force. The challenges of developing a culture of thinking are

90

exacerbated by the time teachers have to meet syllabus requirements, as well as the

imperatives of internal and external assessments.

Finally, the strategies by which teachers pursued a culture of thinking in their

classroom were reported under the dimension ‘Strategies: the academic

apprenticeship’. Analysis of interview data and classroom observations revealed

academic problem-based learning was conceived of as a core pedagogical strategy for

case participants, allowing teachers to tease out a tension between contextually-

anchored and abstract dimensions of disciplines, and a tool through which teachers

sought to develop exploratory thinking. Using contextualised problems permitted

deeper, higher-order questions to be explored, useful then as a tool to promote

conceptual proficiency and understanding. Likewise, manipulating matter cohered

with broader objectives of developing students’ willingness to play with knowledge,

but was also used to permit students to test the dimensions and dynamics of a concept.

There was also significant consensus within teachers’ responses as to the essential role

of questions in forming, consolidating and extending understanding, and in developing

students’ selection of background knowledge and strategies, and critically reflection.

Teachers revealed that in building a culture of thinking they sought to systematically

lay foundations for thinking in their discipline. In addition, teachers used feedback to

empower students to critique and improve their own work, helping them to develop a

critical mindset toward their own writing and reasoning, but also to disempower

resistance. Finally, analysis revealed that teachers located their planning decisions

within a broader culture of thinking and meta-strategic knowledge and skill-set that

underpins their discipline, extending outside curriculum imperatives, and adding an

additional layer to decision-making in which teachers engage.

91

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter aims to discuss the major themes emerging from my findings in this study

with respect to the central research question:

How do teachers’ dispositions towards critical thinking shape the culture of

thinking they build in their classroom?

It provides the overall conclusions and also identifies limitations to the study and

future recommendations.

The chapter is organised in relation to the findings from the completion by teachers’

of the CCTDI, as well as the four key aspects that emerged in relation to teachers’

dispositions towards critical thinking, their aims and expectations in relation to the

cultures of thinking they produce in their classrooms, and the strategies by which they

pursue these aims and expectations. These aspects were organised under four

dimensions: ‘Outcomes: the transformed learner’, ‘Classroom Environment:

necessary features’, ‘Conceptualising: a culture of thinking’, and ‘Strategies: the

academic apprenticeship’, as seen in Figure 4.1.

Critically, this model of a culture of thinking derives from a ground-up approach; it is

generated from analysis of teachers rather than constructed and articulated from a top-

down perspective, and revealed through critical realist analysis, identifying not only

the cultures of thinking participating teachers developed, but their aims, expectations,

and the mechanisms and structures that enabled and inhibited such cultures, and the

ways in which teachers exercised agency within such structures. Moreover, at the level

of pedagogy, critical realist analysis identified the enabling and inhibiting structures

underpinning strategies, and how teachers demonstrated the agency to navigate these

structures. The models represented in Figures 4.1, 5.1 and 5.2 illuminate processes

and structures of which participants themselves were either not aware or of which they

were only partially cognisant — the analytical insight drawn by the researcher at the

real level.

92

5.2 TEACHERS’ DISPOSITIONS TOWARD CRITICAL THINKING

The results of the CCTDI indicate a positive to strongly positive critical thinking

disposition among all teachers, overall and within the distinct domains of the CCTDI.

This disposition toward critical thinking is reflected also in participants’ detailed

conceptualisation of critical thinking itself as a set of skills and habits, both explicitly

and implied in their explication of the outcomes of a culture of thinking, and the ends

toward which their selection and deployment of strategies are directed. With respect

to the teachers, there are a number of features that emerge in common, characteristics

that transcend the disciplines within which these teachers operate, but also a number

of important ways in which their perspectives diverge, some of which appear to reflect

the dynamics of their respective disciplines. Their perspectives coalesce around

critical thinking as purposive and self-regulatory, focusing on analysis, inference and

evaluation, around reaching reasoned perspectives and following methodical,

discipline-based approaches and strategies in order to come to responses. Much of

what they identify as the skills of critical thinking coheres with the array of previous

conceptualisations of critical thinking, though not as exhaustive — for the obvious

reason that these were working definitions of teachers, and that these were not the

subject of the study — including the sense in which critical thinking occurs both within

and across disciplines (Facione, 1990; Facione, 2000; Paul, 2005; Halpern, 2001).

The identification of critical thinking comprising both skills and dispositions is well-

established in the literature (Tishman & Andrade, 1995; Ritchhart & Perkins, 2005;

Facione, 2000; Facione, et al., 1994; Perkins et al., 2000), aligning more here with a

character-based view, or intellectual character (Ritchhart, 2002; Facione, 2000;

Facione, et al., 1994), than perhaps a habit of mind (Costa & Kallick, 2000). Critical

thinkers, are, by disposition, willing to make mistakes, curious, demonstrate an

ongoing desire to learn, and are playful with knowledge. Again, the array is not

exhaustive, but the critical distinction to make here is that the dispositions identified

refer to essential dispositions within a culture of thinking, not a comprehensive array

of dispositions in and of themselves.

93

5.3 OUTCOMES: THE TRANSFORMED LEARNER

The outcomes of a culture of thinking are primarily conceived, across the cases,

through the transformation of learners, the creation of a thinker. Elsewhere, culture is

envisaged as inculcating dispositions, through a dispositional model of the critical

thinker (Ritchhart, 2015). Here, though, it is rather an understanding-based model of

a learned thinker, fusing elements of dispositional and skill-based visions of critical

thinking (Harpaz, 2007).

The transformed learner was seen by teachers to be the product a classroom culture of

thinking, mediated through their pedagogical strategies, conceptualised as an

academic apprenticeship. This relationship is represented in Figure 5.1, with the

culture of thinking mediating students’ experiences. In its necessary features, it is seen

to enable the transformation of the learner, but it is also shaped by inhibiting factors

that dilute these outcomes. Analysis revealed that the outcomes of cultures of thinking

may be conceptualised most clearly as producing a transformed learner, as depicted in

Figure 5.1. This transformed learner is represented in terms of transformed

dispositions and the acquisition of discipline-based proficiencies.

Figure 5.1 – The relationship between the academic apprenticeship and the transformed learner

I identified seven major themes in relation to the outcome of a transformed learner,

conceived primarily in terms of dispositions, but also in proficiencies, as seen in

Academic Apprenticeship

Strategy

Culture of Thinking

Necessary Features and Inhibiting Factors

The Transformed

Learner

Outcome

94

Figure 5.2. The identification of a willingness to make mistakes, of curiosity to probe

knowledge, of an ongoing desire to learn, and of a playfulness with regards to

knowledge, point to teachers conceiving of a culture of thinking transforming the

character of the learner. That is, they are naturalised orientations teachers saw as

outcomes of learning in a culture of thinking that are a consistent disposition or habit

with regard to knowledge. There is an intellectual humility, a desire ever to learn, the

curiosity to always question, a reframing of understanding as the primary objective of

learning, and therein, mistakes as learning opportunities, to be valued over intellectual

safety. Finally, with respect to knowledge, there emerged a picture of playing with

knowledge, of manipulating and exploring. My analysis identified the dispositions as

separable, but they also function in logical relation to one another — one cannot,

without the fundamental disposition to learn, and without the cultivation of curiosity,

have the requisite character to play with knowledge, and be willing to make mistakes

in order to learn (Dewey, 1922; Ennis, 1987; Ennis, 1993 Tishman et al., 1993;

Facione et al., 1994; Paul, 1995; Ritchhart, 2001; Ritchhart 2002; Ritchhart & Perkins,

2005; Abrami, et al., 2008). The outcomes are simultaneously the goal and necessary

process of a culture of thinking, a cultivation of a kind of intellectual character

(Perkins et al., 2000; Ritchhart, 2001; Tishman & Andrade, 1995).

Figure 5.2 – A dispositional and proficiency-based conceptualisation of the

transformed learner

Dispositions•Willingness to make mistakes

•Curiosity•Desires to learn•Plays with knowledge

Proficiencies•Possesses systems of thinking

•Equipped to question

•Autonomous learner

The transformed

learner

95

Simultaneously, though, thinking is always thinking about something, and teachers

saw their classroom culture as fostering not merely dispositions or general capacities,

but rather discipline-based proficiencies. These proficiencies, that students are

equipped to question with expertise, that they possess systems of thinking, and that

they learn with autonomy, are anchored in discipline-based metacognitive skills,

strategies and understandings, what might be considered higher-order thinking (Zohar

& Alboher Agmon, 2018). They derive their efficacy from a deeply embedded sense

of the discipline at hand. Where generalist models of critical thinking and habits of

mind seem, most commonly, to arise out of elementary and middle schooling contexts

(Ritchhart & Perkins, 2008; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005; Costa & Kallick, 2000;

Ritchhart, 2001; Ritchhart, 2002), in the secondary school context the transformation

of the learner in a culture of thinking is implicitly anchored in discipline-based modes

of thought. Thus, in teachers’ descriptions, to develop systems of thinking is to acquire

the understanding not only of content, but of the interrelationship of discipline-based

ways of knowing, of unifying concepts, and of the interconnection and vitality of the

discipline within itself and in relation to the world around us. This is certainly

supported by Zohar and David (2008), who point to a domain-specific and generalised

duality character of metastrategic knowledge, and reflects the distinction Zohar and

Barzilai (2015) draw from developmental studies indicating the domain-general

quality of metastrategic knowledge before the age of 15, and an emergent domain-

specific quality thereafter. To be equipped to question requires the nurturing of

expertise, of understanding the core questions the discipline asks of itself.

5.4 THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT: NECESSARY FEATURES

A critical realist analysis permits the identification of structures that enable and inhibit

cultural systems. My analysis identified the necessary features of a culture of thinking,

the enabling structural features, and the modes by which teachers exercised agency

within these structures with regards to fostering such a culture.

This study found that cultures of thinking were enabled by adopting and articulating

the distinctive features of the discipline in which participating teachers taught. The

thinking classroom was not a generic culture, but rather articulated common features

96

through a specific lens. The teachers studied portrayed learning in their classrooms as

inextricably intertwined with the real-world articulation of their own discipline, not

with content or specific subject matter, and analysis revealed that it was upon this

foundation that pedagogical strategies and decisions were predicated. Learning in

these classrooms was designed to be transferable across contexts, and deeply

applicable to real-world problems, itself a product of a history and context.

Of particular significance is the way that participating teachers saw a relationship of

trust as the enabling condition of a culture of thinking, a relationship grounded in

safety and a sense for students of their voice mattering. Such a necessity is accentuated

by the type of buy-in teachers require from students because of the relatively higher

personal cost to students of a focus on the development of their thinking rather than

the recitation of content or even the recitation of endorsed lines of analysis mimicking

higher-order responses. Teachers articulated their agency in this regard with reference

to notions of fostering rapport, building a sense of respect, and of supporting students’

sense of being listened to. The challenges of a culture of thinking, of transforming the

learner rather than transferring knowledge to them, requires relationship as a

mediating force. It implies a relative intimacy in the working environment, a

transformation contingent upon those surrounding relationships. Underpinning the

entire culture is the necessity of a relationship of trust, in which students feel safe to

extend their thinking, and to extend it in risky ways, positing emerging hypotheses,

perspectives, analysis, and operational definitions — that is, to extrapolate beyond the

concrete, to move into the realm of testing the relation of the concrete to the discipline

itself. It is the leverage that draws students into learning how to make mistakes, and

into engaging with feedback — from the teacher, other students, and in review of their

own thinking.

My findings pointed to significant dimensions of the teacher’s role within a culture of

thinking, and this constitutes a nexus where the teacher represents a central structure,

and in which they exercise significant agency. The teacher’s role is simultaneously

overwhelmingly central and seemingly marginal, critical and inconspicuous. In

relation to the endpoint or objectives of a culture of thinking, there is an alignment

between a teachers’ role and the outcome that students develop the capacity and

97

inclination to question, and develop systems of thinking — not merely generic, but

discipline-specific — and autonomy. The role of the teacher necessarily shifts, and in

this context, its trajectory is one of diminishing visibility, where student thinking

instead occupies centre stage.

Notwithstanding decreased visibility and ostensible centrality, the findings brought to

light the critical role of teachers’ expertise, an essential property to which Zohar and

Barzilai (2015) and Zohar, Weinberger and Tamir (1994) also point, as noted in

Abrami et al. (2008) in their meta-analysis of instructional interventions in developing

critical thinking. This expertise is not just at a content or pedagogical level, but at the

strategic and epistemic levels, proficiency in a type of knowledge and understanding

of the discipline itself that they are teaching within, what Zohar (2004) calls

pedagogical knowledge in the context of teaching higher-order thinking, their

proficiency within which acts as an enabling condition, and the mastery of which

permits them to exercise tremendous agency. It is an ability to situate student

development within this broader context, as well as to select and evaluate a range of

legitimate pathways and strategies, the array of which is represented in my findings

relating the dimension of strategies, constituting an academic apprenticeship. In a

sense, their expertise does not only act in their decisions of what strategies to deploy,

but the way they see those strategies operating, the role they see, for instance, for

academic problem-based learning, or case studies, the mode and ends toward which

they question. The ability to relate parts to one another and to the whole, to understand

the sequence of development and bear in tension the abstract and concrete dimensions

of an academic discipline requires an inherently vital expertise overlooked in much of

the focus on generalist conceptualisation of critical thinking.

I identified teachers’ dispositions as the critical motivating factor in how this culture

of thinking was conceptualised. The teachers studied drew heavily on their own vision

of education, their own experience of education, and their own conceptualisation of

and expertise in their academic discipline. They indicated that their decision-making

around culture was underpinned and informed by reflective and empathetic practice.

Cultural aims and expectations, in this sense, were not a generic or static set of

principles, but were deeply shaped by participants’ own dispositions, and their

98

educational and professional experiences. This said, their dispositions did not appear

to float free of expertise in their discipline and its epistemology. Rather, their

disposition informed the way they deployed their expertise design, select and shape

an array of strategies (Zohar and Barzilai, 2015). Further study is required to tease out

the relationship, if any, between meta-strategic knowledge and critical thinking

dispositions in teachers’ development of their classroom culture. Additionally, the

participants’ dispositions and experiences shaped the scope of their visions of the role

of the teacher and the potential of the classroom to engage students in a culture of

thinking.

The remaining constitutive elements of a culture of thinking might best be thought of

as governing pedagogical trajectories or modes of agency engaged within the structure

of the learning environment, the unifying thread in the array of strategies comprising

the intellectual apprenticeship identified in teachers’ interviews relating to the

strategies by which they cultivate a culture of thinking. The three principles of this

culture are contextualised learning, the centrality of questions in driving the

development of student learning, and fostering metacognitive awareness.

Contextualised learning is seen as an essential vehicle within the learning environment

by which to drive student conceptual understanding, and the ideal and necessary

context in which to develop students’ discipline-based thinking and skills (Abrami et

al., 2015; Zohar, 1998; Zohar & Barzilai, 2015; Tishman et al., 1993; Herscovitz,

Kaberman, Saar and Dori, 2012). It finds its articulation in the emphasis teachers

placed on academic problem-based learning, as well as real world cases. Paired with

this is the essential role questioning plays, representing a pillar of the culture in

operation. Questioning is an umbrella term to describe a range of strategies, but it is

also an essential feature of a culture of thinking, an indispensable mode by which to

extend the sophistication and depth of students’ thinking, to interrogate and improve

it, induct students into discipline-based modes of analysis and evaluation and to foster

a disposition toward curiosity. Finally, a culture of thinking requires that teachers

focus on metacognitive awareness and understanding, the fostering of explicit

understanding and regulation of students’ thinking about thinking that underpins such

classrooms, a metalanguage and conversation infusing the culture, not just as an

99

outcome but itself as a shaping force (Zohar & Barzilai, 2015; Ritchhart et al., 2011;

Claxton, 2014; Ritchhart & Perkins, 2000).

5.5 CONCEPTUALISING: A CULTURE OF THINKING

My findings frame culture as a lens through which the world of a discipline is seen.

The metaphor, drawn from teachers’ descriptions, is nonetheless apt, as it describes

an integrated vision that mediates the encounter with the world of learning. While

other accounts of culture appeal to the analogy of culture (Ritchhart, 2015), this

account is generated from findings grounded in teachers’ lived experiences. From the

student perspective, it describes the adoption of modes of thought. There is little

scholarship that distinguishes between how culture is conceptualised at each level, and

it is beyond the scope of this study to explore students’ experiences, but rather my

focus was at the level of teachers’ conceptualisations. From the teacher’s perspective

it involves the arrangement of cultural settings so as to bring into clarity the nature,

texture and interrelationships of a discipline and its parts.

With regards to the development of the student themselves, my findings did not

support the notion of culture as a hegemonic structure in the classroom, but rather that

it constitutes an array of settings that exert subtle pressure, endorsing the behaviours

corresponding to or likely to foster discipline-based thinking, and, refusing, in a sense,

to reward lower-order thinking, recitation or algorithmic replication by omission of

opportunity and by the emphasis on higher-order thinking present in the array of

strategies pursued to foster a culture of thinking — for instance, the pursuit of

academic problem-based learning, real-world cases, questioning focused on probing

and extending thinking, the modelling of thinking — comprising, as they do, an

academic apprenticeship.

The findings support a view that the major inhibiting factors in cultivating a culture of

thinking are curriculum settings and time, a finite resource, the shaping of which is

heavily informed by the former. Additionally, students’ prior experiences, that is, the

context teachers inherit when they receive their students, and which inhabits these

selfsame waters as the first two factors, acts as a further inhibiting factor, depending,

of course, on its nature. The negotiation of these structures by teachers, points to

100

limited agency, but agency nonetheless, and helps to illuminate the constraining

conditions within which teachers build a culture of thinking, pointing, in a critical

realist sense, toward structures that may inhibit the potential of these cultures being

realised.

A culture of thinking may be seen to have greater scope, or operate as a stronger

mechanism in lower-secondary school contexts than in upper secondary contexts,

where the imperative to achieve examination success, the external accountability that

attends this, and the way in which this shapes student motivation constitute a strong

force. When combined with an examination system that the teachers studied argued

rewarded lower-order thinking, it introduces a massive tension between the culture

one might endeavour to build and the context in which such a culture functions,

rewarding a focus on lower-order skills and thinking, privileging recitation and

algorithmic replication, and carrying with it a conception of student success anchored

not in discipline-based proficiency, but mastery of an examination that runs its course

contrary to this culture. Additionally, curriculum and assessment requirements and

practices reinforce this imperative, further inhibiting cultures of thinking by

circumscribing depth in exchange for heavy assessment schedules and content

breadth. Thus, the settings within which teachers teach and students learn have the

potential to inhibit and dilute the cultivation of a culture of thinking.

This certainly appears to correspond to the system-wide challenges of fostering critical

or higher-order thinking, where teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in teaching thinking

can constitute a constraining factor in their ability to coherently structure the

development of students’ thinking, but where curriculum, assessment and

examinations further and profoundly hinder the environment (Zohar, 2013). However,

these findings are distinctive in that cultures of thinking have not previously been

considered in terms of their relationship to structural dimensions, and in that they

highlight structures with regards to which teachers exercise little agency. Such testing

policies may essentially constitute ‘push’ factors, delimiting teaching to the contents

of the test (Zohar & Alboher Agmon, 2018; Zohar & Cohen, 2016).

101

Such forces are inhibitive, though not prohibitive; they increase the challenge of

building and maintaining a culture of thinking, pitting teachers against the system and

against students’ experiences to date, their concept of success, and their expectations

of learning. Reforms in examination and assessment contexts can address this

challenge, aligning cultures of thinking with the visible signals of success at a system

level (Zohar, 2013). This said, even where testing regimes incorporate higher-order

thinking items, teachers may teach to such items in algorithmic ways, so as to

undermine the trajectory of higher-order thinking (Zohar & Alboher Agmon, 2018).

5.6 STRATEGIES: THE ACADEMIC APPRENTICESHIP

A critical realist analysis of teachers’ strategies in building a culture of thinking

illuminates a construct at the ‘real’ level, an academic apprenticeship that best explains

the array of strategies used by teachers in the case studies. The term apprenticeship

here attends to several dimensions of the portrait of the classroom. Firstly, that of

students acquiring proficiency, in this context with respect to an academic discipline.

Secondly, it attends to the expertise necessarily required and reflected in the

deployment of these strategies, an essential mastery of the nuances, dimensions and

dynamics of the discipline, of the attendant skills, structures, processes and

dispositions required to develop discipline-based proficiency. Thirdly, the model of

the academic apprenticeship unifies and illuminates the orienting purpose of the

strategies, but also their relationship to one another, considering them in concert with

one another and in the context of the outcome of such a culture, the transformed

learner. Finally, then, the apprenticeship identifies a mediating experience inducting

the student into a discipline that has its own distinct dimensions, its own context,

concepts, modes of thought and analysis, and its own modes by which knowledge is

developed.

In a sense, the conceptualisation echoes the notion of apprenticeship in core disciplines

(Michaels, et al., 2009) and epistemology (Claxton, 2014), with a view to discipline-

based reasoning capacity. This approach is situated in what Harpaz (2007)

conceptualises as an understanding-based approach to teaching thinking producing a

‘learned thinker’, situated against a broader metacurriculum (Perkins, 1992)

coherently conceptualising the interrelated parts of its constitutive elements.

102

Fruitfully, though, my cross-case analysis highlighted the distinctive ways in which

an academic apprenticeship is deeply grounded in specific disciplines in order to

produce specific proficiency and fluency, along with a common sense of a transformed

learner. The notion of a model underpinned by an array of strategies, mutually

strengthening learning, resists simplistic application of discrete strategies for a deeper,

integrated approach, which has at least been pointed to as necessary by Abrami, et al.

(2015).

Academic Problem-Based Learning

Academic problem-based learning represents a core pedagogical strategy for case

participants, reflecting the necessity for students to learn in context, and allowing

teachers to develop abstractive elements of a discipline in context, develop exploratory

thinking, and allow deeper, higher-order questions to be explored as students test the

natural tensions of the discipline that emerge in their real-world setting. The strategy

also attends to the dispositional objective of developing students’ willingness to play

with knowledge. There is tremendous value in inquiry approaches in developing

higher-order thinking, mobilised by teacher scaffolding and support in developing

deep conceptualisation, moving beyond surface similarities into nuanced conceptual

understanding (Zohar, 2012).

This authentic or anchored instruction (Abrami et al., 2015) — incorporating also the

use of case studies — is considered significant in promoting development in critical

thinking (Abrami et al., 2015; Michaels, et al., 2009). The use of concrete problems

and practical experiences to teach concepts are essential in underpinning the teaching

of higher-order thinking (Zohar and Barzilai, 2015; Zohar, 1998). Further to this point,

Richland and Begolli (2016) point to the ways in which distinctively expert-like

knowledge is applied flexibly, making links, and my findings certainly suggest that

academic problem-based learning provides for a focus on the relationships between

ideas and problems. My findings reflected an emphasis on the use of case studies

drawn from the real world as a means of contextualising academic disciplines and as

conceptual heuristics. Such cases also foster a disposition of inquisitiveness, and

attend to the cultural imperative for contextually-rich learning.

103

Overwhelmingly, my findings point to questions as a multi-dimensional strategy,

deployed in distinctive ways, for different purposes. Analysis of interview data

identified clear differentiation in the purposes toward which questions are devoted,

and the structures or mechanisms by which questions foster the outcomes of the

culture. At the actual level, in terms of a critical realist analysis, questions are designed

to delimit the concept, and provide it with a logic, to unpeel the layers that make up

the whole with respect to abstract concepts. This unpeeling of layers extends and

transitions students’ thinking and understanding, transitioning students from

recollection of knowledge to analysis, synthesis and evaluation, engaging in what

Zohar and Barzilai (2015) refer to as metacognitive discussions, wherein students

articulate their thinking, and in which teachers make thinking visible (Ritchhart, et al.,

2011). This represents the opportunity to develop higher-order concepts, and fosters,

in concert with other questioning strategies, metacognitive proficiency and

understanding. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) strongly affirm the role of appropriately

designed questions to foster deeper understanding and connection in conceptual

formation.

Structuring questions in discipline-anchored routines supported students’ selection of

background knowledge and strategies and established frameworks within which to

regularly critically reflect on their approach and modify their behaviour, serving a

broader outcome of metacognitive understanding and self-regulatory thinking.

Michaels et al. (2010) affirm guided reflective discourse and argue that inviting

students to explain their reasoning and strategies serves a primary benefit for the

student, but a secondary and indirect benefit for others in the class, in that they hear

others’ reasoning. Resnick (2010) situates this under a thinking curriculum, referring

to a shared goal, but the promotion of multiple scripts or approaches, the comparison

of which Richland and Begolli (2016) affirm the benefits. Both of these questioning

practices also served a further end of providing students with the necessary skillset to

achieve autonomy in their learning by being able to generate their own questions as a

means of navigating new learning with greater depth.

104

Scaffolding

Teachers laid foundations in their discipline by scaffolding a thick array of discipline-

based modes of thought required for a person to properly achieve proficiency within

their respective disciplines. These scaffolding strategies sought to elucidate the

implied structures and processes that underpin the discipline, and, critically, not just

surface-level processes. Indeed, scaffolding focused on bridging the gap between

students’ present skills and understanding and mature engagement in discipline-based

stimuli, a critical dimension of enculturation according to Tishman et al. (1993). These

foundations and scaffolding comprise an explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge

(Zohar, 2012), addressing what Kuhn (1999) differentiates as declarative and

procedural dimensions of the thought structures underpinning the discipline.

5.6.3 Modelling thinking, not content

While modelling may well be a common feature of classroom pedagogy, in a culture

of thinking, it shifts in focus from modelling content to modelling thinking,

demonstrating systematic thinking in order to make visible the otherwise hidden

cognitive structures and processes deployed by those proficient in thinking in

discipline-specific modalities. Teachers are central to student development through

explicit modelling of their thinking (Costa, 1991). Teachers modelling thinking at the

very least positions the teacher as a fellow learner, and supports metacognitive

development (Ritchhart & Perkins, 2005). A significant sub-structure of this was

modelling mistakes, where thinking goes wrong and how to correct these processes.

Modelling was used to promote an internalisation of these processes, and to help

students correct their own thinking, guiding them through a process of observation

and exploratory thinking, essential again for fostering autonomy and metacognitive

capacity. Modelling not only correct, but incorrect examples, serves an important

function in developing students’ discipline-specific expertise (Richland & Begolli

2016), articulated in their metacognitive knowledge and their metastrategic

knowledge (Zohar & Barzilai, 2015).

Language as scaffold

Discipline-based terminology was seen as essential in developing students’ capacity

to reason with relation to content and concepts. Strategies around language focused on

105

rendering it meaningful to students, drawing on constructivist methods of layering

terminology onto conceptual understanding and concrete examples, and layered in

language after establishing a concrete sense of mathematical concepts, thus rendering

terminology meaningful so as to bear the weight of conceptual understanding and

permit more fluent engagement with unfamiliar material. This constructivist

orientation is supported by Zohar (2012), and the priority on explicitly fostering an

understanding of the language of thinking is seen as a priority by Zohar and Barzilai

(2015). Staples and Truxaw (2012) highlight that using language in authentic contexts

promotes a conceptually-based discourse, fostering a shift in thinking. My findings

locate it as a necessary foundation for meaningful academic discussion, fostering

standards of academic reasoning (Michaels, et al., 2009).

Feedback

In the findings, feedback occupied a prominent strategic position, a role distinctive in

several ways. Firstly, feedback was primarily student-driven, used to empower

students to critique and improve their own work, and in so doing fostered greater

awareness and control over their own writing and reasoning. Secondly, feedback

strategies focused on thinking, not on content. Where feedback corresponded to formal

assessment contexts, it was focused on scaffolding for the development of students’

thinking. Thirdly, feedback was not a sequestered, reserved time in lessons, but a

ubiquitous thread through discussions and interactions, where responses and errors are

seen as situations through which the teacher and the student might unpack that

student’s thinking. Meaningful feedback is recognised by Abrami et al. (2015) as a

significant dimension of promoting development in students’ critical thinking, and

aims to directly foster explicit awareness of metacognition (Zohar & Barzilai (2015).

It also feeds into a culture defined by a willingness to make mistakes, and increasing

metacognitive strategic knowledge (Zohar & Barzilai, 2015), because it makes use of

mistakes as useful developmental steps, not impediments to acquisition. Feedback also

contributed, in teachers’ views, to a relationship of trust, where students felt safe to

test ideas, and felt that even their mistakes were useful in their learning.

106

Planning teaching

The coordinating dynamic overarching the design and deployment of strategies in the

teachers studied was a teleological thought process. The telos, the culture of thinking

and its outcome, the transformed learner, were sought through an alignment of the

conceptualisation of critical thinking, the transformation of students into effective

thinkers in a particular discipline, as well as more holistically, the defining features of

the classroom culture, and, finally, the strategies deployed in service of this goal. The

explication of these goals, Zohar (2012) argues, is all too often implicit or absent from

the goals of teachers deploying strategies to foster higher-order thinking, and difficult

for teachers to map or establish as a coherent pathway (Zohar, 2013). The relationship

between the array of strategies, comprising an academic apprenticeship, the culture,

and the outcomes of that culture — the transformed learner — are represented in

Figure 5.1. Planning decisions around strategies, the nature of the way in which they

are used, and their relative emphasis were informed by the expertise of teachers in

their discipline, and in their knowledge of not only content, but the epistemic and

conceptual foundations of that discipline, an understanding of the formation of

discipline-based proficiency and the effective thinkers that occupy such disciplines,

what Zohar (2012) considers teachers’ metastrategic knowledge and metacognitive

knowledge. These goals functioned as a curriculum outside the curriculum — or meta-

curriculum (Perkins, 1992) — an additional layer in the array of decision-making in

which teachers engage, representing a critically-focused decision-making process

designed to promote, the necessary and enabling tenets of a culture of thinking

cultures. It guided how time was apportioned, and the establishment of rhythms,

routines and emphases in the culture of classrooms.

5.7 LIMITATIONS

The nature of this study introduces several limitations that primarily offer challenges

to its transferability. Primarily, the study is constrained by its sample size and singular

institutional context. In pursuing a multiple case-study design, the study focused on

one site, and treated each of the five participating teachers and their classes as a case.

There are a number of idiosyncrasies of the site and of the case participants that offer

challenges for this study.

107

Firstly, the fact that the school is a well-resourced, high fee-paying Independent boys’

school means that there are limits to the insights the study can generate with respect

to other structures that impede the development of a culture of thinking. Likewise, it

does not allow the researcher to explore how these structures may impede the agency

of teachers to build a culture of thinking in other contexts or settings, and thereby to

probe this interaction and causal dimension. Given, though, the paucity of scholarship

on this topic, the common context of the cases permitted greater analytical focus on

individual teachers, rather than pervasive cultural variations in the environments of

the cases. Nonetheless, the care taken to contextualise the environment within which

teachers are operating provide the capacity to weigh the findings of the study against

this, recognising in the portrait of the school the nature of the context encountered by

teachers.

Secondly, the sample of five teachers explored in this study constitutes another

limitation insofar as it limits the transferability of findings, especially with respect to

the relative diversity of such a sample in composition and context. To a large extent,

the study addressed issues of the small sample size by adopting an intensive sampling

method, based on teachers who identify as prioritising a culture of thinking in their

classroom. Morse et al. (2002) argue for the selection of “participants who best

represent or have knowledge of the research topic … [ensuring] efficient and effective

saturation of categories, with optimal quality data and minimum dross” (p. 12). The

quality and range of data generated through interviews with participants, and the open

and willing nature of their participation mean that this study has been able to generate

significant insight.

However, the sample itself does lack diversity in some respects. While the five

teachers teach across four disciplines, with two teaching mathematics, and this does

offer reasonable diversity, there is an extent to which it limits corroboration of findings

that pertain to the dynamics of culture and pedagogy as they relate to different

academic disciplines. The same observation might be made of the sample being

experienced teachers, rather than including inexperienced teachers. It is also true that

the sample overlooks teachers disinclined toward critical thinking. While, admittedly,

a larger sample, across multiple contexts and offering greater diversity in terms of

108

experience, academic contexts, and different sites would provide further potential for

further study.

At a data level, the length of the thesis meant that analysis focused on interview data,

albeit that classroom observations guided the development of the second interview.

This potentially affects the credibility of findings in the degree to which interview data

is congruent with the reality of the culture one finds in the classroom. Three points

should be made, the first of which is that critical realist analysis recognises that some

dimensions of culture may not manifest visibly, but exist in a potential state, owing to

inhibiting structures and other factors. Secondly, the focus in the study on intentions,

aims, conceptualisation and strategy all cohere with a focus on interview data. Finally,

the use of data from classroom observations did provide for the opportunity to

corroborate assertions made in the first interview, and to interrogate the veracity of

intentions and strategies. The length of the thesis prevented treatment of the

observations at length in analysis, but the analysis nonetheless incorporates

dimensions revealed through classroom observations and explored in interviews.

5.8 RECOMMENDATIONS

This study identifies essential features that must be in place to enable a culture of

thinking to be developed, and provides a unified model of how pedagogy, the teacher

and the classroom interact in pursuit of developing students’ critical thinking skills,

strategies and dispositions. First among these is discipline-shaped learning — culture

is intricately intertwined with academic disciplines. While these findings identify

significant unifying features across academic disciplines, these findings suggest

cultures of thinking must also be conceptualised in discipline-specific terms, reflecting

the discipline-anchored compass by which teachers navigate the nuances of the

selecting and applying these approaches within different disciplines.

Moreover, my findings strongly reinforce the central role of teachers’ expertise in

pedagogies surrounding critical thinking, metacognitive skills, and metastrategic

knowledge (Zohar, 2013; Abrami et al., 2008). Against a backdrop of observed deficits

in teachers’ knowledge of pedagogy relating to higher-order thinking and

109

metastrategic knowledge (Zohar, 2013), these findings point to the need to develop

pre-service teachers’ and practising teachers’ knowledge and skills in regard to the

discipline-based structures that necessarily underpin the teacher’s structuring of a

culture of thinking.

The findings also imply that teacher education and professional development progams

must attend to the notion of classroom and pedagogical dynamics in a more unified

sense, recognising the centrality of relationships between those that inhabit the

classroom, and the teacher’s role in a culture of thinking, as well as the overall shape

of learning.

Additionally, the model of the academic apprenticeship, and the relationship it draws

between how the constituent pedagogical strategies that teachers deploy to build a

culture of thinking function in concert, illuminates an area that has, to this point,

attracted limited attention. The recommendation, on this count, then, is that the

academic apprenticeship as a model should guide the thinking of those seeking to

develop cultures of critical thinking in their own schools, or who seek, in teacher

education, to develop teachers who, in turn, may effectively understand not just the

range of strategies by which thinking can be fostered, but the ways in hold these

strategies together under a unified goal or telos. Rather than viewing the forces of

culture primarily through a pedagogical strategic lens, or primarily in terms of

dispositions, my findings imply the need to attend to an academic apprenticeship,

based in discipline-based thinking structures, and for cultural structures to support the

development of curiosity, a comfort in making mistakes, autonomous learning

behaviours, and metacognitive awareness.

Further study ought to be pursued to examine this at a whole school level, as to how

the structures of a school context might be developed to enable these cultures to

emerge in each classroom. Additionally, there is a need for future research to explore

diverse contexts and a larger sample to extend the theoretical depth and robustness of

the findings of this study.

110

At a curriculum level, this study reinforces the need for changes in prescribed

curriculum and assessment. If educational authorities and policy-makers are serious

about their priority on critical thinking, curriculum reform must support the

inculcation of higher-order thinking and metacognitive skills and strategies through

assessment and external accountability regimes that refuse to reward shallow thinking

and tend against algorithmic, rote-learnt answers (Zohar & Alboher Agmon, 2018;

Zohar, 2013; Zohar & Cohen, 2016).

At the most obvious level, further study needs to be pursued across additional contexts

and with a larger overall sample to interrogate and extend the categories established

through this study. This study establishes new territory in undertaking critical realist

analysis of cultures of thinking. Further study of this territory, and potentially of

structures and agency within which teachers build a culture of thinking, and the causal

dimensions that shape how this environment is enabled and inhibited will provide

greater understanding of how to address the imperative of developing critical thinkers.

5.8 CONCLUSION

What are teachers’ aims and expectations regarding a culture of thinking in the

classroom?

Cross-case analysis of participants in this study identified cultures of thinking as being

devoted to fostering transformed learners. At the centre of this vision is a balance of

academic problem-based learning, critical questions, real world cases, foundations and

scaffolding of the discipline, modelling of thinking, the meaningful use of discipline-

specific language, and a prioritisation of student-driven feedback and evaluation.

What strategies do teachers use to develop a culture of thinking?

The identification of the enabling structures and sites of agency available to teachers

illuminates a set of relationships largely unexplored in an interrelated sense in the

existing literature. While the literature reveals effective pedagogical strategies and

design principles (Ritchhart et al., 2011; Zohar and Barzilai 2015; Wiggins &

McTighe, 2005; Michaels et al., 2009) and points to forces shaping culture (Ritchhart,

2015), critical realist analysis reveals the necessary dimensions of this culture and the

places and modes by which teachers might establish and enable such a culture. The

culture teachers construct comprise an enabling or inhibiting structure, one over which

111

teachers exercise significant agency, but one that must also necessarily adopt the shape

of the discipline within which the academic learning resides, and within which

contextualised learning, questions, and fostering metacognitive awareness provide for

thinking. Likewise, relationships between teachers and students must be anchored in

trust and safety, and teachers must foster these conditions to navigate this structure.

Teachers also, in establishing a culture of thinking, must steer between the twin

realities of their central role and the need for increasing student autonomy.

Cultures of thinking must be forged in the context of other structures which inhibit

their creation, and against the backdrop of students who also exercise considerable

agency. In this context, culture is a lens, the prism through which students encounter

learning, a mechanism under-theorised. Cultures of thinking, though, are affected by

the structures of curriculum and assessment, and time allocation, over which teachers

may have little control. The negotiation of these structures illuminates the constraining

conditions that can inhibit the potential of these cultures being realised — the

navigation of the challenges of prescribed curriculum frameworks and a lack of time

— and provide for a more nuanced understanding of the strategic decisions teachers

must make in order to foster a culture of thinking.

Cross-case analysis of participants in this study identified the pursuit of an academic

apprenticeship as the unifying pattern of the array of strategies deployed by

participants, the ends toward which these were devoted, and the mechanisms by which

these strategies were seen to function, the latter two of which enjoy empirical support.

Analysis of interviews pointed to an integrated, goal-driven principle underpinning

the relationships between strategies, the relative use of each, and the relative emphasis

and contexts within which they were used. This notion of the academic apprenticeship

provides useful insight at several levels — firstly in that it points to the relation

between teacher and student, and of students acquiring proficiency in their academic

discipline. Secondly, it attends to the expertise of the teacher, and the ways in which

the strategies they use reflect this, and promote a similar expertise in the discipline in

the student.

112

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., &

Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A

Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314.

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim,

R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional Interventions Affecting Critical Thinking

Skills and Dispositions: A Stage 1 Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational

Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.

American Philosophical Association. (1990). The Delphi Report Executive

Summary: Research findings and recommendations prepared for the committee

on pre-college philosophy. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED315423.

Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New

Millennium Learners in OECD Countries. OECD Education Working Papers,

(41), 1–33.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,

and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New

York, NY: Longman.

Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). 4221.0 – Schools, Australia, 2017. (2018).

Retrieved from

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9448F2F814FA0311CA2579C700

118E2D?Opendocument

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACER). (2013).

Critical and Creative Thinking. Retrieved from

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/critical-and-

creative-thinking/introduction/introduction

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACER) (Rep.). (2019).

National Report on Schooling in Australia in 2017. Retrieved from

https://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia-

2017.

113

Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Niu, L. (2011). Teaching critical thinking skills in higher

education: A review of the literature. Journal of College Teaching & Learning

(TLC), 8(2), 25–41.

Bernard, R. M., Zhang, D., Abrami, P. C., Sicoly, F., Borokhovski, E., & Surkes, M.

A. (2008). Exploring the structure of the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking

Appraisal: One scale or many subscales? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(1),

15–22.

Bhaskar, R. (1978). On the Possibility of Social Scientific Knowledge and the Limits

of Naturalism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 8(1), 1–28.

Bhaskar, R. (1998). Philosophy and scientific realism. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A.

Collier, T. Lawson & A. Norrie. Critical realism: Essential readings. London:

Routledge. 16–47.

Bhaskar, R. & Lawson, T. (1998). Introduction: Basic Texts and Developments. In

M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson & A. Norrie. Critical realism:

Essential readings. London: Routledge, 3–15.

Chalabi, M. (2013, December 3). The PISA methodology: do its education claims

stack up? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com

Chen, Y., Cheng, Y., Liu, K., & Tsai, H. (2009). Development of the critical

thinking disposition inventory. In The 74th Annual Meeting of the Psychometric

Society, University of Cambridge.

Claxton, G. (2014). School as an epistemic apprenticeship: the case of building

learning power. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 37(2), 1–

21.

Costa, A. L. (1991). The school as a home for the mind: A collection of articles.

Corwin Press.

Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000). Discovering & Exploring Habits of Mind. A

Developmental Series, Book 1. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Creswell, J. W. (2017). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five

approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Cruikshank, J. (2002). Critical realism and critical philosophy, Journal of Critical

Realism, 1(1), 49–66.

114

Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J.C. (2002). Explaining

society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.

Davies, M. (2015, June 10). A deficiency of critical thinking. The Australian.

Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au

Davis, J. (1986). No sugar. Sydney, NSW: Currency Press.

Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology.

New York, NY: Holt.

Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing

Management, 39(1), 118–128.

Edwards, P., O’Mahoney, J., & Vincent, S. (2014). Studying organizations using

critical realism : a practical guide (1st edition.). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Ennis, R.H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J.B.

Baron & R.J. Sternberg (Eds). Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice.

New York, NY: W. H. Freeman, 9–26.

Ennis, R.H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment, Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179–

186.

Facione, N.C., Facione, P.A., & Sanchez, C.A. (1994). Critical thinking disposition

as a measure of competent clinical judgment: the development of the California

Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. Journal of Nursing Education, 33(8),

345–350.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for

Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. Research Findings and

Recommendations. Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association.

Facione, P.A. (2000). The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character,

Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill. Informal Logic,

20(1), 61–84.

Facione, N., & Facione, P. (1997). Critical thinking assessment in nursing

education: An aggregate data analysis. Millbrae. CA: California Academic

Press.

Facione, P.A., Sanchez, C.A., Facione, N.C. (1994) Are College Students Disposed

to Think?. San Francisco, CA: California Academic Press.

115

Fletcher, A. J. (2017). Applying Critical Realism in Qualitative Research:

Methodology Meets Method. International Journal of Social Research

Methodology, 20(2), 181–194.

Foundation for Young Australians. (2018). The New Work Reality. Melbourne,

Victoria: Foundation for Young Australians.

Griffin, P., Graham, L., Harding, S.M., Nibali, N., English, N. & Alam, M. (2017).

The changing role of the teacher in a knowledge economy. In G. Savage & T.

Bentley. Educating Australia: Challenges for the Decade Ahead. Carlton,

Victoria: Melbourne University Press, 16(1), 32–54.

Gupta, K., Iranfar, S., Iranfar, K., Mehraban, B., & Montazeri, N. (2012). Validly

and Reliability of California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI)

in Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. Educational Research in

Medical Sciences Journal, 1(1), 6–10.

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains:

Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American

Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.

Halpern, D. F. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking

instruction. The Journal of General Education, 50(4), 270–286.

Harpaz, Y. (2007). Approaches to Teaching Thinking: Toward a Conceptual

Mapping of the Field. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 1845–1874.

Hayes, D. (2014). Let’s stop trying to teach students critical thinking. Retrieved

from https://theconversation.com/lets-stop-trying-to-teach-students-critical-

thinking-30321

Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., Saar, L., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). The relationship

between metacognition and the ability to pose questions in chemical education.

In Zohar, A. & Dori, Y.J. Metacognition in science education. New York, NY:

Springer, 165–195.

Hoepfl, M.C. (1997). Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer for Technology

Education Researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9, 47–63.

Insight Assessment. (2017). CCTDI User Manual and Resource Guide. San Jose,

CA. The California Academic Press.

116

Ku, K. Y. L., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Dispositional factors predicting Chinese students’

critical thinking performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(1),

54–58.

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational

researcher, 28(2), 16–46.

Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive Development. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 9(5), 178–181.

Lampert, N. (2007). Critical Thinking Dispositions as an Outcome of Undergraduate

Education. The Journal of General Education, 56(1), 17–33.

Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and reality. London: Routledge.

Leak, D.R. (2016, August 4), [Cartoon]. The Australian. Retrieved from

http://www.theaustralian.com.au

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Marin, L.M., Halpern, D.F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in

adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and

Creativity, 6, 1–13.

Michaels, S., Sohmer, R., O’Connor, M. C., & Resnick, L. (2009). Guided

construction of knowledge in the classroom: a troika of talk, tasks, and tools. In

B. Schwartz (Ed.), Advances in learning and instruction. Paris: Elsevier Press,

105–129.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs

(MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young

Australians. Retrieved from

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_E

ducational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olsen, K. & Spiers, J. (2002), Verification

Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 1(2), 1–19.

Moshman, D. (2018). Metacognitive Theories Revisited. Educational Psychology

Review, 30(2), 599–606.

Norris, S. (1992). The Generalizability of Critical Thinking: Multiple perspectives

on an educational ideal. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

117

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2016). Global

competency for an inclusive world. Retrieved from

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-

world.pdf

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage, 169–186.

Paul, R.W. (1985). Critical Thinking Research: A Response to Stephen

Norris. Educational Leadership, 42(8), 46.

Paul, R.W. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly

changing world. Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking. Foundation

for Critical Thinking.

Paul, R.W. (2005). The State of Critical Thinking Today. New Directions for

Community Colleges, 130, 27–38.

Paul, R. W., Elder, L., & Bartell, T. (1997). California Teacher Preparation for

Instruction in Critical Thinking: Research Findings and Policy

Recommendations. Sacramento, California: California Commission on Teacher

Credentialing.

Pawson, R. (1996). Theorizing the interview. British Journal of Sociology. 47(2),

295–314.

Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1996). How (and how not) to design research to inform

Policy-Making. In S. Samson & N. South (Eds.), The social construction of

Social Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 34–53.

Pellegrino, J. W. & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and work:

Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington,

DC: National Academies Press.

Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds.

New York, NY: Free Press.

Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., & Andrade, A. (2000).

Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational

Psychology Review, 12(3), 269–293.

Resnick, L. B. (2010). Nested learning systems for the thinking curriculum.

Educational researcher, 39(3), 183–197.

118

Ritchhart, R. (2001). From IQ to IC: A dispositional view of intelligence. Roeper

Review, 23(3), 143–150.

Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and how to

get it. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating Cultures of Thinking: The 8 forces we must master to

truly transform our schools. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to

promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. (2005). Learning to think: The challenges of teaching

thinking. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook

of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 775–802.

Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. (2008). Making Thinking Visible. Educational

Leadership, 65(5), 57–61.

Richland, L., Begolli, K., Levine, F., Mayer, R., Murphy, K., Newcombe, N., &

Worrell, F. (2016). Analogy and Higher Order Thinking: Learning Mathematics

as an Example. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2),

160–168.

Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.

Scott, D. (2005). Critical Realism and Empirical Research Methods in Education.

Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(4), 633–646.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies or ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.

Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Staples, M. E., & Truxaw, M. P. (2012). An initial framework for the language of

higher-order thinking mathematics practices. Mathematics Education Research

Journal, 24(3), 257–281.

Stapleton, P. (2011). A survey of attitudes towards critical thinking among Hong

Kong secondary school teachers: Implications for policy change. Thinking Skills

and Creativity, 6, 14–23.

Tishman, S. (1994). Thinking dispositions and intellectual character. Paper

presented at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, April 4–8: New Orleans, LA.

119

Tishman, S., & Andrade, A. (1995). Thinking dispositions: A review of current

theories, practices, and issues. Retrieved from http://www.lsalearning.com/wp-

content/uploads/2012/09/Dispositions.pdf

Tishman, S., Jay, E., & Perkins, D. N. (1993). Teaching thinking dispositions: From

transmission to enculturation. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 147–153.

Turner, D. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice

investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754–760.

Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2010). Development of metacognitive

skillfulness: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(3),

220–224.

Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2013). Metacognitive skills and intellectual

ability of young adolescents: A longitudinal study from a developmental

perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29, 117–137.

Veenman, M. V. J., & Spaans, M. A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and

metacognitive skills: Age and task differences. Learning & Individual

Differences, 15(2), 159–176.

Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between

intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective.

Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 89–109.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd

edition.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: design and methods (5th ed.) Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Zohar, A. (2012). Explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge: Definitions,

students’ learning, and teachers’ professional development. In Zohar, A., &

Dori, Y. (2011). Metacognition in Science Education Trends in Current

Research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 197–223.

Zohar, A. (2013). Challenges in wide scale implementation efforts to foster higher

order thinking (HOT) in science education across a whole school

system. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 233–249.

120

Zohar, A. (2004). Higher Order Thinking in Science Classrooms: Students’

Learning and Teacher’ Professional Development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Springer.

Zohar, A., & Alboher Agmon, V. (2018). Raising test scores vs. teaching higher

order thinking (HOT): senior science teachers’ views on how several concurrent

policies affect classroom practices. Research in Science & Technological

Education, 36(2), 243–260.

Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2015). Metacognition and teaching higher order thinking

(HOT) in science education. In Wegerif, R. & Li, L., Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). The

Routledge International Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking. Oxon,

UK: Routledge, 229–242.

Zohar, A., & Cohen, A. (2016). Large scale implementation of higher order thinking

(HOT) in civic education: The interplay of policy, politics, pedagogical

leadership and detailed pedagogical planning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21,

85–96.

Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in

authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59–82.

Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: a conceptual

analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 177–

195.

Zohar, A., Weinberger, Y., & Tamir, P. (1994). The effect of the biology critical

thinking project on the development of critical thinking. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 31(2), 183–196.

APP

END

IX A

HA

RPA

Z’S

SUM

MA

RY

OF

THE

APP

RO

AC

HES

TO

TEA

CH

ING

TH

INK

ING

AS

MET

A-T

HEO

RIE

S O

R M

ETA

-PR

OG

RA

MS

App

roac

hes/

Cha

ract

eris

tics

The

Ski

lls A

ppro

ach

The

Dis

posi

tions

App

roac

h T

he U

nder

stan

ding

App

roac

h

The

foun

datio

nal e

lem

ent

of g

ood

thin

king

Skill

s: T

hink

ing

tool

s use

d

effic

ient

ly –

qui

ckly

and

prec

isel

y –

in g

iven

circ

umst

ance

s

Dis

posi

tions

: Mot

ivat

ion

for

good

thin

king

whi

ch fo

rmed

by re

ason

able

cho

ices

Und

erst

andi

ng: T

he a

bilit

y to

loca

te a

con

cept

in a

con

text

of o

ther

con

cept

s, to

impl

emen

t con

cept

s in

new

cont

exts

and

per

form

thin

king

pro

cess

es w

ith

know

ledg

e

Typ

es o

f fou

ndat

iona

l

elem

ents

Neu

tral s

kills

; Nor

mat

ive

skill

s

Thin

king

dis

posi

tions

;

Dis

posi

tion

to th

ink

Subs

tant

ive

unde

rsta

ndin

g;

Ref

lect

ive

unde

rsta

ndin

g

Patt

erns

of t

each

ing

Th

e pa

ttern

of i

mpa

rtatio

n

The

patte

rn o

f cul

tivat

ion

Th

e pa

ttern

of c

onst

ruct

ion

Ideo

logi

es: "

the

good

thin

ker"

Effic

ient

thin

ker

Wis

e th

inke

r Le

arne

d th

inke

r

Typ

ical

thin

king

shor

tfal

ls

Faul

ts

Wea

knes

ses

Mis

unde

rsta

ndin

gs

121

Met

a-co

gniti

on

Met

acog

nitio

n is

skill

M

etac

ogni

tion

is d

ispo

sitio

n M

etac

ogni

tion

is

unde

rsta

ndin

g

Inte

llige

nce

Inte

llige

nce

is c

onst

itute

d of

skill

s

Inte

llige

nce

is c

onst

itute

d of

disp

ositi

ons

Inte

llige

nce

is c

onst

itute

d of

unde

rsta

ndin

gs

Att

empt

at r

educ

tioni

sm

Dis

posi

tion

and

unde

rsta

ndin

g ar

e in

clud

ed

in

Skill

and

und

erst

andi

ng a

re

incl

uded

in

Skill

and

dis

posi

tion

are

incl

uded

in u

nder

stan

ding

Met

apho

rs fo

r th

inki

ng

Tool

box

D

eep

curr

ents

N

et

"Sta

ndar

d de

viat

ion"

Ta

min

g

Prea

chin

g

Lect

urin

g

Slog

an

Giv

e th

e ch

ild a

fish

ing

rod!

G

ive

the

child

bai

t! G

ive

the

child

kno

wle

dge

of

the

fishi

ng fi

eld!

T

heor

ies,

prog

ram

s, id

eas —

exam

ples

lD

e B

ono

– C

oRT

lEn

nis –

Taxo

nom

y of

criti

cal t

hink

ing

lB

eyer

– D

irect

teac

hing

of

thin

king

lPe

rkin

s – T

hink

ing

fram

es

lPe

rkin

s & S

war

tz –

Gra

phic

org

anis

ers

Perk

ins –

Dis

posi

tions

theo

ry

of th

inki

ng

lTi

shm

an –

Thi

nkin

g

disp

ositi

ons

lC

osta

– H

abits

of m

ind

lB

aron

– T

heor

y of

ratio

nalit

y

Perk

ins –

Und

erst

andi

ng

perf

orm

ance

s

lG

ardn

er –

Und

erst

andi

ng

in th

e di

scip

lines

lW

iske

– T

each

ing

for

unde

rsta

ndin

g

lW

iggi

ns &

McT

ighe

–

Und

erst

andi

ng b

y de

sign

122

lSw

artz

& P

arks

– In

fusi

on

lSt

ernb

erg

– In

telli

genc

e

impl

ied

lTr

effin

ger,

Isak

sen

&

Dor

val –

Cre

ativ

e pr

oble

m

solv

ing

lJo

hnso

n &

Bla

ir –

Info

rmal

logi

c

lC

haff

ee –

thin

king

criti

cally

lW

him

bey

& L

ochh

ead

–

Prob

lem

solv

ing

lFe

uers

tein

– In

stru

men

tal

Enric

hmen

t

lLi

pman

– P

hilo

soph

y fo

r

child

ren

lLa

nger

– M

indf

ulne

ss

lB

arre

l – T

houg

htfu

lnes

s

lFa

cion

e –

Crit

ical

thin

king

disp

ositi

ons

lPa

ssm

ore

– C

ritic

al

thin

king

as a

cha

ract

er tr

ait

lSi

egel

– T

he sp

irit o

f the

criti

cal t

hink

er

lSt

ernb

erg

– Su

cces

sful

inte

llige

nce

lG

olm

an –

Em

otio

nal

Inte

llige

nce

lLi

pman

– P

hilo

soph

y fo

r

child

ren

lPa

ul –

Crit

ical

thin

king

in

the

stro

ng se

nse

lM

cPec

k –

The

refle

ctiv

e

criti

cal t

hink

er

lB

row

n –

Com

mun

ity o

f

lear

ners

lSm

ith –

Und

erst

andi

ng a

s

good

thin

king

lB

rook

s & B

rook

s –

Con

stru

ctiv

ist i

nstru

cti o

n

lLi

pman

– P

hilo

soph

y fo

r

child

ren

lH

arpa

z –

Com

mun

ity o

f

thin

king

Not

e. A

dapt

ed fr

om “

App

roac

hes t

o te

achi

ng th

inki

ng: T

owar

d a

conc

eptu

al m

appi

ng o

f the

fiel

d” b

y Y

. Har

paz,

200

7, T

each

ers C

olle

ge

Reco

rd, 1

09(8

), 18

65–1

866.

123

APPENDIX B THE AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION CONTEXT

In Australia in 2018, there were 3, 893, 834 students enrolled in 9,477 schools. There

are three types of schools in the Australian education system, government, Catholic

and Independent. Overall, 65.7 per cent of students in 2018 were enrolled in

government schools, 19.7 per cent in Catholic schools and 14.6 per cent in

Independent schools (ABS, 2018). The Apparent Retention Rate for Grade 7 to 12 in

Australia was 84.5 per cent (ABS, 2018). The student to teaching staff ratio for all

government secondary schools in Western Australia was 12.6, Catholic 12.6 and

Independent 10.8 (ABS, 2018), although these numbers fail to take into account

teachers performing administrative duties (ACARA, 2017). In Western Australia,

there were 418, 119 students across 1, 094 schools, 280, 802 (67.16%) of whom

attended government schools, and 137, 317 (32.84%) of which were educated in non-

government schools.

Schools are funded through a combination of funding from state and territory

governments as well as the Australian government, and fees and charges and other

parental or private contributions. National, state and territory governments spent $57.8

billion in recurrent spending on schooling in 2016–2017 (ACARA, 2017), $40.6

billion (70.2 per cent) of which came through state and territory budgets, the majority

of which went to government schools. This equates to an average of $17, 531 per

government school student from government sources (ACARA, 2017). On average,

government funding represents 43.7% of Independent schools’ income, with the

remaining 56.3% coming mainly from fees (ACARA, 2017). Expense per student at

independent secondary schools averaged $25, 909 (ACARA, 2017).

All states and territories in Australia provide for 13 years of formal schooling

(ACARA, 2017). Schooling is compulsory in Western Australia for all children

through to the year in which the child reaches the age of 17 years 6 months or turns

18. Schools teach to the Western Australian Curriculum, a state-based iteration of the

Australian Curriculum developed by the Australian Curriculum, Reporting and

Assessment Authority (ACARA) in 2010, administered under the School Curriculum

and Standards Authority (SCSA). It outlines curriculum, assessment and reporting

128

standards across eight learning areas, as well as cross-curricular priorities and general

capabilities. Seven Independent schools teach one or more of the International

Baccalaureate primary years or middle years programs.

Upper-secondary education in Western Australia is overseen by SCSA. Students

complete the Western Australian Certificate of Education, generally by studying

courses across two years, opting either to study ATAR, General or Foundation course,

with ATAR courses providing students with the opportunity to achieve an Australian

Tertiary Admissions Rank to gain entry to university. These courses are assessed

through a combination of moderated, in-school assessment, and external

examinations.

129

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE FIRST INTERVIEW

• For how long have you been teaching?

• And where have you taught in that time?

• What subjects have you taught?

• What classes are you teaching at present?

What are teachers’ dispositions towards critical thinking?

• Critical thinking has been a really big topic in education in Australia and

internationally. It’s in the National Curriculum as one of the cross-curricular

priorities. What does it mean to you when people talk about critical thinking?

• What do you believe students should get out of their school education?

• What “residuals” do you want students to take away from their year with you?

• Why those?

• If you could wave a magic wand and equip all students with one learning tool

that would assist them in being more effective learners, what would you choose?

• Why would that make them more effective learners?

What are teachers’ aims and expectations regarding critical thinking in the

classroom?

• What does it mean to you for a classroom to have a culture of thinking?

• How is a culture of thinking different from, say, any ordinary classroom?

• Do you think having that sort of culture makes a difference for students? What

sort of difference?

• What do you believe are the things that are the most important forces in building

that sort of culture?

• If you had to pick a metaphor or analogy to characterise the relationship between

those elements, how would you describe it?

• What do you believe are the effects of not having those elements?

• If culture is a story we constantly tell, what is the story of learning you tell in

your classes?

124

• What are the consistent messages?

• What kinds of thinking are important in your classroom?

• If a student wasn’t thinking in those ways, how effectively would they survive in

your class? How successful would they be?

• Could you identify an example of where that sort of thinking is encouraged?

• What do you do to foster that in your classroom?

• Is that a good thing?

• What do you consider to be the major challenges, if any, to creating the culture

of thinking you would like to create in your classroom?

• How heavily do those factors impede you achieving the kind of classroom

culture you would like to?

• How do you balance out those tensions?

• One of the metaphors used to illustrate how we can best organise our priorities is

the metaphor of filling a large jar with rocks, pebbles, sand, and water. The idea

goes that the best way to do that is putting the big rocks in first, with the rocks

being the essential elements around which everything else fits, working down the

list to — what are the rocks in your planning for the classroom?

• We’re often a product of both our internal attitudes, values and beliefs, as well as

external forces. What have been the biggest positive influences in shaping your

desire to create this type of culture in your classroom?

What strategies do teachers use to develop a culture of thinking?

• I want you to imagine you’ve just started a new academic year, and you have a

new class, say ________________. What are things you do to establish the

culture of your classroom?

• Why do you take those steps?

• Are they more about establishing credibility and trust? What’s the relationship to

a culture of thinking?

• Generally, teachers do what they think is successful. What are the things that you

do that help your students to succeed in your subject?

• Why do you do those things?

125

• If I was to spend a week in your classroom as a student, what’s the typical

breakdown in terms of how I’d spend my lessons?

• How do you determine the relative time spent on each of those elements?

• If you were to spend less time on _____________ and more time on

__________, what would be the effect of that?

• If you were helping a beginning teacher to understand how you create a culture

of thinking in your classroom, what would be the key routines or recurring

elements to which you would point?

• What structures do you use to foster understanding/processing?

• How is it that students know how to process information?

• How do you judge the success of your teaching? How do you know when you’ve

got it right?

• I was wondering if you could share with me an example of a successful lesson or

unit you’ve taught, in the sense of promoting a culture of thinking in the

classroom, and what made that successful?

• I was wondering if you might do the same for a lesson or unit you didn’t feel was

successful in promoting a culture of thinking. Why was that the case?

• How important do you consider engagement to be in the process of student

learning?

• How do you attempt to foster that?

• How important do you consider feedback to be in terms of your classroom?

• The literature says that quality feedback is a really important part of what

teachers do. What do you believe are the elements of effective feedback?

• If a student came to you struggling with _________________, how do you

approach addressing that?

• What opportunities exist for students to receive feedback in your classroom?

• Where do you feel like you do feedback really well?

• Where are the areas, if any, that you feel like your feedback is less effective?

• How do you know your feedback has been successful?

• Teachers often model in the classroom. What are the things that you focus on

modelling in your classroom?

• How do you do that?

126

• What do you believe the effect is for students?

• If you had to characterise the aim of modelling, what would it be?

• We often differentiate between knowing things and understanding them. How do

you provide for understanding in your classroom?

• Why are those things necessary?

• How do you believe those structures foster understanding or processing?

• How is it that students know how to process information?

127

APP

END

IX D

LIST

OF

CO

DES

DEV

ELO

PED

DU

RIN

G T

HIS

STU

DY

AC

CO

RD

ING

TO

RES

EAR

CH

QU

ESTI

ON

S

RQ

1: W

hat a

re te

ache

rs’ d

ispos

ition

s

tow

ards

cri

tical

thin

king

?

RQ

2: W

hat a

re te

ache

rs’ a

ims a

nd

expe

ctat

ions

reg

ardi

ng c

ritic

al th

inki

ng in

the

clas

sroo

m?

RQ

3: W

hat s

trat

egie

s do

teac

hers

use

to d

evel

op a

cul

ture

of t

hink

ing?

Con

cept

ion

of C

T

Cur

iosi

ty

Out

com

es o

f

educ

atio

n

Civ

ic a

nd so

cial

resp

onsi

bilit

y

Mim

icki

ng n

atur

e

of d

isci

plin

e

Que

stio

ning

Tran

sfor

mat

ive

Acad

emic

appr

entic

eshi

p

Refle

ctiv

e So

cial

isat

ion

Self-

adju

stin

g Pr

epar

atio

n fo

r wor

ld

Mot

ivat

ion

Eval

uatio

n Li

felo

ng le

arni

ng

Inte

ract

ions

B

uy-in

Anal

ysis

Skill

s vs C

onte

nt

Trus

t

Trut

h-se

ekin

g

R/sh

ip b

/w k

now

ledg

e

and

CT

Lear

ning

from

mis

take

s

Syst

emat

ic

Role

of t

each

er

Teac

her a

s mod

el

Opp

ortu

nitie

s A

cade

mic

prob

lem

-bas

ed

lear

ning

130

Teac

her r

espo

nsib

ility

C

onte

xtua

lisat

ion

Ow

n ch

arac

ter

Inte

llect

ual c

hara

cter

Sc

affo

ldin

g

Expe

rien

ce

Valu

es o

f env

iron

men

t C

urio

sity

M

odel

ling

Thin

king

ove

r res

ult

Mis

take

s as u

sefu

l Pl

ayin

g w

ith

know

ledg

e

Col

labo

ratio

n St

orie

s

Rev

erse

engi

neer

ing

Tran

sfor

med

lear

ners

Q

uest

ioni

ng

Safe

ty to

be

wro

ng

Dis

cuss

ion

Com

mun

icat

ion

of

thin

king

Tim

e

Mot

ivat

ion

Que

stio

ning

La

ngua

ge

Lang

uage

of

thin

king

131

R/sh

ip to

aca

dem

ic

disc

iplin

e

Con

stru

ctin

g

term

inol

ogy

R/sh

ip to

wor

ld

Rout

ines

Plac

e of

teac

her

Plan

ning

goa

ls

Prio

rity

on

unde

rsta

ndin

g

Form

ativ

e

asse

ssm

ent

Peer

feed

back

Met

hodi

cal t

hink

ing

Empo

wer

ing

stud

ents

Type

s of t

hink

ing

Obs

erva

tion

Feed

back

Pr

aise

Hyp

othe

sis-

gene

ratio

n Re

flect

ion

Patte

rn id

eniti

fcat

ion

Teac

hing

thin

king

Ana

lysi

s In

quir

y

Eval

uatio

n Eq

uipp

ing

with

thin

king

tool

s

Synt

hesi

s C

omm

unity

of

inqu

iry

Expl

orin

g po

ssib

ilitie

s C

ultu

ral

mec

hani

sms

Unp

eelin

g la

yers

132

Thin

king

fro

m d

iffer

ent

pers

pect

ives

App

lyin

g le

ns

Extra

pola

tion

Expl

orat

ory

thin

king

Inte

rnal

voi

ce

Teac

her a

s mod

el

Div

erge

nt th

inki

ng

Tran

sfer

of k

now

ledg

e

Exte

ndin

g th

inki

ng

Inde

pend

ent t

houg

ht

Resu

lts

Age

ncy

Ow

ners

hip

of le

arni

ng

Enga

gem

ent

Valu

es o

f env

iron

men

t C

urio

sity

Cau

sal m

echa

nism

s Ex

perie

nce

Ass

essm

ent

Cur

ricul

um

Ran

ge o

f sub

ject

s

Teac

hing

load

Con

tent

kno

wle

dge

133

Sens

itivi

ty to

oppo

rtuni

ty

Ref

lect

ive

prac

tice

Tim

e-po

or

134

APP

END

IX E

EXA

MPL

E O

F C

OD

ING

PR

OC

EDU

RES

FO

R IN

TER

VIE

W D

ATA

Tran

scrip

t C

ode

Interviewer:[00:53:37]Iw

aswonderingifyoucouldshowmeanexampleofareallysuccessful

lessonorunitthatyou'vetaughtinthesenseofillustratingthecultureofthinkinginyourclassroom

.

Whatw

asitthatmadethatunitorthatlessonsuccessful?

Harvey:[00:53:58]

…Ioftenteachwithreferencestothepillarsofentrepreneurialism,thegreatCEOseveryoneknows,

andtrytopickCEOswhoseleadershiptraitsexhibitarchetypalexamplesofdifferentleadershipstyles

betheyautocratic,democratic,situational,participative,contingent.laissezfaire.SoIstartedthat

lessonwiththestoryanditusuallyintriguesthem.It'sastoryaboutagroupofworkersworkingona

railw

aylineandthey'remakingexemplaryprogresscuttingthroughthejunglelineperfectlystraight

tracksleveltracksuntilatsomepointsom

eoneclimbsatreeandshoutsdownandsayingwe'regoing

thewrongway,toillustratethedifferencesbetweenleadershipandmanagement.

Istartthere,partlybecauseit'saninterestingandcuriouslittlestory,butbecauseIfundamentally

knowthatoneoftheproblemswhenstudentslearnaboutleadership,istheydon'tandcannot

articulatetothinkleadershipandmanagement.

RQ3

Opportunities

Real-worldExamples –selection

ofillustration;heuristicvalue

RQ3

Stories

Illustrations,heuristics,

awarenessofstudentlearningand

weaknesses

RQ3

Opportunities

Real-worldExamples–

concept

carryingcapacity

135

So,Ifirstneedtodisentanglethosetwo.Managementw

asaboutperfectlylayingthatstraighttrack,

managementw

orkedbrilliantlyinthisexample.Theirjobwastocreateastraightandleveltrack.

Leadershipfailedtotellthemtherightdirectioninwhichtomove.Thatsimplemetaphorgivesthem

quiteaquickdelineatorfor,"Ah,Ithoughttheywereallthesame".Nowe'retalkingofleadership

here.ThenI,inthatlesson,Itoldthehumanstoryjustanoutline,apottedhistoryofRichardBranson.

AndIpickedthatonebecausehewasanacademicallyweakstudent.And,thatis,that'sendearinghis

students,particularlyweakstudents,becausethere'ssom

ethingquitecuriousabouttheunderdog.

…Then,toteaseoutthecriticalthinkingskillsIgivethematotallydifferentcontextthatthey'renot

expecting,whichthrowsthemoffguard,andthatisasurvivalscenario.Now,ofcourse,Idothispartly

becauseI'm

interestedinsurvival,buthere'showitworks…

Interac tions

Buy-in

Appealtotrust–

anchoredin

studentidentity

RQ3

Opportunities

Aca

dem

ic p

robl

em-b

ased

lear

ning–

cont

extu

al/a

bstra

ctiv

e

inte

rpla

y

136

APPENDIX F

INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORMS

Approval to conduct this research has been provided by the University of Western Australia, in accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person considering participation in this research project, or agreeing to participate, may raise any questions or issues with the researchers at any time.

In addition, any person not satisfied with the response of researchers may raise ethics issues or concerns, and may make any complaints about this research project by contacting the Human Research Ethics Office at the University of Western Australia on (08) 6488 3703 or by emailing to humanethics@uwa.edu.au .

All research participants are entitled to retain a copy of any Participant Information Form and/or Participant Consent Form relating to this research project.

JANUARY 2017

TEACHER CONSENT FORM

HOW TEACHERS’ DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS CRITICAL THINKING SHAPE THE CULTURE OF THINKING THEY BUILD IN THEIR CLASSROOM.

I have read the information provided and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to the College participating in this activity, realising that I may withdraw my consent at any time, without reason and without prejudice. I understand that the College’s participation is voluntary.

I understand that participation in the research project will involve me talking to Brendan Zani.

I understand that I will complete the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory and The Development of a Culture of Thinking in My Classroom: Self-Assessment.

I understand that I will participate in 3 semi-structured interviews not lasting more than 60 minutes each. I understand that these interviews will be audio-recorded.

I understand that the researcher will conduct two classroom observations of a single class. I understand that these observations will be audio-recorded.

I understand that the researcher may collect planning, programming, policy and other documents relevant to the study of my cultivation of a culture of thinking in my classroom.

I understand that all information collected will be kept confidential, and will only be used for the purposes of this research project. I understand that I will not be identified in any conference presentation that results from this study. All information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be released by the investigator to anyone. The only exception to this principle of confidentiality is if documents are required by law.

I have been advised as to what data is being collected, what the purpose is, and what will be done with the data upon completion of the research.

I agree that the research data that I provide for the study may be published provided my name or other identifying information is not used.

___________________________ ____________ __________________________ Name Date Signature

Professor Vaille Dawson

Graduate School of Education The University of Western Australia M428, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009 Telephone: +61 8 6488 2470

Email: vaille.dawson@uwa.edu.au

CRICOS Code: 00126G

137

Approval to conduct this research has been provided by the University of Western Australia, in accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person considering participation in this research project, or agreeing to participate, may raise any questions or issues with the researchers at any time.

In addition, any person not satisfied with the response of researchers may raise ethics issues or concerns, and may make any complaints about this research project by contacting the Human Research Ethics Office at the University of Western Australia on (08) 6488 3703 or by emailing to humanethics@uwa.edu.au .

All research participants are entitled to retain a copy of any Participant Information Form and/or Participant Consent Form relating to this research project.

JANUARY, 2017

CASE PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET

HOW TEACHERS’ DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS CRITICAL THINKING SHAPE THE CULTURE OF THINKING THEY BUILD IN THEIR CLASSROOM.

Dear [Name],

I am a staff member of the University of Western Australia. A masters student of mine, Brendan Zani, is conducting his masters research on cultures of thinking

This sheet contains important information for participants relating to the methods, results, benefits and risks of participating in this research project. Please read it carefully and store it in a safe place for future reference.

You are invited to take part in the study to provide information on how you cultivate a culture of thinking in your classroom.

A classroom culture of thinking refers to a place in which individuals’ and the group’s collective thinking is valued, visible and actively promoted as part of the regular, day-to-day experience of all…members” (Ritchhart, 2015, p. 30).

The first aim of this study is to understand how secondary school teachers’ dispositions toward critical thinking shape their attitudes towards the place of thinking in their classroom.

The second aim is to explore how these dispositions shape these teachers’ decisions around time, opportunities, routines and structure, language, modelling, interactions and relationships, expectations and the physical environment.

It is hoped that the findings of this study will have practical relevance to understanding the development of cultures of thinking, and provide the basis for further investigation into appropriate interventions to improve the place of critical thinking in schools

Professor Vaille Dawson

Graduate School of Education The University of Western Australia M428, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009 Telephone: +61 8 6488 2470

Email: vaille.dawson@uwa.edu.au

CRICOS Code: 00126G

138

Approval to conduct this research has been provided by the University of Western Australia, in accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person considering participation in this research project, or agreeing to participate, may raise any questions or issues with the researchers at any time.

In addition, any person not satisfied with the response of researchers may raise ethics issues or concerns, and may make any complaints about this research project by contacting the Human Research Ethics Office at the University of Western Australia on (08) 6488 3703 or by emailing to humanethics@uwa.edu.au .

All research participants are entitled to retain a copy of any Participant Information Form and/or Participant Consent Form relating to this research project.

If you agree to be part of this research, you will be invited to complete two surveys, and participate in 3 semi-structured interviews of no more than 60 minutes and 2 classroom observations of a single class. The surveys are the California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory, and The Development of a Culture of Thinking in My Classroom: Self-Assessment. There will be an interview before the observations, one between observations, and a final interview after the classroom observations have been completed.

Some of the results from this research may be used in national and international conference presentations and scientific papers. Neither you nor the school will be identified.

Benefits of participating in this research include the opportunity to understand your own dispositions toward critical thinking, and to reflect upon and share with others the ways in which you cultivate a culture of thinking in your classroom.

Your contribution will be strictly confidential and you will not be personally identified in any way. Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. If you decide to take part, you have the right to withdraw from this research at any time without prejudice and to withdraw any data you have supplied to the study.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, you may contact me on 6488 2470, or vaille.dawson@uwa.edu.au. If you are willing to participate in this research, please sign the attached form to indicate your consent prior to the surveys commencing.

Yours Sincerely,

Professor Vaille Dawson

139