I know that it has been awhile since I’ve posted here. It’s not that I haven’t been blogging.  I am deep in the middle of graduate coursework, attending full-time while I continue to lead the most amazing campus.  I still write and blog, it has just been more in the realm of my doctoral program.  However, I miss this outlet for sharing my thoughts on public education, best practices for schools, and leading with grit, grace, and growth mindset.

One of the things that I have pondered on teaching thinking is the triangle of instruction, curriculum, and assessment.  After all, “thinking” is the twelfth most used in the English language. I know that when I arrived at my campus six years ago, it was clear that our students could follow simple steps for finding answers, but higher-level thinking, flexibility in problem-solving, and explaining and justifying their thought processes was extremely difficult. Additionally, teachers aren’t really prepared in school for teaching thinking. Teacher preparation programs typical prepare future teachers in teaching  content.

I think about the ambiguity of defining thinking and how that complicates teaching our students how to think Beyer, 1984).  If we struggle to define what it means to teach thinking, then it certainly complicates creating a curriculum around teaching thinking.  If we cannot create a curriculum that defines thinking, then we will also struggle to adequately use the best instructional methods.  Furthermore, Beyer outlines the difficulty in assessing thinking (1984).

If for the 21st Century, our students face demands that require thinking even more than ever, it seems the curriculum triangle around thinking would also be more important than ever.  I know that in Texas when we switched from TAKS to STAAR, it was because decision makers felt we needed a test more geared toward thinking and problem-solving rather than regurgitation of steps, strategies, and facts. However, we did not prepare teachers with curriculum or instructional strategies geared toward thinking. Additionally, we have already discovered how difficult it is to measure thinking on a standardized test.

Why then do we continue to put money and efforts into a flawed test and accountability system that cannot measure that which we purport to be important? Even if we put our energy into designing curriculum and instruction geared toward teaching students high levels of thinking, how do we assess whether this is happening in a way that these results can be shared with our communities who demand accountability from our schools? I certainly believe that doing what is right by students is the biggest priority, but as a campus principal, I also understand the pressure put on schools and the ties to funding to achieve at certain levels.  To be successful in an endeavor to improve thinking in teaching, we also have to find a way to document achievement as a result of our efforts.

References

Beyer, B. K. (1984). Improving thinking skills: Defining the problem. The Phi Delta Kappan, 65(7), 486-490.