|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 7, Issue 2, Foreword (Dec., 2006) Philip ADEY Thinking in Science - Thinking in General?
|
|
|
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 7, Issue 2, Foreword (Dec., 2006) Philip ADEY Thinking in Science - Thinking in General?
|
It can be seen that these principles lead to a pedagogy which is distinctly different from normal high quality teaching for conceptual development (which tends to have behavioural objectives achievable in one lesson, focuses on individual achievement, and tries to ensure ready accessibility). For this reason, in CASE we always recommend setting aside special time for CASE activities, distinct from normal science curriculum time. This is to help teachers make the clear distinction between the two types of good teaching – on the one hand good traditional instruction for concept development and on the other cognitive intervention for general cognitive development. The latter is seen to have a far deeper and longer lasting effect, albeit at the cost of ‘delivery’ of specific curriculum content.
Although these central principles (which we sometimes call ‘pillars’) of teaching for higher order thinking were the basis for the design of the original published CASE materials, Thinking Science (Adey, Shayer, & Yates, 2001), we never supposed that the printed materials – even enhanced with videos and powerpoints – could ever by themselves do the job of changing teaching practice. Teaching for cognitive stimulation is a different kind of teaching, and this necessarily requires an effective programme of professional development for teachers (Adey, Hewitt, Hewitt, & Landau, 2004). Essentially teachers need to understand some of the underlying theory and to develop the practice of generating well-managed difficulty, of orchestrating high quality discussion between students, and of encouraging students to reflect on their own learning. This is a rather radical departure as one often is not able to point, after one lesson, to the “material covered”, one’s students sometimes leave the classroom a bit confused, they certainly have no notes of what has been achieved, and the school Principal has to accept that in these lessons a certain amount of productive argument and discussion is essential.
But for those many schools all over the world who have taken on the CASE methodology, the academic rewards are quite gratifying. In spite of apparently ‘losing’ valuable curriculum time to thinking lessons, the sacrifice pays off. We have shown over and over again (Adey & Shayer, 1993, 1994; Shayer, 1999; Shayer & Adey, 1993) that when properly implemented, a CASE intervention in (UK) Years 7 and 8 (Hong Kong S1 and S2, US grades 6 & 7) leads, in comparison with matched control groups, to (a), at the end of the two year intervention, greater gains in cognitive development; (b), one year later, greater achievement in science tests; and (c), two years later again, significantly higher grades in nationally set and marked measures of achievement – not only in science, but also in maths and English. That is the long term far transfer which justifies the claim made at the beginning of this paper: that work on developing students’ higher level thinking in science actually increases their general intelligence across the board.
Copyright (C) 2006 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 7, Issue 2, Foreword (Dec., 2006). All Rights Reserved.
