British Educational Research Journal

Vol. 31, No. 3, June 2005, pp. 367390

Thinking skills frameworks for use in

education and training
David Moseleya, Julian Elliott*b, Maggie Gregsonc and
Steve Higginsa
a
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; bUniversity of Durham, UK; cUniversity of
Sunderland, UK

(Submitted 19 December 2003; conditionally accepted 8 April 2004; accepted 10 May

2004)

This article details findings from a systematic review and evaluation of frameworks and taxonomies
for understanding thinking, with particular reference to learning in post-16 contexts. It describes
the means used to identify and evaluate 35 frameworks and identifies three that appear to be
particularly useful in the context of lifelong learning. In the light of this analysis, a schematic
integrated model of thinking is outlined and discussed.

Introduction
This article describes a systematic review and evaluation of 35 theoretical
frameworks for understanding thinking which may help transform learning and
instruction, primarily in the post-16 sector. A team of researchers at Newcastle and
Sunderland universities were commissioned to carry out this work by the Learning
and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) and a full report has been published by the
Learning and Skills Research Centre (LSRC) (Moseley et al., 2004). We begin with
a brief summary of theoretical ideas about thinking and learning which have
influenced educational practice in the last 50 years. We then describe the scope of
our evaluation and our methodology. We go on to present key findings and
recommendations and end by proposing an integrated framework as a practical
heuristic device for use in planning, monitoring and evaluating what is taught and
learned at all stages of lifelong learning.

*Corresponding author. School of Education, University of Durham, Leazes Road, Durham DH1
1TA, UK. Email: joe.elliott@durham.ac.uk
ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/05/030367-24
# 2005 British Educational Research Association
DOI: 10.1080/01411920500082219
368 D. Moseley et al.

Changing ideas: cognitive, behavioural, metacognitive and sociocognitive

Perhaps the theory of thinking and learning which has had the greatest impact on
educational practice and on teacher training during the last half-century is the
genetic epistemology of Jean Piaget (for an accessible reprint, see Piaget, 1971). This
theory about how children and young people move through a series of
developmental stages, in which their understanding of objects, relationships and
concepts is limited by their powers of thought, has had an enduring influence on the
belief systems of many teachers. Piagetian theory found expression in the child-
centred Plowden Report (Department of Education and Science, 1967). Although
Piaget had little interest in pedagogy, others such as Adey and Shayer (1990) and
Gouge and Yates (2002) have since developed and evaluated cognitive acceleration
approaches based on Piagets stage theory. In the field of adult education, King and
Kitchener (1994) are among those who have sought to extend Piagets stages beyond
the level of formal operational thinking and to draw out pedagogical implications for
the development of reflective judgement in the college years.
In the 1960s and 1970s there was a strong interest in information processing
accounts of cognition, focusing on perceptual channels or various kinds of central
processing, including those thought to be rooted in cognitive style. In the field of special
education, teachers sought either to remediate or to build on individual strengths in
areas of perceptual and psycholinguistic processing, such as visual perception, auditory
discrimination, visual-motor processing and auditory sequential memory. The theory
behind intervention programmes based upon such analyses was that tackling pro-
cessing deficits or matching teaching to individual strengths would result in raised
academic performance in areas such as reading and mathematics (Swanson, 1999).
However, empirical studies generally failed to support these claims, with transfer proving
particularly problematic (Arter & Jenkins, 1979; Kavale & Forness, 1987).
During the 1970s and 1980s, behaviourist theories exerted a relatively strong
influence in education and training. The purpose was to change behaviour through
the use of clearly specified objectives and appropriate rewards. Curricula were
broken down into series of learning objectives relating to observable behaviours
(Mager, 1990). A number of behaviourist teaching techniques such as task analysis,
shaping, fading and forward and backward chaining were applied in special
education settings and more widely in the form of programmed learning and skills
training. These approaches had a significant influence on mainstream practice, with
packages such as the Early Learning Skills Analysis (ELSA) (Ainscow & Tweddle,
1984) used to teach basic literacy and numeracy skills to individuals and scripted
programmes such as Distar and Corrective Reading for whole-class instruction.
Today, the behaviourist approach remains influential as a means of dealing with
unwanted classroom behaviour.
At the same time as behaviourist approaches were gaining currency in the 1980s,
some educators were beginning to respond to academic psychologys shift back
towards the cognitive. However, the eventual return to cognitive approaches was
influenced by theoretical perspectives and concepts which differed in important ways
from those promulgated in the 1960s and 1970s.
 Thinking skills frameworks 369

Developments in cognitive psychology, particularly in the area of working

memory, suggested an important central executive function whereby the brain
actively regulates learning and problem solving in a strategic fashion. From this
concept Flavell derived the process of metacognition (Flavell et al., 1970; Flavell,
1976). Essentially conceived as thinking about thinking, metacognition is a process
that has proven to be particularly attractive to educators, and underpins many
current cognitive programmes. The renewed cognitive emphasis in education was
fuelled by many studies demonstrating that those with learning difficulties
experience particular problems with metacognitive and self-regulatory functioning,
involving, for example, checking, planning, monitoring, reviewing, predicting and
evaluating (Wong & Jones, 1982). Interventions in the USA introduced a range of
tactics drawing upon cognitive models (Swanson, 1999, 2000). These include the
use of advanced organisers (statements in learning materials that remind learners of
procedures that they should employ in order to be more strategic in their approach),
elaboration (in which students are actively encouraged to link material to be learned
to information or ideas which they already have in mind), attributions (in which the
reasons for a strategy succeeding or failing are considered), and thinking about and
controlling ones thinking processes (metacognition) (see Swanson, 1999, pp. 30
32, and Swanson, 2000, p. 102, for detailed lists).
In addition to the influx of cognitive concepts into education, a number of highly
structured programmes were gaining attention. Some of these addressed domain-
general (i.e. non-curricular) functioning, which involves multiple processes (e.g.
Feuerstein, 1980), while some focused on specific processes such as inductive
reasoning (Klauer & Phye, 1995; Buchel et al., 1997). These differ markedly from
domain-specific programmes devised by those who argue that the teaching of
thinking skills should be rooted within academic subjects (Leat, 1998; Adey et al.,
2001; Gouge & Yates, 2002).
Research studies have highlighted the gains that can be achieved when specific
cognitive and metacognitive strategies are embedded in the teaching of academic
subjects such as reading and mathematics (e.g. De Corte et al., 2001; Fuchs et al.,
2003). For a recent review of the efficacy of thinking skills approaches, see Higgins
et al. (2004). Gradually, as had been the case with behavioural approaches, an
emphasis upon the cognitive, in particular the development of thinking skills, has
been assimilated into mainstream practice in schools. Following a favourable review
by McGuinness (1999), the importance of thinking skills received government
endorsement through inclusion in Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
documents that placed these under five headings, information processing, reasoning,
enquiry, creativity and evaluation.
The teaching of thinking skills is now a major international enterprise (Hamers &
Overtoom, 1997; Costa, 2001) that draws not only upon the discipline of psychology
but also of philosophy (cf. Sutcliffe, 2003). A thinking skill is defined by Smith
(2002, p. 663) as a teachable, partially proceduralized, mental activity that reaches
beyond normal cognitive capacities and can be exercised at will. However, Smith
notes that, on the basis of his definition, many ways in which this construct is
370 D. Moseley et al.

currently employed may be inappropriate. We take the view that whether aspects of
thinking are teachable, can be exercised at will or applied in new contexts are
empirical questions with few generally accepted answers. Nevertheless, it is
important to have a comprehensive set of terms to use when thinking and talking
about thinking and learning, especially when seeking to improve performance.
Those terms need to be jargon-free and meaningful to learners as well as teachers.
The take-up and success of some of the most popular thinking skills programmes are
at least partly attributable to the simple language in which they are expressed.
Although one place to start in trying to gain an overview of the conceptual field
might be with a framework or taxonomy of thinking, one can easily become confused
by the range and scope of taxonomies on offer and mystified as to how they relate to
one another. The situation becomes even more confusing when core concepts such
as mind, consciousness and self are analysed in depth. Velmans (2000) and Metzinger
(2003) are among the philosophers who have explored these areas.
Social constructivist theories, drawing on the ideas of Dewey (1897, 1933) and
Vygotsky (1934, 1978), emphasise the importance of a meeting of minds, expert and
novice. Ideally, this takes place in the zone of proximal development, the area where
the learner can succeed, but only when provided with carefully structured
(scaffolded) assistance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Expert scaffolding is seen as a
powerful means of helping learners develop self-regulatory skills that not only assist
in specific task completion but which also can be applied in a range of contexts
(Brown & Campione, 1986). However, in sociocultural accounts of apprenticeship
(Rogoff, 1990) and situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), thinking and learning
are themselves presented as social constructs, not as areas of experience which can
be studied objectively using empirical methods.
Some theorists such as Wells (1999) and Lipman (2003) are wary of rigid systems
of classification, yet still see the principal goal of education as enabling learners to
acquire social skills and share knowledge, values and dispositions. It seems that the
authors of frameworks for understanding thinking and learning often use similar
language, but argue over meanings and methods. In our evaluations, we set out to
look for common understandings in the diverse theories as well as for important
differences.

Thinking skills in post-16 education and training

Thinking skills approaches have so far not been widely used in post-16 education
and training, although the importance of these skills is clearly recognised in the wider
key skills framework which consists of Working with OTHERS, Improving Own
Learning and Performance and Problem Solving (see, for example, McNeil, 2002).
Bloomer (1997) found little evidence in further education colleges of teaching
behaviours likely to develop critical thinking. The few examples where thinking skills
courses have been developed within the post-16 sector include the Thinking Skills at
Work programme (Blagg et al., 1993) and the AS Level in Critical Thinking offered by
the OCR examination board.
 Thinking skills frameworks 371

In the UK, courses, curricula and best practice in teaching are usually specified
without explicit reference to theoretical frameworks. We are not aware of any
examples in post-16 education and training where syllabuses, course planning,
assessment tools or learning-related discourse have been analysed using a theoretical
framework of thinking or learning. Nor have we found any studies in which the
communicability and practical utility of such frameworks in post-16 education and
training have been formally assessed.
National educational policies, which aim to develop the thinking skills of post-16
learners in vocational education in the UK, began with the Manpower Services
Commissions (MSC) New Training Initiative (Department of Employment,
1981). Modelled upon the principles of rational planning and functional analysis,
the Youth Training Scheme (YTS) focused upon curriculum outcomes expressed in
terms of competencies. The scheme also included the introduction of the concepts
of learning to learn and skill transfer, underpinned by of a series of five core
skills. Yet, more than 20 years later, Zukas and Malcolm claimed that Lifelong
learning pedagogies do not, as yet, exist in the UK (2002, p. 203).
The proliferation of thinking skills frameworks, constructs and programmes can
lead to confusion about what is of most potential value. This is one of the reasons
why the LSDA commissioned us to review and advance knowledge of thinking skills
frameworks. In undertaking what was essentially a mapping exercise, our brief was
not, however, to review the effectiveness or otherwise of thinking skills programmes;
this was a task undertaken elsewhere.

Scope and remit of the evaluation

Among the issues currently debated in the field of thinking skills we identified at
least six as being relevant to our purposes. What are the components of broad
constructs such as self-regulation and metacognition? What constitutes skilled
thinking? How should the diverse range of cognitive processes be located within the
broader realm of thinking? What are the common features of the many existing
theoretical frameworks? Which frameworks have the most to offer in the context of
lifelong learning? Which processes are most susceptible to being taught as thinking
skills (Smith, 2002)? In our review we addressed all but the last of these questions.
We limited ourselves to considering frameworks for understanding thinking skills
published in the English language. We interpreted the term thinking skills very
broadly, essentially equating it to thinking. We were also guided by Ashman and
Conway (1997), who claim that thinking skills programmes typically involve the
following broad range of skills:
N metacognition
N critical thinking
N creative thinking
N cognitive processes (such as problem-solving and decision-making)
N core thinking skills (such as representation and summarising)
N understanding the role of content knowledge.
372 D. Moseley et al.

Our analysis concentrated upon taxonomies and theory-based frameworks, in the

belief that studying and using them will promote better understanding of how people
think and learn. Our overarching interest was in how that understanding can inform
instructional design, course and lesson planning, teaching, learning and assessment.
In particular we aimed to identify key principles on which teaching approaches
designed to develop thinking skills depend and helpful ways for teachers and learners
to classify and talk about thinking skills.
Because thinking is a human activity, which involves cognition (knowing), affect
(feeling) and conation (wanting and willing), we did not exclude from consideration
taxonomies and classification systems which extend beyond the cognitive domain
(e.g. self-regulations consideration of affect and conation). We did not limit
ourselves to those frameworks which have been designed specifically for use with
post-16 learners, since it soon became clear that most of the available frameworks
are relevant for learners of all ages.

Selecting and analysing individual frameworks

Each of the many existing frameworks for understanding thinking is based (explicitly
or implicitly) on particular value judgments about what is important in life or in
lifelong learning. We thought it highly unlikely that a single theoretical framework
for developing thinking will be generally accepted as the market leader in a
pluralistic society where there is open access to information and with few restrictions
on thinking and learning. We therefore worked on the assumption that there is value
in a diversity of approaches, which suggests that educators should be encouraged to
select frameworks which are fit for different purposes (e.g. improving communica-
tion skills, planning a vocational training course, developing problem-solving skills,
encouraging creativity in product development, developing reflective judgement
about current issues of global concern).
Our approach was to attempt to bring some order to a highly complex field, by
identifying common features as well as differences between frameworks. We focused
on the organising principles on which the taxonomies and frameworks are based and
became aware that some emphasise progression in complexity of thought while
others make qualitative distinctions between different kinds of thinking. We began
by conducting a comprehensive and systematic literature search of electronic and
paper based sources. Over 400 articles and books were identified as relevant. We
also found a large number of useful websites, many of which are gateways to other
sources. We identified 55 thinking skills frameworks by reading our source material,
checking references or learning about them at conferences. We have listed many of
these at http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ecls/about/resource/thinking.htm. We prepared brief
summaries of each and, while recognising that there is considerable overlap between
the groups, located them within four families.
The family groups were as follows:
1. models and theories of personality, thought and learning (the all-embracing
family);
 Thinking skills frameworks 373

2. models and theories of instructional design (the designer family);

3. models and theories of critical and productive thinking (the higher order
family);
4. models and theories of cognitive structure and/or cognitive development
(the intellectual family).
To a certain extent, families two, three and four reflect the concerns and interests of
different disciplines: education (instructional design), philosophy (critical thinking)
and psychology (mental activity and development). Differences between them are
sometimes a matter of emphasis, as each is concerned with practice as well as theory
and all have contributed to developments in assessment, pedagogy and curriculum
evaluation.
We chose 35 of the 55 frameworks to evaluate, rejecting those which differed in
minor detail from more established conceptualisations and those which had little
relevance for post-16 learners (e.g. Piaget). Each member of the team wrote
descriptions and evaluations of key frameworks and received feedback from
colleagues. We used an argument mapping software tool called Reason!Able (Van
Gelder, 2000) to help us support, qualify and compare the strength of claims
formulated for or against each framework. Brief summaries of all 35 frameworks can
be found in Appendix 1.

Evaluation of individual frameworks

We established a set of criteria in order to evaluate each framework in terms of the
purpose(s) for which it was devised and the use(s) to which it has been put. We
decided to organise our evaluation reports using four main headings: Description and
intended use, Scope and structure, Theory and values, and Communicability and practical
relevance.
The following aspects were taken into account:

Description and intended use

N nature and function: taxonomy/framework/model/map/list

N stated purpose

Scope and structure

N the domains and/or sub-domains addressed

N the principle or principles used in constructing the framework
N structural complexity and level of detail
N the thinking skill categories
N the thinking skill elements
N how well the domains and/or sub-domains are covered
N the extent to which categories overlap
374 D. Moseley et al.

N overall coherence
N distinctiveness

Theory and values

N justification for choice of underlying principles

N explanatory power
N compatibility with similar systems
N consistency with well-supported theories
N pedagogical stance (if any)
N values: explicit/non-explicit; descriptive/prescriptive

Communicability and practical relevance

N clarity of formulation
N accessibility for teachers and learners
N actual and potential areas of application
N implications for understanding teaching and learning
N match with a range of learning activities
N implications for practice in lifelong learning contexts
N actual and potential use in research.
We applied our evaluation criteria to systems of classification which are variously
described as taxonomies, conceptual frameworks, or models. Some strict criteria,
such as the need to have comprehensive and non-overlapping categories, and to
apply classificatory principles in an entirely consistent manner, are applicable to
taxonomies, but less so to frameworks and models. We found some cases where we
felt that what the author describes as a taxonomy is really a framework or a model,
and in such cases we were more interested in clarity and heuristic value than in
theoretical elegance.
As we became familiar with an increasing number of frameworks, we noted many
common features regarding scope and structure and asked ourselves whether it
might be possible to formulate an integrated meta-model against which we could
compare the scope and structure of each framework. We sought to do this partly in
order to create an heuristic device for our own purposes, and partly because we
thought that an integrated model of this kind, expressed in simple language, might
have other uses in research and practice.

Descriptive findings
Of the 55 frameworks identified we found that more than half (29) had been devised
by psychologists, while 21 were authored by educationists and 5 by philosophers.
The most productive decade in the last half of the twentieth century was the 1980s,
 Thinking skills frameworks 375

when as many as 19 frameworks were created. It was also in the 1980s that 5 of the
11 critical thinking frameworks we considered were formulated. Three-quarters of
the 55 frameworks originated in the USA, with only one (Gouge & Yates, 2002)
coming from the UK.
With one early exception (Romiszowski, 1981), all of what we termed all-
embracing frameworks appeared after 1990. These ambitious frameworks were all
constructed by male authors. Overall this is a field which until the mid-1980s was
entirely dominated by men. Diane Halpern (1984) was the first female author to
produce a coherent framework of critical thinking and since that time the gender
ratio for framework authors has remained fairly constant at approximately 4 males to
1 female.
Rather more than one-third (19 out of 55) frameworks are the outcome of
collaborative authorship, while the remainder are attributed to single authors.
Based on a total sample of 74 authors, men were somewhat less likely to work in
partnership with others (49%) than were women (64%). This difference in
proportions is statistically significant at the 5% level.
Cognitive, behavioural, metacognitive and sociocognitive ideas can be identified
in all decades studied. However, frameworks with a behavioural emphasis are more
common in the period 196080 while those in which dispositions, reflection,
metacognition, and self-regulation feature strongly and explicitly appear after that
period.
Not all frameworks reflect the view that thinking is a holistic process in which
cognition, affect and conation are all present in varying degrees, since nearly half of
them (26 out of 55) deal only with cognition. About half (27 frameworks) use
categories which include affect, while 19 frameworks deal with conative aspects.
Only a quarter (14 frameworks) deal with all three and six of these are in the all-
embracing family group.
When we came to examine the structure of the 35 frameworks that we evaluated in
detail, we found that Ashman and Conways categories did not comprehensively
cover all the areas contained in the frameworks. Instead, we decided to devise six
categories to provide comprehensive coverage of generic types of thinking. In doing
so we did not intend that these categories should be mutually exclusive or even
tightly defined, simply that they should reflect broad family resemblances between
the processes and operations itemised in the various frameworks. We describe in a
later section (Can all the frameworks be fitted into a single conceptual system?),
how we arrived at this particular (and provisional) set of six categories. Bearing in
mind the need to use accessible terminology, we used the following descriptors: self-
engagement, reflective thinking, productive thinking, basic thinking skills, knowledge recall
and perception. We show in Table 1 how many frameworks contain categories which
fall within each of these six generic types.
What is evident from this analysis is that not all thinking skill frameworks address
the motivational aspects of thinking (which we called self-engagement). Some do not
consider knowledge recall (a notable exception being Halpern) and the majority
ignore the thinking that is involved in perception (an area which is highly relevant in
376 D. Moseley et al.

Table 1. How different types of thinking are covered in 35 frameworks

Generic category (type of thinking) Number of frameworks providing coverage

Self-engagement 19
Reflective thinking 29
Productive thinking 35
Basic thinking skills 33
Knowledge recall 27
Perception 13

many education and training settings). On the other hand, almost all deal with
relatively simple ways of understanding, elaborating and using what is known (basic
thinking skills) and with more demanding thinking which leads to productive
outcomes. Reflective thinking (a more understandable term than metacognition) is
also generally considered to be qualitatively different from other types of thinking.

Which frameworks have the most to offer in the context of lifelong learning?
We did not find a single framework which can be recommended for widespread
application as a way of giving purpose and structure to the experience of teaching
and learning. At one stage we thought that we might be able to recommend
Marzanos new taxonomy of educational objectives above all others (Marzano,
2001a, b). His framework has two main advantages. It is built on psychological
theory, and has been used to classify the outcomes of educational interventions in
the largest meta-analysis of its kind ever undertaken (Marzano, 1998). However,
there are certain problems with Marzanos approach. Firstly, we do not believe it is
helpful to distinguish as strongly as Marzano does between the self-system and the
metacognitive system, since we see these as being in dynamic interaction. Secondly,
Marzanos set of knowledge utilisation categories omits reasoning and creative thinking.
Thirdly, in his first three cognitive categories, he defines some terms in ways which
diverge from common usage and from the well-known meanings in other
taxonomies.
We decided that three complementary frameworks are likely to be of greater value
than one. Halpern (1997, 2002), has not only become a leading theorist in the area
of critical thinking, but also developed a range of practical learning materials
applicable to a wide age group. In their revision of Blooms taxonomy, Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001) provide a valuable framework for categorising educational
objectives that can be used with any age and ability group. Finally, Pintrichs
(2000) framework, essentially representing a synthesis of current understandings of
self-regulated learning informed by developments in motivation theory, helps
provide greater understanding of key processes relevant to strategic and reflective
thinking. Reflecting our own selection, a recent review of models of self-regulated
learning (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001) has also highlighted Pintrichs synthesis as
being of particular value.
 Thinking skills frameworks 377

However, because thinking skill frameworks can be used for many different
purposes and are constructed on the basis of at least 15 different classificatory
principles, our report also recommends different frameworks for different purposes:
academic study, instructional design, developing pedagogical theory and practice,
consultancy, assessment and research and evaluation. If, for example, the subject of
thinking skills is approached from an academic psychological perspective, both
Halpern (1997, 2002) and Sternberg (1986, 2003) provide very thorough accounts.
From a philosophical perspective, the frameworks of Ennis (1987), Lipman (1991,
2003) and Paul (1990, 1993) repay detailed study. Lipmans community of
enquiry approach to the development of thinking and learning involves philoso-
phical discussion of issues of importance or concern and has the advantage of being
supported by a well-structured pedagogy. His 3Cs of CriticalCreativeCaring
thinking are readily understood by teachers and learners. For instructional design
purposes Anderson and Krathwohls (2001) revision of Blooms taxonomy is
particularly useful.

Can all the frameworks be fitted into a single conceptual system?

We found that all seven all-embracing frameworks have certain common structural
features and share all or some of these with every other framework, especially with
those directed at instructional design. We also recognised features related to Blooms
taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain in many of the
frameworks, in particular the three-tier distinction between knowledge and basic and
higher order thinking.
All the frameworks we evaluated included classifications of higher order or, the
term we preferred, productive thinking (cf. Romiszowski, 1981). Roughly synony-
mous with Blooms analysis, synthesis and evaluation, this should result in a
productive outcome such as a deeper understanding of an issue, a judgement,
solution or decision, or in a tangible product, such as an invention or work of art.
Productive thinking includes critical thinking, and is supported by critical
dispositions and related habits of mind.
Our model involved going beyond a basic three-tier conception. We incorporated
the important distinction between perceiving and recalling knowledge as ways of
accessing information. We also wished to reflect current understandings as to the
importance of metacognitive/reflective and motivational/conative factors, so we
employed the terms reflective thinking and self-engagement to capture these elements.
This resulted in a provisional six-category model that appeared to offer a helpful and
coherent conception of the processes and operations detailed in the frameworks.
Our next step was to try to achieve a practitioner-friendly integrated model of
thinking and learning, based on the six-category framework. We did this through
discussions and a sorting exercise with further education college teachers, by debate
within the project team, by reacting to feedback from regional and national steering
groups and after presentations at conferences and academic seminars. We were
finally able to create a restructured version of the six-category framework, which is
378 D. Moseley et al.

Figure 1. An integrated model for understanding thinking and learning

presented in schematic form in Figure 1. It will be seen that we introduced the more
general term value-grounded thinking to indicate that, while reflection is very often
valuable, so are other ways of thinking, depending on context and purpose. As we
had criticised Marzano for making too sharp a distinction between self-system and
metacognitive system, we adopted a more holistic concept of strategic and reflective
thinking. This category is really about what makes for good thinking, especially
through the use of self-regulation and metacognition. We adopted the term
information-gathering to subsume skills involved in perception, recognition and
retrieval and decided to use the term building understanding to avoid any negative
connotations of the original basic thinking skills.
Our model clearly delineates cognitive from metacognitive/self-regulatory pro-
cesses. There are various disagreements about whether metacognition or self-
regulation is the more all-embracing term, a debate compounded by the degree of
overlap and ambiguity in various theorists definitions (Zeidner et al., 2000). However,
in our use of the terms strategic and reflective thinking we reflect the various
meanings of both terms, in particular, that these concern awareness and control, not
only of cognitive processes, but also of those relating to motivation and affect.
Cognitive and strategic/reflective processes differ in a number of ways. Unlike
information-gathering, building understanding and productive thinking, which are phases
in the process of thinking, strategic and reflective thinking may be employed at any
phase. Thus, in a chess game, we may, from the outset, decide upon a given strategy
(for example, all-out attack), monitor whether our choice of moves is in line with our
overarching strategy, reflect upon its ongoing effectiveness, determine whether the
selected strategy requires revision, evaluate the strategy in light of the outcome, and
ultimately draw upon our experiences for subsequent use in the future. Equally, we
can gather information in non-verbal ways about peoples behaviour, intuitively and
empathetically come to understand their intentions, and deliberately adopt new
strategies which are aimed at forestalling and/or resolving conflicts.
 Thinking skills frameworks 379

A second key difference concerns the degree of conscious control that is exercised.
While it is agreed that cognitive skills are procedures that often become automatised,
there has been greater debate about whether metacognitive procedures must always
be active and conscious. Flavell and Wellman (1977) have suggested, for example,
that repeated thinking about thinking, in respect of a given activity, may become
increasingly automatised and eventually non-conscious. However, to escape this
dilemma, most researchers have now accepted the convention that the term
metacognitive should be reserved for conscious and deliberate thoughts that have
other thoughts as their object (Hacker, 1998, p. 8).
To some extent the two-way arrows between strategic and reflective thinking and
cognitive skills in Figure 1 represent something of an oversimplification. While
cognitive skills can often be exercised in non-strategic and unreflective ways, the
reverse is impossible, as strategic processes necessarily require information-gathering
and other cognitive skills. Furthermore, thinking is a complex dynamic system which
is only partially accessible to consciousness. We are not making any claims about
how thinking starts or about how far any kind of framework can accommodate its
dynamic and holistic qualities. What we do claim is that when thinking is strategic
and reflective (i.e. carried out with conscious purpose, careful monitoring and
evaluation), meaningful learning (Ausubel, 1968) is more likely to occur.
The three components (information gathering, building understanding and productive
thinking) within the cognitive skill part of the framework do not always feature in a
simple linear fashion; for example, it is possible to go straight from information
gathering to productive thinking, without a phase of building understanding.
Although information gathering is necessary to build understanding or ensure
productive thinking, it is not necessarily a simpler or less conscious process. Neither
does it feature only as a first phase of an activity. While the most recognisable
thinking process would appear to involve a series of overlapping phases involving
information gathering at the outset, a gradual building of understanding and,
ultimately, productive thinking, there are likely to be many occasions when learners
will come to realise that they need to acquire more information or revise their initial
understandings. To reflect this forward and back shift across components,
demarcations are represented by dotted lines in the diagram.
While complex multilevel hierarchies may appear to offer more finely grained
distinctions, we believe that the two-level structure of our model offers a more
helpful and accessible representation of how people think and learn. The model has
the advantage of being compatible with the National Curriculum categories as well
as with leading theories about thinking and learning. The motivational and
regulatory aspects of thinking (which cognitive psychologists think of as functions
involving the central executive) are distinguished from other processes, but, unlike
Marzano, we do not see the need to distinguish between a self-system and
metacognitive system. Conscious planning, monitoring and evaluating functions are
not neatly separable into two components, as in Marzanos model. This is
recognised by Pintrich (2000), who includes Marzanos self-system and metacognitive
system functions within a unified framework of self-regulated learning.
380 D. Moseley et al.

Conclusion
Despite there being many differences in scope and in emphasis between theoretical
frameworks for understanding thinking which have been put forward during the last
half-century, there are also important common features.
Using agreed criteria and six generic categories against which to compare the
content of each framework (Table 1), we were able to evaluate 35 theoretical
frameworks for understanding thinking skills. This led us to put forward an
integrated model which may be of value to education researchers and practitioners
seeking to develop understanding about aspects of teaching and learning. It offers a
structure to help identify, articulate, discuss and assess aspects of thinking in the
process of learning. As it is expressed in simple language and is inclusive in
conception, it may help promote positive change in the belief systems of many
people, and so improve the quality of thinking and learning.

References
Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1990) Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high
school students, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 97104.
Adey, P., Shayer, M. & Yates, C. (2001) Thinking science: the curriculum materials of the CASE
project (3rd edn) (London, Nelson Thornes).
Ainscow, M. & Tweddle, D. (1984) Early learning skills analysis (Chichester, Wiley & Sons).
Allen, R. R., Feezel, J. D. & Kauffie, F. J. (1967) A taxonomy of concepts and critical abilities related to
the evaluation of verbal arguments, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive
Learning Occasional Paper No. 9 (Madison, WI, University of Wisconsin. Ed 016658).
Altshuller, G. S. & Shapiro, R. V. (1956) About a technology of creativity, Questions of Psychology,
6, 3749 (in Russian).
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds) (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching and
assessing: a revision of Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives (New York, Longman).
Arter, J. A. & Jenkins, J. R. (1979) Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: a critical appraisal,
Review of Educational Research, 49, 517555.
Ashman, A. F. & Conway, R. N. F. (1997) An introduction to cognitive education: theory and
applications (London, Routledge).
Ausubel, D. P. (1968) Educational psychology: a cognitive view (New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
Ausubel, D. P. & Robinson, F. G. (1969) School learning: an introduction to educational psychology
(New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
Baron, J. (1985) Rationality and intelligence (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R. & Tarule, J. M. (1986) Womens ways of
knowing: the development of self, voice, and mind (New York, Basic Books).
Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K. F. (1982) Evaluating the quality of learning the Solo Taxonomy (1st edn)
(New York, Academic Press).
Blagg, N. R., Lewis, R. E. & Ballinger, M. P. (1993) Thinking and learning at work: a report on the
development and evaluation of the thinking skills at work modules (London, Department of
Employment).
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain (New
York, Longmans).
Bloomer, M. (1997) Curriculum making in post-16 education (London, Routledge).
Brown, A. L. & Campione, J. C. (1986) Training for transfer: guidelines for promoting flexible use
of trained skills, in: M. G. Wade (Ed.) Motor skill acquisition of the mentally retarded
(Amsterdam, North Holland).
 Thinking skills frameworks 381

Buchel, F. P., Schlatter, C. & Scharnhorst, U. (1997) Training and assessment of analogical
reasoning in students with severe learning difficulties, Educational and Child Psychology,
14(4), 109120.
Carroll, J. B. (1993) Human cognitive abilities: a survey of the factor-analytic literature (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
Costa, A. L. (2001) Developing minds. A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd edn) (Alexandria,
VA, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L. & Van De Ven, A. (2001) Improving text comprehension strategies
in upper primary school children: a design experiment, British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 531559.
Department of Education and Science (1967) Children and their primary schools: a report of
the Central Advisory Council for Education (England): Volume 1: The Report (London,
HMSO).
Department of Employment (1981) New training initiative: a programme for action (Government
White Paper) (London, HMSO).
Dewey, J. (1897) My pedagogic creed, The School Journal, 54(3), 7780.
Dewey, J. (1933) How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process
(Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin).
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, W. H.
Freeman & Company).
Feuerstein, R. (1980) Instrumental enrichment intervention programme for cognitive modifiability
(Baltimore, MD, University Park Press).
Flavell, J. (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving, in: J. Resnick (Ed.) The nature of
intelligence (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Flavell, J. J. & Wellman, H. M. (1977) Metamory, in: R. V. Kail, Jr & J. W. Hagen (Eds)
Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates).
Flavell, J. J., Fredericks, A. B. & Hoyt, J. D. (1970) Developmental changes in memorization
processes, Cognitive Psychology, 1, 324340.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R. & Schroeter, K.
(2003) Enhancing third-grade students mathematical problem solving with self-regulated
learning strategies, Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 306315.
Gagne, R. M. (1965) The conditions of learning (1st edn) (New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
Gagne, R. M. (1985) The conditions of learning (4th edn) (New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of mind (New York, Basic Books).
Gouge, K. & Yates, C. (2002) Creating a CA programme in the arts: the Wigan LEA Arts Project,
in: M. Shayer & P. Adey (Eds) Learning intelligence: cognitive acceleration across the curriculum
from 5 to 15 years (Buckingham, Open University Press).
Gubbins, E. J. (1986) Gubbinss Matrix of Thinking Skills, in: R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Critical
thinking: its nature, measurement and improvement (Eric Document Reproduction Service
No. 272882).
Guilford, J. P. (1967) The nature of human intelligence (New York, McGraw-Hill).
Hacker, D. J. (1998) Definitions and empirical foundations, in: D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky
& A. C. Graesser (Eds) Metacognition in educational theory and practice (Hillsdale, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Halpern, D. F. (1984) Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking (Hillsdale, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Halpern, D. F. (1997) Critical thinking across the curriculum: a brief edition of thought and knowledge
(Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Halpern, D. F. (2002) Thinking critically about critical thinking (4th edn) (workbook) (Mahwah, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
382 D. Moseley et al.

Hamers, J. H.M. & Overtoom, M. T. (Eds) (1997) Teaching thinking in Europe (Utrecht, Sardes).
Hannah, L. S. & Michaelis, J. U. (1977) A comprehensive framework for instructional objectives: a guide
to systematic planning and evaluation (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley).
Hauenstein, A. D. (1998) A conceptual framework for educational objectives: a holistic approach to
traditional taxonomies (Lanham, MD, University Press of America).
Higgins, S., Baumfield, V., Lin, M., Moseley, D., Butterworth, M. & Downey, G. et al. (2004)
Thinking skills approaches to effective teaching and learning: what is the evidence for impact on
learners? (London, EPPI-Centre).
Jewell, P. (1996) A reasoning taxonomy for gifted children, paper presented at the National
Conference of the Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented, Adelaide.
Available online at: www.nexus.edu.au/teachstud/gat/jewell1.htm (accessed 13 May 2002).
Jonassen, D. H. & Tessmer, M. (1996/97) An outcomes-based taxonomy for instructional systems
design, evaluation and research, Training Research Journal, 2, 1146.
Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (1987) Substance over style: assessing the efficacy of modality
testing and teaching, Exceptional Children, 54(3), 228239.
King, P. M. & Kitchener, K. S. (1994) Developing reflective judgment: understanding and promoting
intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-
Bass).
Klauer, K. J. & Phye, G. D. (1995) Cognitive training for children (Seattle, WA, Hogrefe & Huber).
Koplowitz, H. (1987) Post-logical thinking, in: D. N. Perkins, J. Lochhead & J. Bishop (Eds)
Thinking: the Second International Conference (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
Leat, D. (Ed) (1998) Thinking through geography (Cambridge, Chris Kington Publishing).
Lipman, M. & Sharp, A. M. (1975) Philosophical Inquiry. Instructional manual to accompany Harry
Stottlemeiers discovery (Upper Montclair, NJ, Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy
for Children).
Lipman, M. (1991) Thinking in education (1st edn) (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Lipman, M. (2003) Thinking in education (2nd edn) (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Marzano, R. J. (1998) A theory-based meta-analysis of research on instruction (Aurora, CO, Mid-
continent Regional Educational Laboratory). Available online at: http://www.mcrel.org/
products/learning/meta.asp
Marzano, R. J. (2001a) Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives (Thousand Oaks, CA,
Corwin Press).
Marzano, R. J. (2001b) A new taxonomy of educational objectives, in: A. L. Costa (Ed.)
Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking (3rd edn) (Alexandria, VA, Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publications).
Mager, R. F. (1990) Preparing instructional objectives (2nd edn) (London, Kogan Page).
McGuinness, C. (1999) From thinking skills to thinking classrooms: a review and evaluation of
approaches for developing pupils thinking. DfEE Research Report RR115 (Norwich, HMSO).
McNeil, P. (2002) Adding value: integrating the wider keys skills (London, Learning and Skills
Development Agency).
Metzinger, T. (2003) Being no one: the self-model theory of subjectivity (Cambridge MA,
MIT Press).
Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., Elliott, J., Gregson, M., Higgins, S., Lin, M., Miller, J., Newton, D.
& Robson, S. (2004) Thinking skill frameworks for post-16 learners: an evaluation (London,
Learning and Skills Research Centre).
Paul, R. (1982) Teaching critical thinking in the strong sense: a focus on self-deception,
worldviews, and a dialectical mode of analysis, Informal Logic, 4(2), 27.
Paul, R. (1987) Dialogical thinking: critical thought essential to the acquisition of rational
knowledge and passions, in: J. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds) Teaching thinking skills: theory
and practice (New York, W. H. Freeman).
 Thinking skills frameworks 383

Paul, R. (1990) Critical thinkingwhat every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world
(Rohnert Park, CA, Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique).
Paul, R. (1993) Critical thinkingwhat every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world (3rd
edn) (Santa Rosa, CA, Foundation for Critical Thinking).
Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970) Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme
(New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
Piaget, J. (1971 reprint) The psychology of intelligence (Hove, Routledge).
Pintrich, P. R. (2000) The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning, in: M. Boekaerts,
P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds) Handbook of self-regulation (London, Academic
Press).
Presseisen, B. Z. (1991) Thinking skills: meanings and models revisited, in: A. L. Costa (Ed.)
Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking (vol. 1) (Alexandria, VA, Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development Publications).
Presseisen, B. Z. (2001) Thinking skills: meanings and models revisited, in: A. L. Costa (Ed.)
Developing minds: a resource book for teaching thinking (3rd edn) (Alexandria, VA, Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publications).
Puustinen, M. & Pulkkinen, L. (2001) Models of self-regulated learning: a review, Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 45, 269286.
Quellmalz, E. S. (1987) Developing reasoning skills, in: J. R. Baron & R. J. Sternberg (Eds)
Teaching thinking skills: theory and practice (New York, Freedman Press).
Richelle, M. & Feuerstein, R. (1957) Enfants Juifs Nord-Africans (Jerusalem, Youth Aliyah).
Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in thinking. Cognitive development in social context (New York,
Oxford University Press).
Romiszowski, A. J. (1981) Designing instructional systems: decision making in course planning and
curriculum design (London, Kogan Page).
Smith, G. F. (2002) Thinking skills: the question of generality, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34,
659678.
Stahl, R. J. & Murphy, G. T. (1981) The domain of cognition: an alternative to Blooms cognitive
domain within the framework of an information processing model (Eric Document Reproduction
Service No. 208 511).
Sternberg, R. J. (1986) Critical Thinking: Its Nature, Measurement and Improvement (Eric Document
Reproduction Service No. 272882).
Sternberg, R. J. (2001) Giftedness as developing expertise: a theory of the interface between high
abilities and achieved excellence, High Ability Studies, 12(2), 159179.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003) Cognitive psychology (3rd edn) (Belmont, CA, Wadsworth).
Sutcliffe, R. (2003) Is teaching philosophy a high road to cognitive enhancement? Educational and
Child Psychology, 20(2), 6579.
Swanson, H. L. (1999) Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment
outcomes (New York, Guilford Press).
Swanson, H. L. (2000) Searching for the best cognitive model for instructing students with
learning disabilities: a component and composite analysis, Educational and Child Psychology,
17(3), 101121.
Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning and school in social
context (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Van Gelder, T. J. (2000) Learning to reason: a reason!-able approach, in: C. Davis, T. J. van
Gelder & R. Wales (Eds) Cognitive science in Australia, 2000: Proceedings of the Fifth
Australasian Cognitive Science Society Conference (Adelaide, Causal).
Velmans, M. (2000) Understanding consciousness (London, Routledge).
Vermunt, J. D. & Verloop, N. (1999) Congruence and friction between learning and teaching,
Learning and Instruction, 9, 257280.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934) (reprinted 1962) Thought and language (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind and society (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).
384 D. Moseley et al.

Wells, G. (1999) Dialogic inquiry: toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
Williams, F. E. (1970) Classroom ideas for encouraging thinking and feeling (Buffalo, NY, DOK
Publishers).
Wong, B. Y. & Jones, W. (1982) Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally
achieving students through self-questioning training, Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(3),
228240.
Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M. & Pintrich, P. R. (2000) Self-regulation: directions and challenges for
future research, in: M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds) Handbook of self-
regulation (London, Academic Press).
Zukas, M. & Malcolm, J. (2002) Pedagogies for lifelong learning: building bridges or building
walls? in: R. Harrison, F. Reeve, A. Hanson & J. Clarke (Eds) Supporting lifelong learning
(London, Routledge/Open University).

Appendix 1. The Family Groups of Taxonomies

The 35 frameworks evaluated in depth in the Learning and Skills Research Centre
Report report (Moseley et al., 2004, Appendix 1, pp. 7177) are briefly outlined below.

Group 1: all-embracing frameworks, covering personality, thought and learning

While all six authors within this group seek to provide a comprehensive account of
thinking and learning in which emotions and beliefs play a part, only Hauenstein,
Jonassen and Tessmer and Marzano classify educational goals within and beyond
the cognitive domain. Sternbergs model (2001) was not designed for this purpose,
although it does have significant pedagogical implications. Romiszowskis writing
has a broad theoretical scope as well as a focus on course planning and curriculum
design. His analysis of skills in the form of a learning cycle was not designed to
replace existing taxonomies of educational objectives, but as a conceptual tool to
analyse the causes of poor performance (Romiszowski, 1981, p. 257).

198089
Romizowskis analysis of knowledge and skills (Romiszowski, 1981). Romiszowski
distinguishes between reproductive and productive learning in four skill domains:
cognitive, psychomotor, reactive and interactive. He identifies abilities which may be
used in perception, recall, planning and performance.

199099
Hauensteins conceptual framework for educational objectives (Hauenstein, 1998). Acqui-
sition, assimilation, adaptation, performance and aspiration are successive levels of
learning in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. At each level and
within each domain Hauenstein identifies processes which help build under-
standing, skills and dispositions.
 Thinking skills frameworks 385

Jonassen and Tessmers taxonomy of learning outcomes (Jonassen & Tessmer, 1996/
97). The major categories in this taxonomy are: declarative knowledge, structural
knowledge, cognitive component skills, situated problem solving, knowledge
complexes, ampliative skills, self-knowledge, reflective self-knowledge, executive
control, motivation (disposition) and attitude.

Vermunt and Verloops categorisation of learning activities (Vermunt & Verloop,

1999). The cognitive categories are: relating/structuring; analysing; concretising/
applying; memorising/rehearsing; critical processing; selecting. The affective
categories cover motivation and the management of feelings. The regulative
categories are an elaboration of plan-do-review.

20002003
Marzanos new taxonomy of educational objectives (Marzano, 2001a,b). The self
system examines the importance of new knowledge, efficacy (ability to learn) and
emotions associated with knowledge and motivation. The metacognitive system
specifies learning goals and monitors execution, clarity and accuracy. The cognitive
system deals with retrieval, comprehension, analysis and knowledge utilisation.

Sternbergs model of abilities as developing expertise (Sternberg, 2001). This model

includes the analytical, creative and practical aspects of successful intelligence,
metacognition, learning skills, knowledge, motivation and the influence of context.

Group 2: instructional design frameworks

Blooms (1956) well-known taxonomy has been used throughout the world as a
framework for designing instruction, and many similarities, if not direct influence,
can been seen in the work of Ausubel and Robinson (1969), Gagne (1965, 1985),
Hannah and Michaelis (1977), Stahl and Murphy (1981) and Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001). All these authors provide frameworks for formulating and
classifying educational goals in terms of the thinking and learning processes which
can be inferred from observed behaviour or task performance. Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001) explicitly revised Blooms cognitive domain taxonomy.
A second group of authors (Biggs & Collis [1982], Quellmalz [1987], Presseisen
[1991, 2001] and Gouge & Yates [2002]) share an interest in designing instruction
so as to develop higher order thinking, and have built conceptual frameworks for
understanding how thinking skills are orchestrated for purposes such as decision-
making, problem-solving, critical and creative thinking. The focus here sometimes
extends beyond the cognitive domain and usually includes an account of
metacognition.
Feuersteins (1980) Instrumental Enrichment represents an individual approach
to instructional design, in which practitioners base their work on a specific set of
cognitive tasks and pedagogical principles.
386 D. Moseley et al.

195059
Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives (cognitive domain) (Bloom, 1956). This
framework is a way of classifying educational goals in terms of complexity. The
intellectual abilities and skills of comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and
evaluation are applied to and help build knowledge.

Feuersteins theory of Mediated Learning through Instrumental Enrichment (Richelle &

Feuerstein, 1957; Feuerstein, 1980). Building on his belief in cognitive modifiability,
Feuerstein developed the concept of a mediated learning experience in which the
mediator uses prescribed tasks to promote thinking rather than rote learning.

196069
Ausubel and Robinsons six hierarchically ordered categories (Ausubel & Robinson,
1969). These are: representational learning, concept learning, propositional
learning, application, problem-solving and creativity.

Gagnes eight types of learning and five types of learned capability (Gagne, 1965,
1985). Gagne set out an eight-level hierarchy of learning types, with problem-
solving at the top. He also identified five domains of learning: motor skills, verbal
information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies and attitudes.

197079
Hannah and Michaeliss comprehensive framework for instructional objectives (Hannah &
Michaelis, 1979). The cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains are covered.
Interpreting, comparing, classifying, generalising, inferring, analysing, synthesising,
hypothesising, predicting and evaluating are listed as intellectual processes.

Williamss model for developing thinking and feeling processes (Williams, 1970). This
three-dimensional cross-curricular model seeks to encourage creativity. Teachers
can use 18 teaching modes to promote fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration,
curiosity, risk-taking, complexity and imagination.

198089
Biggs and Colliss SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982). This is an assessment tool
looking at the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome. Prestructural responses
betray limited understanding compared with unistructural and multistructural
responses. Relational and extended abstract responses are qualitatively superior.

Quellmalzs framework of thinking skills (Quellmalz, 1987). This framework lists five
cognitive processes (recall, analysis, comparison, inference/interpretation and
 Thinking skills frameworks 387

evaluation) and three metacognitive processes (planning, monitoring and reviewing/

revising).

Stahl and Murphys domain of cognition taxonomic system (Stahl & Murphy,
1981). These authors set out a multi-stage model of information-processing from
preparation to generation. They also identify 21 cognitive processes (e.g.
classifying, organising, selecting, utilising, verifying) which may be used singly or
in combinations at different levels.

199099
Presseisens models of basic, complex and metacognitive thinking skills (Presseisen, 1991:
2001). Presseisen lists five basic processes which are used in problem-solving,
decision-making, critical thinking and creative thinking. She also lists six
metacognitive thinking skills involved in strategy selection, understanding and
monitoring.

20002003
Anderson and Krathwohls revision of Blooms taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). Blooms taxonomy has been refined and developed into a two-dimensional
framework using six cognitive processes and four knowledge categories. There is an
emphasis on aligning learning objectives with learning activities and assessment.

Gouge and Yatess ARTS Project taxonomies of Arts Reasoning and Thinking Skills
(Gouge & Yates, 2002). A matrix of Piagets levels (concrete, concrete transitional
and formal operational thinking) and reasoning skills is used to create educational
objectives for the visual arts, music and drama.

Group 3: frameworks for understanding critical and productive thinking

This is a fairly homogeneous group where the main emphasis is on the quality of
higher-order thinking and reasoning. Good thinking is aided by reflection and
metacognition. All authors identify dispositions which they believe to be extremely
important in the development of critical and/or productive thinking, with the
exception of Allen et al. (1967), who limit themselves to argument analysis, and
Gubbins (1986), whose purpose was to make a composite list of critical thinking
skills for a school district.

195059
Altshullers TRIZ Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (Altshuller, 1956). There are
four main steps: problem-definition; problem-solving tool selection; generating
solutions; evaluating solutions. A specific problem is an instance of a generic
388 D. Moseley et al.

problem which is solved when the appropriate generic solution is returned to a

specific solution.

196069
Allen, Feezel and Kauffies taxonomy of critical abilities related to the evaluation of verbal
arguments (Allen et al., 1967). Twelve abilities are involved in the recognition,
analysis and evaluation of arguments. Truth claims depend on testimony and
reasons. People should not be misled by rhetoric or the misuse of language.

197079
Lipmans three modes of thinking and four main varieties of cognitive skill (Lipman &
Sharp, 1975; Lipman, 2003). Judgement and reasoning can be strengthened through
critical, creative and caring thinking. In education the four major varieties of higher
order thinking relate to: inquiry, reasoning (preserving truth), information-
organising and translation (preserving meaning).

198089
Barons model of the good thinker (Baron, 1985). The most important components of
the model are the three conscious search processesfor goals, for possibilities and
for evidence. Good thinking and the dispositions underlying it are to some extent
teachable.

Enniss taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities (Ennis, 1987). Critical
thinking is reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on what to believe or do.
For Ennis the basic areas of critical thinking are clarity, basis, inference and
interaction. He lists 12 relevant dispositions and 15 abilities.

Gubbinss taxonomy (Gubbins, 1986). This is a composite list of core critical

thinking skills, based on other published lists. The skills are grouped under the
following headings: problem-solving, decision-making, inferences, divergent think-
ing, evaluating, philosophy and reasoning.

Halperns reviews of critical thinking skills and dispositions (Halpern, 1984,

1997). Halperns skill categories are: memory, thought and language, deductive
reasoning, argument analysis, hypothesis testing, likelihood and uncertainty,
decision-making, problem-solving, and creative thinking. She also lists six relevant
dispositions.

Pauls model of critical thinking (Paul, 1982, 1987, 1993). The model has four parts:
elements of reasoning, standards of critical thinking, intellectual abilities and
 Thinking skills frameworks 389

intellectual traits. The first three parts focus on what is essential to critical thinking
and the fourth on what it is to be a critical thinker.

199099
Jewells reasoning taxonomy for gifted children (Jewell, 1996). Jewells taxonomy has
three fields: objectives of reasoning, reasoning strategies and reasoning dispositions.
The disposition to adopt thinking about thinking (metacognition) as a habit is very
important.

Group 4: explanatory models of cognitive structure and/or cognitive development

This family group is the most diverse and includes different approaches to analysing
the concept of intelligence. Some theorists (Guilford [1967], Gardner [1983] and
Carroll [1993]) categorise thinking and problem-solving processes in similar ways in
school-aged children and in adults, but have different views about genetic and
environment influences on and the structure of intellect. Stage theorists argue for
qualitative changes in thinking as the learner develops or progresses (Perry [1970],
Belenky et al. [1986], King & Kitchener [1994], Koplowitz [1987]). Pintrich (2000)
focuses exclusively on metacognition and self-regulation.

196069
Guilfords structure of intellect model (Guilford, 1967). This is a three-dimensional
model in which five cognitive operations work with four types of content to produce
six types of product. The operations are: cognition, memory, divergent thinking,
convergent thinking and evaluation.

Perrys developmental scheme (Perry, 1970). The scheme consists of nine positions
which liberal arts college students take up as they progress in intellectual and ethical
development. They move from the modifying of eitheror dualism to the realising
of relativism and then to the evolving of commitments.

198089
Belenkys Womens Ways of Knowing developmental model (Belenky et al.,
1986). Women in adult education tended to progress from: silence (a reaction to
authority), to received knowledge, to subjective knowledge, to procedural knowledge
(including separate and connected knowing), and finally to constructed knowledge.

Gardners theory of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983). Gardner identifies nine

kinds of intellectual ability: verbal/linguistic, mathematical/logical, musical, visual/
spatial, bodily/kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist and existential.
390 D. Moseley et al.

King and Kitcheners reflective judgment model (King & Kitchener, 1994). This is a
seven-stage model of progression in adolescent and adult reasoning. Assumptions
about knowledge and strategies for solving ill-structured problems can move from
pre-reflective through quasi-reflective to reflective stages.

Koplowitzs stages in adult cognitive development (Koplowitz, 1987). Koplowitz builds

on Piagets stage theory but adds two postmodern stages beyond the formal
operations stagepost-logical and unitary thinking. The stages reflect changes in
how people understand causation, logic, relationships, problems, abstractions and
boundaries.

19909
Carrolls three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities (Carroll, 1993). This theory has a
well-founded empirical basis for thinking of cognitive tasks as making demands on
narrow and/or broad abilities as well as on general intelligence.

20002003
Pintrichs general framework for self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2000). Pintrich
identifies four phases of self-regulation. Cognition, motivation/affect, behaviour
and context can be regulated by: (1) forethought, planning and activation, (2)
monitoring, (3) control, and (4) reaction and reflection.