reflection 6

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

1

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse in the Classroom:

Implications of Cultivating Habits of Mind, Visible Thinking, and Teaching for

Understanding in a Graduate Childhood Curriculum Course

Angela K. Salmon, Ed.D.

Florida International University

Debra Mayes Pane, Ph.D.

Florida International University

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

2

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse in the Classroom:

Implications of Cultivating Habits of Mind, Visible Thinking, and Teaching for

Understanding in a Graduate Childhood Curriculum Course

It is common for teachers to teach in the same way that they were taught. In their teacher

discourse, teachers often communicate and reflect their philosophies of teaching and learning,

teaching approaches, and habits of mind. This chapter presents our approach of embedding and

consolidating the Habits of Mind (HoM) and using the Visible Thinking (VT) approach to

develop thinking dispositions within a Teaching for Understanding (TfU) framework (Blyte &

Associates, 1998) in a graduate course (Childhood Curriculum, EDE 6205) in the College of

Education (COE) at Florida International University (FIU) which is designed for candidates to

study curriculum theory, research, construction, and evaluation. The combination of approaches

have been designed and applied to enhance thinking and understanding of teachers/master’s

degree candidates’ enrolled in the MS Curriculum and Instruction – Jamaican program.

Additionally, we designed a qualitative case study of course participants to explore the three

important interrelated frameworks [HoM-VT- TfU] for developing dialogical and dialectical

thinking through teachers’ discourse (Flyvbjerg, 2011). The study took place in in several

regions of Jamaica during the summer term, 2012. The study included the candidates’ field

notes and audio/videotaping of their lessons taught at early childhood, elementary, middle, and

high school levels in very diverse learning settings in grades pK-12 schools. We triangulated the

data from different candidates’ artifacts that revealed how the three frameworks of EDE 6205

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

3

were a call to action in their current practices to reflect on their classroom discourse, and that the

new ideas/approaches would have favorable implications in their students’ learning outcomes.

Childhood Curriculum Course EDE 6205

Thinking is a critical component in the learning process. Learning is a consequence of

thinking (Perkins, 1992); thus, we believe that it is important for teachers to interpret the concept

of thinking and how it is reflected in their discourse in the classroom. EDE 6205 was designed

with this end-goal in mind.

Our Philosophy: Setting the Stage for Dialogical and Dialectical Thinking

Paul (2001) distinguishes between two theories that reveal the teacher’s discourse in the

classroom: (a) the didactic teaching theory and (b) the dialogical and dialectical thinking theory.

We differentiate between these two theories to illustrate how the performances of understanding

for this course were planned with the end-goal in mind of helping teachers reflect on their initial

didactic teaching and their shift to a dialogical and dialectical thinking and teaching practices.

The didactic teaching theory is a teacher-centered approach that encourages the teacher’s

monologic thinking from beginning to end. Didactic instruction is teaching by telling (The

Critical Thinking Community, 2012). Teachers provide students with explicit knowledge to

memorize, and the teachers expect students to regurgitate the same knowledge back to them. In

the didactic teachingapproach, students’ knowledge is separate from understanding and

justification. In other words, didactic teaching assumes that teachers can give students

knowledge directly without their having to think their way through it. (See Appendix A, EDE

6205 Stories from the Authors’ Personal Experiences concerning didactic teaching theory and

approaches.)

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

4

On the other hand, the dialogical and dialectical thinking theory involves dialogue or

extended exchange between different points of view or frames of reference. Teachers

purposefully create a classroom culture of thinking, talking, and collaborative learning. Within

this perspective, teachers show students how to use their own thinking to figure out the thinking

of another as they listen carefully to the thoughts of another and try to make sense of those

thoughts. For Dottin (2010), the effort of teacher education programs is to help candidates move,

like children, past impulse to the more intelligent level of pedagogical conduct, that is, to grow in

professional judgment (p 8). When students arrange their thoughts, orally or in writing, they are

reasoning dialogically (Paul, 2001). In the next sections, we explore how to engage

teachers/master’s degree candidates in dialogical and dialectical thinking through the a process

that ultimately aims for exposure to the Habits of Mind (HoM), the Visible Thinking (VT), and

Teaching for Understanding (TfU) frameworks. The following passages represent the

foundational aspects of the three frameworks.

Habits of Mind: Dispositions Toward Behaving Intellectually

The Habits of Mind (HoM) are performed in response to people’s questions and

problematic situations (Costa & Kallick, 2009). HoM are defined as dispositions toward

behaving intelligently when confronted with problems—the answers to which are not

immediately known. Costa and Kallick (2009) propose sixteen HoM, such as persisting,

managing impulsivity, listening with understanding and empathy, and thinking flexibly, among

others. The HoM can enrich different curriculum models. We use Costa and Kallick’s (2008)

four levels of educational outcomes framework (see Figure 1.1) as a foundation to justify our

interpretation of the HoM within the particular learning community in this study.

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

5

Figure 1.1: Four levels of educational outcomes.

Reprinted with permission from ASCD.

The HoM require a composite of many skills, attitude cues, past experiences, and

proclivities. Internalizing the HoM means that we do not value one pattern of thinking over

another, which implies we make choices about which pattern should be employed at the time.

Visible Thinking (VT): Cognitive Tasks That Demand Skillful Thinking

Our interpretation of the cognitive tasks that demand skillful thinking draws from our

experience with the VT approach and the TfU framework. Both approaches are compatible with

Costa and Kallick’s (2008) idea of providing students with sufficiently authentic, engaging, and

challenging curricula, instead of merely reproducing knowledge. The VT approach, developed

by Project Zero researchers (Ritchhart & Perkins, 2008), is a broad and flexible framework for

enriching classroom learning in the content areas while fostering students’ intellectual

development. The key goals of VT are to (a) deepen learners’ understanding of content, (b)

increase motivation for learning, (c) develop learners’ thinking and learning abilities, (d) develop

learners’ attitudes toward thinking and learning, (e) develop learners’ alertness to opportunities

for thinking and learning—the dispositional side of thinking, and (f) shift the classroom culture

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

6

toward a community of enthusiastically engaged thinkers and learners. Within this framework,

an understanding of the eight cultural forces that Ritchhart (2002) proposes leads us to appreciate

how teachers can create cultures of thinking in their classrooms.

Cultural Forces. Tishman, Perkins and Jay (1995) claim that schools are places of

culture not only in the sense of intellectual achievements, but also the sense of community and

spirit of common enterprise. A culture of thinking exists in a classroom when the cultural forces

of that classroom are directed toward, and aligned with, the support of good thinking (Ritchhart,

2002). The use of Thinking Routines (TRs) uncovers children’s thinking and provokes

collective thinking, or dialogical and dialectical thinking. Dialogical and dialectical thinking

involve dialogue or extended exchange between different points of view or frames of reference

(Paul, 2001). The interplay between nature and nurture plays a critical role in promoting

children’s cognitive development. We do not teach children to talk, but we provide them with

opportunities to engage them in talking. As Vygotsky (1978) pointed out—children grow into

the intellectual life of those around them. Children are born with genetic codes that influence

their cognitive development, however, we need to nurture their thinking. We can see these

opportunities reflected in Ritchhart’s (2002) eight cultural forces:

 Time for thinking, allocating time for exploring topics in depth

 Expectations for thinking and learning, setting the agenda of understanding and value for

thinking

 Opportunities for engaging in thinking, providing purposeful activities that require

students’ cognitive engagement and understanding

 Routines which are structures that scaffold thinking and learning

 Language and conversations centered on thinking products and stances

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

7

 Modeling who we are as thinkers

 Interactions and relationships that show respect for students’ contributions

 Physical environments where we make thinking visible by displaying the students’

process of thinking

As we reviewed the literature, we noticed strong connections between the eight cultural

forces and the HoM. We see the HoM as precursors for designing curriculum that cognitively

engage students and help them understand concepts. We also considered that the internalizations

of these frameworks were critical to shift teachers’ discourse in the classroom. Furthermore, the

social environment plays a critical role in shaping dispositions of intelligent conduct (Dottin,

2010). Project Zero researchers designed a variety of thinking routines (Ritchhart, Church, &

Morrison, 2011). The next passage addresses the origins of the thinking routines and connections

with the HoM.

Thinking Routines (TRs). The research-based TRs were developed by Project Zero

researchers at Harvard Graduate School of Education (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison 2011).

Routines exist in all classrooms. A routine can be thought of as any procedure, process, or

pattern of action that is used repeatedly to manage and facilitate the accomplishment of specific

goals or tasks. Classrooms have routines that serve to manage student behavior and interactions,

to organize the work of learning, and to establish rules for communication and discourse.

Classrooms also have routines that structure the way students go about the process of learning.

VT makes extensive use of learning routines that are thinking rich. These routines are simple

structures—for example, a set of questions or a short sequence of steps that can be used across

various grade levels and content. What makes them routines, versus mere strategies, is that they

get used over and over again in the classroom so that they become part of the fabric of classroom

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

8

culture. The routines become the ways in which students go about the process of learning

(Visible Thinking, 2012). In other words, teaching thinking is an enculturation approach.

According to Tishman, Perkins & Jay (1995) enculturation involves a model, explanation,

interaction and feedback. By using thinking routines the student becomes aware of the language

of thinking or mental process. Words of thinking describe and evoke thinking. This is important

because the process helps students organize and communicate their own thinking more precisely

and intelligently, while it reinforces standards for thinking (Tishman, Perkins & Jay, 1995). The

teachers/master’s degree candidates and authors selected the most popular TRs to analyze in

connection with the HOM. In Appendix B, we share our interpretation of the close relationship

between TRs and the HoM.

Teaching for Understanding: Thinking Skills and Content

An important quality in children is the ability to use what they know in new and

unfamiliar contexts by demonstrating their understanding flexibly as they respond to the moving

target of tomorrow. For Perkins (2001), understanding something is a matter of being able to

think and act flexibly with what you know and are coming to know (p. 446). Traditional

education has been about educating for the known. Here, educators’ attention is being called to

the fact that we are educating for the unknown. In other words, “good learning is learning from a

richly experienced today with tomorrow in view” (p. 218). It is worth mentioning that we do not

know what is going to happen in 5, 10, or 20 years from now.

Content. Curriculum designers work under the influences of different forces that are

mandated by the administration, state requirements, and so forth. However, practitioners should

always keep in mind a critical question: What is worth learning? During the early nineties,

Project Zero researchers developed the Teaching for Understanding (TfU) approach (Perkins,

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

9

2001), which encompasses four cornerstones of pedagogy with four elements of planning and

instruction. The TfU is an educational pedagogy that uses the following four questions as a

foundation for its framework (Blyte and Associates, 1998):

1. What topics are worth understanding? (Generative Topic).

2. What about these topics needs to be understood? (Understanding Goals).

3. How can we foster understanding? (Performances of Understanding).

4. How can we tell what students understand? (Ongoing Assessment).

Thinking Skills. It is important for educators to help students become aware of the

thinking skills that they are using to perform an activity, solve problems, and so on (Salmon &

Lucas, 2011). Learning is a consequence of thinking (Perkins, 1992). Thus, educators can foster

learning when they use a language of thinking that directs students’ attention to a particular

thinking skill to solve a problem. For example, instead of saying, “Let’s look at these two

pictures,” a mindful language would be, “Let’s compare these two pictures” (Costa & Kallick,

2008). The intentional use of terminology creates students’ thinking dispositions. Good

thinking is not only a matter of skills, but also a matter of dispositions (Ritchhart & Perkins,

2008).

The 21st century calls students to become nimble learners who are trained to flex and

stretch their thinking skills (Perkins, 2009). When children are aware of the thinking skills that

help them understand concepts, they become independent learners. When talking about thinking

skills, many people refer to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Bloom’s Taxonomy is a theory and is not

based on research about learning (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011). However, the

taxonomy has become codified into how many teachers are taught to think about thinking.

Ritchhart and colleagues (2011) disagree with the fact that Bloom’s Taxonomy has a sequential

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

10

or hierarchical way of seeing thinking that takes place at different levels. In contrast, they

suggest that rather than concerning ourselves with levels among different types of thinking, it is

better to focus our attention on the levels or quality within a single type of thinking.

Problem Statement and Research Questions

When we observe a teacher in her classroom, in many contexts, the stories she is telling

to students reflect the teacher’s philosophy of teaching and learning. Teachers set the culture of

their classrooms based on their values and beliefs about teaching and learning. The patterns of

discourse reflect both the teacher’s expectations about her students and determine the culture that

the teacher is creating. Cultures of thinking are places in which a group’s collective, as well as

an individual’s thinking is valued, visible, and actively promoted as part of the regular, day-to-

day experience of all group members (Ritchhart, 2002). As with language, adults are responsible

for nurturing children’s thinking. There is a consensus among some scholars (Costa, 2001;

Fogarty, 2001; Perkins, 2001) that thinking is teachable and learnable, and teachers play a

critical role in making this happen. Ritchhart, Turner, and Hadar (2009) suggest that when

teachers engage children in cognitive activities to uncover their thinking, they capture those

critical moments when thinking is taking place. This allows teachers to get a hold of it and

engage children cognitively in deep thinking and understanding.

The profile of the 21st century citizen requires thoughtful people who are curious,

creative, collaborative, communicators and critical thinkers (National Council for Teachers of

English, 2012). Twenty-first century skills prepare citizens not only to be successful problem

solvers, but also to be problem finders,and such skills are developed through the dialogical and

dialectical thinking experiences. Thus, today’s teachers need opportunities to learn how to

implement the dialogical and dialectical thinking theory and associated approaches into their

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

11

teaching, learning, and discourse practices. One of the purposes of EDE 6205 was to help

teachers/master’s degree candidates’ (graduate practitioners) gain ownership about building

cultures of thinking in their own classroom. Our study explored whether or not there were any

changes in the participants’ discourse in their classrooms as a result of their self-reflection and

discourse awareness, and if there were any implications for grades pK-12 children’s thinking and

learning. The research questions for this study were:

What are the implications of teachers’ interpretation and value of thinking reflected in

their philosophy and discourse in the classroom?

How do teachers’ reflect about changes that happen as a result of being exposed to the

HoM, VT and TfU frameworks for thinking and learning?

Method

The qualitative case study explored the EDE 6205 candidate’s implementation of three

important interrelated frameworks—Habits of Mind, Visible Thinking, and Teaching for

Understanding thinking frameworks—for developing dialogical and dialectical thinking through

teachers’ discourse in pK-12 classrooms in Jamaica (Flyvbjerg, 2011). The case study sought to

understand and exemplify a case study of individuals, who were participating in the same

graduate level course and program during summer, 2012. The case study was constructed

through narrative inquiry, a subtype of qualitative inquiry that [centers] around an interest in life

experiences as [narrated] by those who live them” (Chase, 2011, p. 421), using storytelling,

narrative practices, and content/discourse analysis (Rex, 2006; Rex & Schiller, 2009). This

interpretive case study is framed within the social constructivist paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln,

2011) in which “everyday realities are actively constructed in and through forms of social

action” (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011, p. 341).

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

12

Participants

Participants were “selected on the basis of expectations about their information content”

(Flyvbjerg, 2011, p. 307) and with informed consent. A cohort of Jamaican graduate student-

practitioners serving pK-12 grade levels, who participated in the Master’s in Curriculum &

Instruction program at FIU in Jamaica, were selected to analyze their respective journeys toward

becoming more thoughtful “thinking” practitioners. The cohort of degree candidates was a

convenient sample, who worked in diverse educational settings, including early childhood,

elementary, middle school, high school, vocational, counseling, and so forth (see Table 1.0).

Table 1.0 EDE 6205 Participant Demographic Data: Teaching Level, Education Level,

Gender, & Age

Participants

______________________________________________________________________

Teaching

Level

Education

Level

Gender Age

______________________________________________________________________

Primary

5

Middle

2

High

School

9

Bachelor

16

Female

16

20-

29

3

30-

39

10

40-

59

3

______________________________________________________________________

All 16 participants were female and had bachelors’ degrees. Seven taught at primary or middle

school levels, while nine taught at the high school level. Three participants’ ages were in their

20s, ten were in their 30s, and three were in their 40s or 50s.

Curriculum and Instruction

The EDE 6205 curriculum and instruction were designed to engage candidates (who are

practitioners at the same time) in self-reflection about their current teaching philosophy and

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

13

practice. Also, the course was designed to engage the participants in awareness, valuing, and

self-reflection of shifts in their teachers’ discourse. Shifts in teachers’ discourse included teacher

practices that cognitively engaged their students after experiencing the power of HoM, VT, and

TfU ideas in their own learning. Decisions for the course design with these end-goals in mind

included: planning for teachers/master’s degree candidates’ learning outcomes, understanding

goals, and performances of understanding.

Learning Outcomes

Candidates’ learning outcomes followed the FIU COE Conceptual Framework (CF) as

follows:

 Stewards of the Discipline (knowledge)—having the necessary concepts, knowledge and

understandings in their respective field of study.

 Reflective Inquirers (skills)—knowing how to use the requisite generic skills needed to

apply the content and pedagogical.

 Mindful Educators (Dispositions)—being able to apply the dispositions, that is, habits of

mind (intellectual and social) that render professional actions and conduct more

intelligent.

Based on the CF, EDE 6205 included the following understanding goals and performances of

understanding.

Understanding Goals

Specific understanding goals for this course include the following:

Knowledge. Understand and appreciate various approaches and philosophies used

in curriculum development and decision making. Understand theories of child

development and principles of learning. Understand how to create, design, and improve a

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

14

course outline, unit and lesson plans to promote thinking and learning.

Skills. Develop the skills required to create, design, and improve a course outline,

unit and lesson plans to promote thinking and learning. Develop effective teaching

methods to design appropriate creative learning experiences for children including ESOL,

ESE and LEP, and culturally diverse backgrounds.

Dispositions. Disposed to understand, broaden, expand, and improve their

knowledge of curriculum development and theory both locally and within the

international/global context to create thinking dispositions for teaching and learning.

Performances of Understanding

Specific performances of understanding or projects included the following:

Reading Log. Candidates were required to reflect on the course readings by addressing

the HoM that they used to understand the topic. They also had to analyze how and why they used

that particular HoM. They also were required to post one question for discussion about each

chapter, following Arthur Costa’s levels of questioning. During each session, the candidates and

professor analyzed the students’ questions according to Costa’s levels of questioning, which led

the discussion in the EDE 6205 class.

Self-Reflections. Each participant was required to document her practice in journals and

audio/video documentary tools every week and analyze her documentation of practices and

reflections in the Habits of Mind framework. Participants were given the option to have

someone visit their class and videotape them, audiotape them, or write down their interactions

with their students as documentation. Each candidate also was required to elaborate concerning

her individual reflections and make conclusions about her understandings, skill development,

and dispositions in a final paper using guiding questions provided them. This process

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

15

encouraged the candidates to revisit their learning journeys and reflect on the growth and

changes in their discourse in their classrooms and work setting. Some of the guiding questions

for this assignment were as follows:

 In a few words, describe your teacher discourse in your classroom.

 How have the Habits of Mind and Visible Thinking influenced your teaching and

learning philosophy?

 What changes have you observed in your teaching discourse in the classroom as a result

of internalizing HOM and the VT ideas?

 How can you and/or your students describe your discourse in the classroom?

Wikis. This was a cooperative effort. The candidates were required to revisit their

practice and analyze the implications of using the HoM, VT, and TfU in their classroom

discourse using Wikis. Wikis is an online platform where each of the class members can add,

modify, or delete its content via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a rich-text

editor. The candidates were expected to contribute with questions, theory, connections between

theory and practice, reflections, and discussion.

Collaborative Curriculum Unit. The candidates were required to design an integrated

(Language Arts, Math, Social Studies, Science, Art, PE) developmentally appropriate thematic

unit following the Teaching for Understanding framework. The candidates’ task was to

determine the grade level and select an attractive theme for children, to brainstorm all the

possible outcomes that can emerge from this theme, decide to what degree they have clear,

guiding, overarching questions which are central to a domain, connect the theme with goals for

the year and standards, decide what is worth understanding, decide to what degree their

understanding goals are clear and unique within each generative question, determine which

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

16

specific understandings that they wanted to develop, decide what students should learn, decide to

what degree they develop performances in which students are making their thinking visible and

are developing their understandings, decide to what degree they are engaging students in cycles

of formal and informal feedback with themselves, others, and the teacher around their actions to

develop their understandings over time, decide how they would assess children’s understanding;

and decide the standards that would be covered in the unit.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

The authors triangulated the data from the performances of understanding listed above

which were collected and analyzed through thematic analysis. Each author read all data,

searching for meaningful categories, or recurring themes and patterns, in teachers’ discourse that

emerged to answer their research question (Pane, 2009). Upon combining and indexing both

authors’ analyses, two emergent themes were agreed upon: (a) shifts in participants’ philosophies

and (b) shifts in participants’ discourse.

Shifts in Teachers/Master’s Degree Candidates’ Philosophies

The participants’ stories of teaching and learning experiences reflected their philosophies

about teaching and learning coming into the course. Interestingly, these stories were in many

cases similar to our examples of childrens’ and teachers’ common responses to didactic teaching

and learning philosophies in many schools (see Appendix A). The participants self-reflected

about how they saw themselves before learning the philosophies, teaching approaches, and

reflective tools inherent in the three inter-related frameworks (i.e., HoM, Visible Thinking, and

Teaching for Understanding), and the shift in their teaching and learning philosophies as

reflected in their practices and as they engaged in self-awareness and valuing dimensions of self-

growth. As strong believers in social constructivist approaches that engage children cognitively,

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

17

we created the story of a learning experience in a group of teachers/master’s degree candidates,

who are practitioners in different fields. A representative sample of the participants’ (note that

each participant’s name is a pseudonym) stories/self-reflections about their teaching philosophies

follow:

Adela: “My philosophy has been influenced in that I now believe that I can engage

students in substantive discussion and make their thinking visible by the things they

produce. My new routines make it easier for me to discover incorrect perceptions of

content and promote a deeper learning experience. Visible thinking enables me to ask

questions that expose how my students are thinking, assimilating ideas thus interpreting

the new information. This helps me to make connections.”

Cassidy: “Constructivist approach . . . is now a part of all the lessons that I teach. I have

my students doing problem solving and working collaboratively with each other. They

are now learning about the big picture and transferring their skills and understanding to

the other disciplines. I am no longer a drill master but a facilitator.”

Varenia: “The language of cognition is at the center stage of my teaching learning

programs in order to create an ambience or classroom culture that positions

metacognitive skills at the fore to make thinking become visible.”

Germaine: “I now strive to be more self-reflective more attuned to situations in my

classroom and I am generally more skillful and strategic in solving problems particularly

in my professional practice.”

Verona: “I am now able to focus on ways to nurture my students’ thinking skills and

improve their level of understanding . . . . now that I know that thinking can be taught, I

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

18

try to identify the types of thinking I want my students to engage in and plan my class

activities accordingly.”

Sabel: “My philosophy was, “I teach, you learn.” When students did not learn it was

because they were lazy and it was no fault of mine . . . . The VT routines and HoM

engendered partnerships that enhanced students’ understanding of concepts, confidence

levels and respect for each other. I now witness pleasant, eager and animated faces that

suggest renewed interest in the subject by the students. My methodology took on added

dimensions in that, I do not engage in ‘telling’ anymore, instead I make an effort to

formulate questions that I use to provoke the students’ thinking process during their

responses.”

Shifts in Teachers/Master’s Degree Candidates’ Discourse

Each candidate reflected on her teacher discourse. A representative sample of reflections

follow:

Marina: “Data collected in the form my teacher’s journal, interviews with teachers and

pupils supported that my discourse in the classroom was not geared towards students’

understanding and student autonomy. It was, however, overwhelmingly focused on

student motivation to complete the content of the prescribed curriculum in the time

allotted. This resulted in instances of self-handicapping by the pupils because they said

that they sometimes felt overwhelmed by my efforts at curriculum coverage. The data

regarding also revealed that students were generally not encouraged to be very reflective

and to critically evaluate knowledge acquired. It also provided limited opportunity for

my pupils to examine how meaning was constructed and negotiated. Furthermore,

language did not play in pivotal role in this constructed knowledge. Additionally,

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

19

students did not assume the primary responsibility for solving their problems. They were

instead asked to mostly supply answers to discrete steps and questions. They were also

not given the occasion to verbalize their thinking.”

Marina: “After internalizing the Habits of mind and Visible thinking my teaching and

learning philosophy has changed. I have gained insight into the enhancement of

children’s cognitive development. I now know that posing more significant questions

that probe pupils’ thinking, and using specific jargon or new labels to tailor their

perceptions will effect positive change or generate success in my teaching and learning

programs.”

Amelia: “My discourse is now one the language of cognition is at center stage of my

teaching learning programs in order to create an ambience or classroom culture that

positions metacognitive skills at the fore to make thinking become visible. I now practice

to pose critical questions, use precise terminology, and provide data and not solutions to

make pupils assume the initiative for taking the required action which will lead them

being more responsible for solving their own academic problems. Through the habits of

mind I have changed my approach in treating situations. I now strive to be more self-

reflective more attuned to situations in my classroom and I am generally more skillful

and strategic in solving problems particularly in my professional life. Before learning

about the habits of mind and visual thinking I was easily discouraged and frustrated when

my students encountered difficulty understanding concepts being taught. I would

sometimes just stand and look at them or ask firmly “What is it that you don’t

understand?””

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

20

Nancy: “Now, I think this course should be offered to all teachers in training as it content

thereof is quite powerful and critical to the effective functioning of the teaching learning

process to be explored only at the master degree level. The content of this course has

enriched my life as an educator in so many ways. I think the knowledge and

understanding regarding the approaches of teaching for students understanding, fostering

visible thinking in students and teaching them to use the habit of mind to develop flexible

approaches to solve problem and monitor their understanding has empowered me as an

educator. I am now able to teach and relate to my students with more confidence. The

knowledge I have gained makes me more conscious of the needs of the children I teach,

particularly in preparing lessons instruction, helping them to become critical thinkers and

craft understanding of content. This I believe, will help to determine successful end

results as I am more proficient in structuring my lessons to suit my students varied

learning styles. My level of maturity has also been improved as I have develop a higher

level of cognition in order to understand most of the content I am given. It makes me

more analytical, reflective and evaluative of the teaching discourse I employed in my

classroom.”

Some of the teachers’ reflections provided evidence to us that they seemed to be beginning to

internalize the HoM by providing justification for their actions, thoughts, and discourse in their

classrooms. It is also interesting that theparticipants’ student responses, which are not included

in this chapter due to space limitations, showed that they seemed to recognize some of their

teachers’ shifts in discourse and practices.

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

21

Conclusions

Based upon our analysis of the data and conversations with the participants in the study, a

growth pattern was emerging for participants away from didactic teaching toward dialogical and

dialectical thinking and teaching approaches. Our implementation of Habits of Mind (HoM),

using Visible Thinking (VT) and the Teaching for Understanding (TfU) frameworks in EDE

6205 seemed to provide not only awareness for candidates to try out the approaches we modeled,

but the candidates’ reflections provided evidence of their building commitment to the values of

teaching dialogical and dialectical thinking and discourse. One of the participants said that it

was a life-changing experience. There was a pattern in teachers’ reflections that they had

become more aware that they could teach children to think. Furthermore, candidates reflected on

the dialogical and dialectical thinking model that they were now using to view both their students

and themselves as learners and thinkers. One of the candidates said, “How can teachers teach

students how to think if they are not thinkers themselves?”

Candidates appeared to be in a process of changing their perspectives about teachers’ and

students’ roles in the teaching and learning process. Participants revisited their core values and

shifted the focus away from their role in the education process (as knowledge givers) to the

importance of the learners’ role (as problem finders, posers, and solvers) in the education

process. One candidate said, “I became aware of my role in the classroom as an instructor who

guides pupils to be more engaged in the performances of their own understanding.”

Participants were engaged in a process toward internalization of the knowledge, skills,

and dispositions inherent in HoM, VT, and TfU frameworks and our instructional approaches in

EDE 6205. Evidence indicated that our course was influential in helping the candidates build

commitment to begin the process of shifting in their philosophies of teaching and learning away

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

22

from didactic to dialogical and dialectical approaches. In the captured data, the participants’

expectations about their students were changing and their students were able to notice some of

the changes. One of the candidates reflected, “My expectations of the students have changed and

they are able to live up to this expectation. The response from my students is that the topics are

more exciting because they are allowed to participate more.” Candidates saw changes from a

teacher-centered to a student-centered approach. They recognized the importance of teaching

children to think by modeling.”

Another candidate reflected:

“The way we think, interact, model, assess the opportunities we use, the documentation

we do, the expectations, the role we take on, the culture we create, the way we plan, the

theories we use, and the way we think shapes the discourse in our classroom. Students

normally imitate and behave according to their environment (culture).”

The authors strongly believe that good practices do not require complicated methodologies but

an understanding of the essence of human beings and their ability to think and act intelligently.

Thus, most of the performances of understanding used for this study led to a collaborative

construction of meaning where all participants’ thoughts were valued and respected.. Giving

participants the opportunity to experience how thinking can be taught through HoM and theVT

approach within the TfU framework also provided them with a strong foundation for

understanding how thinking about thinking can create powerful learning. The story told in this

course revealed how the students began to build thinking dispositions and create a culture of

thinking that eventually, as they bring them to practice, they can internalize it and set the mantra

of their classroom. The shift toward a dialogical and dialectical thinking perspective will enhance

teaching and learning and increases students’ self-esteem. As a consequence, students will be

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

23

more intrinsically engaged and challenged to learn in depth and, most of all, develop a joy for

learning.

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

24

References

Blyte, B., & Associates. (1998). The Teaching for Understanding Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Chase, S. E. (2011). Narrative inquiry: Still a field in the making. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.

Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.) (pp. 421-434). Los

Angeles: Sage.

Costa, A. (2001). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Alexandria:

Virginia. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (Eds.). (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential

characteristics for success. Alexandria: Virginia. Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (Eds.). (2009). Habits of mind across the curriculum: Practical and

creative strategies for teachers. Alexandria: Virginia, Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of

qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, The Sage handbook of qualitative

research (4th ed.) (pp. 1-19). Los Angeles: Sage.

Dottin, E. (2010). Dispositions as Habits of Mind: Making professional conduct more intelligent.

New York: University Press of America.

Fleyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage handbook

of qualitative research (4th ed.) (pp. 301-316). Los Angeles: Sage.

Fogarty, R. (2001). Our changing perspective of intelligence: Master architects of the intellect. In

A. Costa. (Ed.). (2001). Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp.

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

25

427-436). Alexandria: Virginia. Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2011). The constructionist analytics of interpretive practice. In

N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.)

(pp. 341-355). Los Angeles: Sage.

National Council for Teachers of English. (2012). Position Statement on the definition of 21st

century literacies. Retrieved from

http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition

Pane, D. M. (2009). The relationship between classroom interactions and exclusionary discipline

as a social practice: A critical microethnography. FIU Electronic Theses and

Dissertations. Paper 109. Available at http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/109

Paul, R. (2001). Dialogic and dialectical thinking. In Costa, A. (Ed.) (2001). Developing minds:

A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 427-436). Alexandria: Virginia. Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York: Free

Press.

Perkins, D. (2001). Thinking for understanding. In Costa, A. (Ed.) (2001). Developing minds: A

resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 446-450). Alexandria: Virginia. Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.Perkins, D. (2009). Making learning whole:

How seven principles of teaching can transform education. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Rex. L. A. (Ed.). (2006). Discourse of opportunity: How talk in learning situations creates and

constrains. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

26

Rex, L. A., & Schiller, L. (2009). Using discourse analysis to improve classroom interaction.

New York: Routledge.

Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual Character. What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ritchhart, R., Church, M. & Morrison, K. (2011). Making Thinking Visible: How to Promote

Engagement, Understanding, and Independence for all Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Ritchhart, R. (2011). Creating Powerful Learning Opportunities. Keynote address presented to

the Clarice Smith National Teacher Institute, Smithsonian American Art Museum.

Retrieved from

http://ronritchhart.com/Presentations_files/Smithsonian_Opportunities2_2.pdf

Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2008). Making thinking visible. Educational Leadership, 65(5),

57-61.

Ritchhart, R., Turner, T., & Hadar, L. (2009). Uncovering students’ thinking about thinking

using concept maps. Metacognition Learning (2009) 4, 145–159.

DOI 10.1007/s11409-009-9040-x. Retrieved from

http://edci6304fa2010learningcognition.pbworks.com/f/Ritchart%2Bet%2Bal%2B2009%

2Bmetacognition%2Binstruction.pdf

Salmon, A. & Lucas, T. (2011). Exploring young children’s conceptions about thinking. Journal

of Research in Childhood Education, 25, 364-375. DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2011.605206

The Critical Thinking Community. (2012). Glossary of critical thinking terms. Retrieved from

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/glossary-of-critical-thinking-terms/496

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

27

Tishman, S., Perkins, D. & Jay, E. (1995). The Thinking Classroom: Learning and Thinking in a

Culture of Thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Psychological Processes,

Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Visible Thinking (VT). (2012). Retrieved from

http://pzweb.harvard.edu/vt/VisibleThinking_html_files/03_ThinkingRoutines/03a_Thin

kingRoutines.html

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

28

Appendix A. EDE 6205 Stories from the Authors’ Personal Experiences Reflecting Didactic

Teaching Theory

We provide four stories from the authors’ personal experiences to illustrate the

implications of a didactic teaching approach. The first is a common story in many settings where

teachers deliver content through methods courses. Upon completing a unit lesson about matter,

the first author had a conversation with her seven-year-old daughter, Nichole, asking her what

she understood about this topic. With great pride, Nicole took the book and recited all the

information that she had memorized while pointing to the images. In her telling, she mentioned

that solids cannot adapt to any shape. When asked her to explain why solids cannot take a

container’s shape, Nicole’s response was, “Because solids are solids.” Then the first author

asked Nicole, “What makes you say that?” And she replied a little bit reluctantly, “This question

is not in the book.”

A different way of seeing didactic teaching is the teaching-as-transmission view. This

view plays out in our language when we talk about teacher training, which usually means

training in new methods (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011). In this case, the message that

children get from the teacher is that learning is getting facts that they can retain in their short

term memory. The rest of the story about the unit lesson about matter illustrates this message.

Two months after getting an “A” in this lesson, the first author asked Nichole to explain what

she understood about matter, but this time she was only able to tell me that there are three types

of matter—solid, liquid, and gas—without understanding or being able to transfer knowledge

from one context to another. When students are not cognitively challenged to be curious and to

pose and solve problems using their imagination and creativity, learning is neither attractive nor

retained.

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

29

Another story of learning (that results from didactic teaching) was told by Athena, a four-

year-old who was the “Student of the “Month” in her preschool. While she was preparing a

cardboard illustrating her portrait and her favorite things, her grandmother asked her, “Why do

you think you were awarded the “Student of the Month?” The child’s answer was, “Because I

don’t talk anymore.” Teachers’ common complaint about children is that they are always

talking. Isn’t talking important in the learning process?

As children grow, they become more talkative and teachers spend a lot of time and

energy trying to control the students’ participation (Ritchhart, 2011). A fourth story drawn from

a research study conducted by Debora Pane reveals the implications of didactic teaching from

two language arts classrooms in an alternative education secondary school. When asked to share

a typical day in school, both teachers’ mere discourse was about their ongoing struggle to control

students’ academic and social behavior (Pane, 2009). Ms. Gomez explained:

“I have to come up with some way to trick these kids into learning something new that

day because most of the time, you know, they just fight me on it or they want to sleep or

they want to talk or they just don’t want to do it so but you know, I’ve gone through in

the three years that I’ve been teaching, I’ve tried pretty much everything. I’ve tried

bribing them, I’ve tried threatening them, I’ve tried babying them, you know, anything

that I can, sometimes with some kids certain tactics work, but with most of them, I still

don’t know how to get through to them. A lot of them.”

Mr. Glass stressed that alternative education students only come to school to

socialize, they come to hang out, they do not come with a mindset to study, or to do

conceptual academic work . . . They love busywork or what I would call handouts that do

that do not require them to do much more than fill in the blanks, copy material from the

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

30

board, that they consider I did my work I should get an A or I should get a B . . . . This is

my personal opinion to this entitlement mentality, that the kid or the student can dictate to

you what they will do and how they will do it and I don’t accept that so they then are

forced to either adopt my expectations or fight me on it and a lot of kids will choose to

fight me on it and so we will wind up with kids going to detention.

Both teachers’ discourse revealed preconceptions of alternative education students as

poorly behaved and academically challenged. Teachers’ discourse revealed educational

practices that provided few spaces for students’ conceptual understandings to emerge and

develop over time in a culture of thinking (Ritchart, 2011). For example, to maintain control in

the classroom, Ms. Gomez took rigorous anecdotal notes on students’ behavior and filled out

referral forms regularly while trying to get students to practice for the high-stakes test. She

anticipated disruptive behavior and, thus, planned to either use her psychology background

knowledge to rehabilitate students or to issue written referrals to suspend students from class

(exclusionary discipline) when she ran out of options. On the other hand, Mr. Glass controlled

his classroom by first ridding the classroom of disruptive students (suspension, exclusionary

discipline) who he felt did not care about learning that day. Then, he lectured continuously to

the remaining student(s) about the lives and works of great authors and helped them fill in one-

word answers or select the correct multiple choice answers on tests based on his lectures.

Both teachers’ discourse and practices abided strictly by didactic views of teaching and learning

that sustained the mainstream ideology about alternative education students as those who

need to be disciplined or cured of their social and academic deficiencies (Freire, 2000).

However, each teacher’s discourse differed in how and why he or she focused solely on

gaining control in the classroom. Ms. Gomez used language arts requirements for

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

31

passing the high-stakes test as a backdrop for listening to students talk among each other

in order to figure out ways to reduce hostility among her students. Mr. Glass used his

expertise in lecturing about great authors and their works of literature as a backdrop for

keeping his students compliant and quiet. Even though each classroom sounded (i.e.,

loud versus quiet) different, both teachers endorsed didactic teaching and learning

practices that required passive students and used exclusionary discipline to control

student behavior. Neither teacher’s discourse considered thinking as the mantra of the

class. As a result, both teachers strived continually for more control, ultimately removing

(suspending) students to stop conflicts and discord in their classrooms.

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

32

Appendix B. Interpretation of the Close Relationship Between TRs and the HoM

SEE/THINK/WONDER

This routine encourages students to make careful observations and thoughtful

interpretations; it sets the stage for inquiry, using the following questions:

 What do you see?

 What do you think? and

 What do you wonder?

HoM that are present in the SEE/THINK/WONDER routine include but are not limited to the

following:

 Persisting—going back to an image over and over again;

 Listening to others—as people share their observations, thoughts and inquiries, others

listen and try to understand with empathy;

 Thinking flexibly—while sharing observations, thoughts and inquiries, people have the

capacity to change their minds;

 Questioning and posing problems—upon observing and thinking, people ask questions

about what they know and they don’t know;

 Applying past knowledge to new situations—while observing, people connect images

with prior knowledge or experiences;

 Gathering data though all senses—using any type of prop (e.g., artwork, science

experiment, photograph, essay, music piece, dance), people can collect data with any of

their senses (e.g., what do you feel/smell/hear/taste?); and

 Thinking interdependently—since people have different perspectives, they can interpret

things differently when they are prompted to think or wonder about things.

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

33

WHAT MAKES YOU SAY THAT?

This routine encourages interpretation with justification, using the following questions:

 What is going on? and

 What do you see that makes you say that?

HoM that are present in the WHAT MAKES YOU SAY THAT? routine include but are not limited

to the following:

 Thinking with clarity and thinking about thinking—with these questions, people have to

plan what they want to say and reflect on their thoughts. They have to use their ability to

know what they know and what they don’t know.

 Gathering data though all senses—people have to gather data to justify any claim with

evidence;

 Taking responsible risks—people take the opportunity to get a message through, based on

prior knowledge and experience;

 Striving for accuracy—people have to check over their messages for accuracy, they have

to invest more thinking;

 Managing impulsivity—when people know that they will be asked these types of

questions, they think before they act or say something.

 Learning continuously— when people are allowed to revisit their thoughts before saying

something, they are always modifying and improving themselves; and

 Applying past knowledge to new situations—people learn from experience. When

confronted with these questions they have to make connections with past experiences.

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

34

I USED TO THINK . . . BUT NOW I THINK

This routine is used to reflect on how and why our thinking has changed, by reminding

students of the topic that is being considered and having students write a response using the

following sentences stems:

 I used to think,

 Now I think.

HoM that are present in the I USED TO THINK . . . BUT NOW I THINK routine include but are

not limited to the following:

 Metacognition—people have to reflect on their thinking and see changes;

 Apply past knowledge—people assess prior conceptions and see the evolution of their

thoughts; and

 Question & posing problems—people examine an old problem from a new angle.

CONNECT/EXTEND/CHALLENGE

This routine is used for connecting new ideas to prior knowledge by using the following

questions:

 Connect—How are these ideas and information presented connected to what you already

knew?

 Extend—What ideas did you get that extended or pushed your thinking in new

directions?

 Challenge—What is still challenging or confusing for you to get your mind around?

What questions, wondering or puzzles do you now have?

HoM that are present in the CONNECT/EXTEND/CHALLENGE routine include but are not

limited to the following:

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

35

 Applying past knowledge to new situations—when confronting to a new problem, people

have to draw from prior experiences;

 Responding with wonderment and awe—when trying to find solutions to problems,

people are delighted to solve problems on their own and request enigmas from others;

 Creating, imagining and innovating—by identifying problems and seeing their thoughts

taking new directions, people are innovating themselves;

 Learning continuously—by asking these questions with new ideas, people learn

continuously;

 Questions & posing problems—when people identify a challenge, they are developing the

ability to find problems to solve, look for evidence, find reliable data sources;

 Thinking flexibly—flexible people can make shifts as they extend their thoughts; and

 Taking responsible risks—by making connections, extending thoughts and finding

challenges, people are self-reflecting before taking risks to adventure new areas of their

thinking.

CIRCLE OF VIEWPOINTS

This routine is used for exploring diverse perspectives by brainstorming a list of different

perspectives, then exploring each one with the following script skeleton:

 I am thinking of . . . the topic . . . From the point of view of . . . the viewpoint you've

chosen;

 I think . . . describe the topic from your viewpoint. Be an actor—take on the character of

your viewpoint ;

 A question I have from this viewpoint is . . . ask a question from this viewpoint; and

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

36

 Wrap up: What new ideas do you have about the topic that you didn't have before? What

new questions do you have?

HoM that are present in the CIRCLE OF VIEWPOINTS routine include but are not limited to the

following:

 Listening with understanding and empathy—by exploring the view point of others,

people are able to appreciate diverse perspectives;

 Thinking flexibly— by exploring the view point of others, people’s minds are open to

change based on additional information and data or reasoning, which contradicts their

beliefs;

 Questioning and posing problems—by exploring the view point of others, people pose

questions about alternative points of view;

 Applying past knowledge to new situations—when confronted with a new point of view,

people will often draw forth experience from their past;

 Creating, imagining, innovating—creative human beings try to conceive problem

solutions differently, examining alternative possibilities from many points of view;

 Remaining open to continuous learning—by adopting a new perspective, people seize

problems, situations, tensions, conflicts and circumstances as valuable opportunities to

learn; and

 Thinking interdependently—by adopting others’ view points, people can have access to

new data to make critical decisions.

See Table 1.2 for a summary of the relationship between the HoM and TR.

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

37

Table 1.2

Relationship Between the Habits of Mind and Thinking Routines

________________________________________________________________________

Habits of Mind Thinking Routines

________________________________________________________________________

See/Think/

Wonder

What Makes

You Say

That?

I Used To

Think . . .

But Now I

Think

Connect/

Extend/

Challenge

Circle of

Viewpoints

Persisting √

Managing

Impulsivity

√

Listening with

Understanding

and Empathy

√ √

Thinking

Flexibly

√ √ √

Thinking about

Thinking/

Metacognition

√ √

Striving for

Accuracy

√

Questioning and

Posing Problems

√ √ √ √

Applying Past

Knowledge to

New Situations

√ √ √ √ √

Thinking and

Communicating

with Clarity and

Precision

√

Gathering Data

with all Senses

√

Shifting Teachers’ Discourse

38

_______________________________________________________________________

Habits of Mind Thinking Routines

_______________________________________________________________________

See/Think/

Wonder

What Makes

You Say

That?

I Used To

Think . . .

But Now I

Think

Connect/

Extend/

Challenge

Circle of

Viewpoints

Creating,

Imagining,

Innovating

√ √

Responding with

Wonderment and

Awe

√

Taking

Responsible

Risks

√ √

Finding Humor

Thinking

Interdependently

√ √

Remaining Open

to Continuous

Learning

√ √ √

_______________________________________________________________________

Within the process of making connections between HoM and RTs, it was important to highlight

the type of thinking that was taking place. We strongly believe that the Thinking Routines are

excellent strategies to cultivate Habits of Mind and engage children in deep thinking and

understanding.