Further research started to show that what Thorndyke saw as ‘common elements of knowledge’ did actually exist; that the brain selects specific parts of its structure to process knowledge and information from different domains. Students of a reflective nature could – and some did – think critically about what they were doing in their specialisms in ways which gave them the competence to look at a new subject as an ‘intelligent novice’; others remained tightly within the security of their specialism. Research from the early 1980′s, however, suggested that domain specific knowledge and skills are, of themselves, not sufficient – there is more to intelligence and expert performance than just subject knowledge. Thorndyke would have liked that.

4a) Intelligent Novices; Metacognition

The ability to ‘think about thinking’ (metacognition), to be consciously aware of yourself as a problem-solver, and to monitor and control one’s mental processing, has engaged the attention of cognitive scientists since the early 1980s. It incorporates, but goes further than, the ability to perform routine tasks, or to demonstrate effective memory, or to use weak or strong methods; it is essentially the ability to see oneself and others as problem-solvers. Such a skill builds on domain specific material in ways which, by incorporating weak and strong methods creates truly ‘Intelligent Novices’, people who can move relatively easily from one higher order function in a particular domain to an understanding of functions in another domain.

Metacognitive instruction attempts to transfer the critics role from the teacher to the student. This is best done in stages (weaning). Historically apprenticeship models of learning adopted such strategies through modelling, scaffolding and fading, and specifically by making such skills explicit and overt (rather than the normal classroom teaching situation where content tends to hide the strategy) ‘The Reflective Learner’; ‘Making Thinking Visible’ – are but two headline descriptions of the process.

“We have got to do a lot fewer things in school. The greatest enemy of understanding is ‘coverage’. As long as you are determined to cover everything, you actually ensure that most kids are not going to understand. You have got to take enough time to get kids deeply involved in something so they can think about it in lots of different ways and apply it – not just at school, but at home and on the street and so on.” Howard Gardner, April 1993

4b) ‘The New Synthesis’ (Bruer, MIT, May 1993)

‘The New Synthesis’ suggests that domain specific knowledge, metacognitive skills and general (weak and hard) methods are all elements of intelligence and expert performance. It is with such a combination of high order skills that Intelligent Novices can use their knowledge flexibly to solve ill-structured, novel problems.

Educational practice grounded in cognitive theory (Resnick) “would transform the whole curriculum in fundamental ways. It would treat the development of higher-order skills as the paramount goal of all schooling.” “If we change our representation of intelligence, learning and teaching … we change relationships between students and teachers, schools and the community … and our representation of what the classroom and schools should look like … This will cost (a great deal in research into new applications) but if we want to improve our schools, and if existing methods are not working well enough we have little choice but to make this investment. We should focus on the educational process, not the product; a system in which our understanding and our educational practice can constantly evolve.” (Bruer).

“To push for change without continuing to deepen our understanding of what we are doing will only intensify the problem, we seek to solve. We need solid research to tell us which experiments work best and under what conditions…” (Diane Ravitch, 1992). In other words, the shape of a workable theory of learning could now be coming much clearer … what is needed however is the detail.

Two years ago Howard Gardner wrote in The Unschooled Mind, “We run the risk of investing incalculable resources in institutions that do not operate very well and that may never approach the effectiveness that their supporters, and for that matter their detractors – would desire … it is my own belief that until now we have not fully appreciated just how difficult it is for schools to succeed … we have not been cognisant of the ways in which the basic inclinations of human learning turn out to be ill -matched to the agenda of the modern secular school.”

Pages: 1 2

More articles by Education 2000