Abstract
A method for uncovering students’ thinking about thinking, specifically their meta-strategic knowledge, is explored within the context of an ongoing, multi-year intervention designed to promote the development of students’ thinking dispositions. The development of a concept-map instrument that classroom teachers can use and an analytic framework for interpreting students’ responses is presented. In a preliminary study, the concept map instrument is piloted to evaluate changes in students’ conceptions of thinking after a year’s participation in classrooms where their teachers actively sought to make thinking more visible by noticing and naming the thinking observed as well as introducing and using thinking routines (Ritchhart and Perkins. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 57–61 2008). Concept maps from 239 students from grades 3 through 11 were analyzed. Results suggest that students’ conceptions of thinking do improve with age but also can be substantially developed through a classroom culture where thinking is modeled and rich opportunities for thinking are present. The concept map instrument itself proved to be a robust instrument for uncovering students’ thinking about thinking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adamcyzk, P., Wilson, M., & Williams, D. (1994). Concept mapping: A multi-level and multi-purpose tool. School Science Review, 116–124.
Baird, J. R. (1990). Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum. London: Routledge.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Research monograph. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Case, J., & Gunstone, R. (2006). Metacognitive development: A view beyond cognition. Research in Science Education, 36, 51–67.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
Dart, B., Burnett, P. C., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., Smith, D., & McCrindel, A. (1999). Classroom learning environments and student approaches to learning. Learning Environment Research, 2(2), 137–156.
Dart, B., Burnett, P. C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., & Smith, D. (2001). Students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom environtment, and approaches to learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 262–270.
Edmondson, K. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivst view (pp. 15–40). San Diego: Academic.
Fisher, K. M., Wandersee, J. H., & Moody, D. E. (Eds.). (2000). Mapping biology knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Hay, D. B., & Kinchin, I. M. (2006). Using concept maps to reveal conceptual typologies. Education and Training, 48(2–3), 127–142.
Kinchin, I. M., & Hay, D. B. (2007). The myth of the research-led teacher. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 43–61.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 277–300.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Donell, A., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71–86.
Palmer, P., Perkins, D., Ritchhart, R., & Tishman, S. (2005). Visible Thinking Retrieved November 26, 2008, from http://www.pz.harvard.edu/vt.
Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual Character: What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ritchhart, R. (2007). Cultivating a culture of thinking in museums. Journal of Museum Education, 32(2), 137–154.
Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2005). Learning to think: The challenges of teaching thinking. In K. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2008). Making thinking visible. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 57–61.
Roth, W-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). Using vee and concept maps in collaborative settings: Elementary education majors construct meaning in physical science courses. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 237–244.
Scheffler, I. (1991). In praise of cognitive emotions. New York: Routledge.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Van Rossum, E., & Schenk, S. (1984). The relationship between learning concepttions, study strategy and learning outcome. British Educational Research Journal, 54, 73–83.
Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2008). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 59–82.
Acknowledgements
The ideas and research reported here were developed with generous support of Bialik College and the Abe and Vera Doravitch Foundation. The views expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the foundations. We also wish to thank Bethany Rallis and Krista Sabatos for researching relevant background material for this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Protocol for Thinking Maps
-
1.
Tell students you are interested in their thinking or that this year you will be doing a lot of things to get them to think. Tell them you are interested in finding out what they think thinking is and what they think is involved in thinking.
-
2.
Tell students you will ask them to do a concept map about thinking. Ask students if they have done a concept map before. Tell them there are many ways of doing concept maps, so you want to just do a quick one so that they are clear about this way of doing a map. Do the “HOLIDAY” example concept map. Point out that this map is about brainstorming ideas and making connections when they seem obvious, but there is no one right way or no answer. You are just interested in their ideas.
-
3.
Pass out the Thinking Maps sheet and read the directions. Ask students to fill out the information at the top before they start. Ask students to work quietly without talking about their ideas yet. Ask them to raise their hands when they have come to a stop.
-
4.
Pass out the second prompt sheet and ask students to read it and use it to add to their maps. With younger children you can read it to them if you think that is best. If students have questions, you can clarify them but point out that the sheet is just questions to help them generate more ideas and they don’t have to actually be answered.
-
5.
When everyone seems to be done, or as small groups finish, ask students to try and add at least 2 more items to their maps.
Possible ways to debrief the activity
-
1.
Have students compare their maps with a partner and look at similarities and differences.
-
2.
Create a whole class concept map drawing on students’ ideas.
-
3.
Focus the discussion on subject specific types of thinking by asking students what kinds of thinking from their lists, ways of thinking, or thinking actions they think they will be using in your class this year.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ritchhart, R., Turner, T. & Hadar, L. Uncovering students’ thinking about thinking using concept maps. Metacognition Learning 4, 145–159 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9040-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9040-x