thinking style

7/28/2019 Thinking Style

1/51

Thinking-Style Profile

Identifies which natural preferred approach to solve problems you have:

o Measures your analytical approach in arriving at conclusions;

o Helps you understand why your solution is not the same as others.

Identifies why people have difficulties understanding how others solve their problems:

o Often times, we perceive the other solutions as moron, but why?

o

Helps you understand why others solve problems differently. Identifies why people have disagreements in arriving at their conclusions:

o Often times, we couldn't possibly think their solutions would ever work!

o Helps you agree to disagree.

Identifies the blind-spots in people's approach to solve problems:

o Blind-spot is where we get stuck!

o Helps you to open your mind to your loved one.

Identifies there is not just one "right" way to solve problems:

o They are just different way to approach to the solution.

o Although the approaches are opposite, then end-results are not that much different.

Improves communication between loved-ones:

o If we understand that it is just differences in thinking style,

we would appreciate that the other does have a point (and value their opinions).

Identifies the advantages and benefits of each type of thinking style:o When we are stuck, there may be a better way to do things!

o Helps you to acknowledge that others do have a point!

4 basic Thinking styles:

HORIZONTAL thinkerpositive traits:sees forests

sees big pictures

whereas

Horizontal turned Vertical:

negative trait:unyielding

VERTICAL thinkerpositive traits:

sees treessees details

whereas

Vertical turned Horizontal:

negative trait:indecisive

LINEAR thinkerpositive traits:

takes straight pathtakes direct route

whereas

Linear turned Nonlinear:negative trait:unreasonable

NONLINEAR thinkerpositive traits:

takes circuitous pathstakes indirect routes

whereas

Nonlinear turned Linear:negative trait:

uncompromising


2/51

Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Styles InventoryTopics:

* Adaptation* Assessment* Learning Disabilities* Self Help* Skill Development

Summary:

Take the Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory

Variations of Thinking Styles

Over the past few decades learning styles, thinking styles , and cognitive styles have becomean important part of our understanding of how people learn. Styles are preferred methods ofthinking or methods of processing information. They are independent of abilities. Styles aremethods of using abilities.

The Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory is one of several learning style typeinventories (Also see the Multiple Intelligence Inventory). The thinking styles inventory is basedon a Theory of Mental Self-Government, developed by Robert Sternberg and his associates.

The theory models thinking around a governmental structure. Simply stated, governmentsrequire legislators, who create legislation, executors who implement the legislation, andjudiciaries, who evaluate or judge whether the legislation is effective or not. These functionswithin government roughly parallel three functional types of thinkers: creators, implementers,and evaluators.

The Theory of Mental Self-Government also introduces four forms of thinking styles:Monarchic individuals tend to be focused, single minded individuals. Hierarchic individualstend to be organizers or priority setters. Oligarchic individuals tend to be "multi-taskers",sometimes disorganized, but flexible in their approach to learning. Anarchic individuals mightbe considered "antisystematic", but are often creative and contribute by questioning the statusquo. Functions and forms of thinking styles add to an individual's profile of thinkingpreferences.

A thinking styles profile also includes levels, scope, and a leaning toward an open or closed

way of thinking. Levels of thinking styles span from broad ranging, big picture, global thinking,to narrow ranging, detailed, local thinking. The scope of thinking styles ranges from personal,task-oriented, internal thinking, to social, people oriented, external thinking. The leanings ofthinking styles tend to lean toward a liberal or a conservative style. Liberal thinkers think"beyond existing rules and procedures and seek to maximize change". Conservative thinkerson the other hand tend to stick to existing rules and procedures, minimize change, and preferfamiliarity.

There are no better or worse, right or wrong, thinking styles. Learners tend to possess aspectsof all thinking styles, and those styles tend to change from situation to situation, and over one'slifetime. In groups, a combinations of different types of thinkers can be a powerful tool incollaborative efforts, but by the same token, mismatched combinations of styles can produceless than desirable results; competing styles of different individuals may clash.

It is highly recommended that you find, or purchase, yourself a copy of Robert Sternberg's

book "Thinking Styles". It will provide you with detailed descriptions of the various aspects ofthinking styles, with practical examples applied to school, employment, and everyday settings.

Note that the inventory linked above, provides standardized results for non-student adults.Standardized results are also available for student adults in Sternberg's book. Some of theinventory items may not be suitable for younger groups. A knowledgeable adult should assist ininterpreting results for younger learners.

Purpose/Objective:
http://www.ldrc.ca/projects/tscale/http://www.ldrc.ca/projects/tscale/tsint.phphttp://www.ldrc.ca/projects/projects.php?id=42http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_books2.php/book_id=3316463/tsub=1/form_keyword=/ut=8e96f0372f32b9d0/http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_books2.php/book_id=3316463/tsub=1/form_keyword=/ut=8e96f0372f32b9d0/http://www.ldrc.ca/projects/tscale/http://www.ldrc.ca/projects/tscale/tsint.phphttp://www.ldrc.ca/projects/projects.php?id=42http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_books2.php/book_id=3316463/tsub=1/form_keyword=/ut=8e96f0372f32b9d0/


3/51

Your goal in completing the Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory should be tounderstand how you think within the model associated with the Theory of Mental Self-Government, and to understand that others are likely to think differently than you do.Understand how knowledge of others thinking styles can help you in all walks of life. Be sure toread Variations of Thinking Styles for a brief summary of principles and behaviouralcharacteristics Sternberg associated with thinking styles. Also read Sternberg's article:

Allowing for Thinking Styles

Variations of Thinking Style (excerpts fromSternberg, 1997.)The following are brief excerpts from the book "Thinking Styles" by Robert J. Sternberg. Readersare encouraged to read the book for detailed coverage of thinking styles, and of the "Theory ofMental Self-Governement."

Principles of Thinking Styles1. Styles are preferences in the use of abilities, not abilities themselves.

2. A match between styles and abilities creates synergy that is more than the sum of its parts.3. Life choices need to fit styles as well as abilities.4. People have profiles (or patterns) of styles, not just a single style.5. Styles are variable across tasks and situations.6. People differ in the strength of their preferences.7. People differ in there stylistic flexibility.8. Styles are socialized.9. Styles can vary across the life span.10. Styles are measurable.11. Styles are teachable.12. Styles valued at one time may not be valued at another.13. Styles valued in one place may not be valued in another.14. Styles, on average, are not good or bad -- it's a question of fit.15. We confuse stylistic fit with levels of ability.

Functions of Thinking StylesLegislative StyleLegislative people like to do things their own way. They like creating, formulating, and havingthings. In general, they tend to be people who like to make their own rules.

Legislative people enjoy doing things the way they do them. They prefer problems that are notprestructured for them, but rather that they can structure for themselves.

Legislative people also prefer creative and constructive planning-based activities, such as writingpapers, design projects, and creating new business or educational systems.

Executive StylePeople with the executive style are implementers: they like to do, and generally prefer to begiving guidance as to what to do or how to do what needs to be done. Executive people also liketo enforce rules and laws (their own or others').

Executive people prefer problems that are given to them or structured for them and like to do andtake pride in the doers - in getting things done. Executive people tend to gravitate towardoccupations that are quite different from those to which legislative people are attracted.

Executive people will tend to the valued by organizations that want people to do things in a waythat appears to a set of rules or guidelines.
http://www.ldrc.ca/projects/tscale/tsint.phphttp://www.ldrc.ca/projects/tscale/tsint.phphttp://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9411/sternberg.htmlhttp://www.pricegrabber.com/search_books2.php/book_id=3316463/tsub=1/form_keyword=/ut=8e96f0372f32b9d0/http://www.ldrc.ca/projects/tscale/tsint.phphttp://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9411/sternberg.htmlhttp://www.pricegrabber.com/search_books2.php/book_id=3316463/tsub=1/form_keyword=/ut=8e96f0372f32b9d0/


4/51

Judicial StylePeople with a judicial style like to evaluate rules and procedures and to judge things. Judicialpeople also prefer problems in which they can analyze and evaluate things and ideas. They liketo judge both structure and content.

Legislative and judicial people can work well together in a team. For example, selectionprocedures tend to be largely judicial, and are well suited to people who like to evaluate. Thelegislative person may well not be ideal to read the applications and judge them, for lack ofinterest in dealing with the job the way it should the done.

Forms of Thinking StylesMonarchic StylePeople who are predominantly monarchic style tend to be motivated by a single goal or need at atime. Monarchic people also tend to be single-minded and driven by whatever they are single-minded about. They have a tendency to see things in terms of their issues.

Monarchic people often attempt to solve problems, full speed ahead, damn the obstacles. Theycan be too decisive.

Hierarchic StylePeople with a hierarchic style tend to be motivated by a hierarchy of goals, with the recognitionthat not all of the goals can be fulfilled equally well and that some goals are more important thanothers. They thus tend to be priority setters who allocate carefully. They tend to be systematicand organized in their solutions to problems and in their decision making.

Oligarchic StyleIn oligarchy, several individuals share power. Individuals with the oligarchic style tend to bemotivated by several, often competitive goals of equal perceived importance. They have troubledeciding which goals to give priority to. The result is that they may have trouble allocatingresources.

Anarchic StylePeople with an anarchic style tend to be motivated by a wide assortment of needs and goals that

are often difficult for others, as well as for themselves, to sort out. They tend to be not so muchasystematic as antisystematic.

Levels, Scope, and Leanings of Thinking StylesGlobal Style-Local StyleGlobal people prefer to deal with relatively larger and often abstract issues. They tend to focus onthe forest, sometimes at the expense of the trees. Their constant challenge is to stay groundedand not to get lost on cloud nine.

Local people prefer to deal with details, sometimes minute ones, and often ones surroundingconcrete issues. They tend to focus on the trees, sometimes at the expense of the forest. Theirconstant challenge is to see the whole forest, and not just its individual elements.

Internal Style-External StylePeople with an internal style tend to be motivated, task-oriented, sometimes aloof, and sociallyless sensitive than other people. At times they also lack interpersonal awareness, if only becausethey do not focus on it.

People with an external style, in contrast, tend to be more extroverted, people-oriented, outgoing,socially more sensitive, and interpersonally more aware.

Liberal Style-Conservative Style


5/51

Individuals with a liberal style like to go beyond existing rules and procedures and seek tomaximize change. They also seek or are at least comfortable with ambiguous situations, andprefer some degree of unfamiliarity in life and work.

Individuals with a conservative style like to adhere to existing rules and procedures, minimizechange, avoid ambiguous situations where possible, and prefer familiarity in life and work.


6/51

Style & Thinking Preference Test(c) 1999 Ronald Fitzgerald

DIRECTIONS: Circle the dot before only those statements that really

describe you best in each quadrant A, B, C, and D. For example, look atthe second item in quadrant A; circle the associated dot only if you areusually enthusiastic about studying science, but do NOT circle the dot ifyou either dislike science or if you have very mixed feelings aboutscience study. When you have finished, score each quadrant bycounting the number of dots you circled in the quadrant and placing thatscore in the quadrant box.

Preference Test: Circle the dot before only each statement that reallydescribes you best. Then, count the number of dots circled in eachquadrant and record the total in that quadrant.

QUADRANT A I learn well by listening. I enjoy studying Science and

solving problems. I like to follow specific

directions. I like working with numbers. I like reading and/or writing. I do well in word games like

scrabble.

Score Quadrant A =

QUADRANT B I like learning from pictures,

video tapes, films, or visualdisplays.

I like to draw or doodle or paint. When I close my eyes I can

easily see pictures in my mind. I like to see the "Big Picture"

before worrying about thedetails.

I like to guess or imagine. I enjoy surprises and take risks.

Score Quadrant B =

QUADRANT C I am independent and have

strong opinions. I have clear goals for myself. I enjoy working alone on a

task. I like to practice new skills. I like to organize activities. I like to direct the work of

others to get things done.

Score Quadrant C =

QUADRANT D I learn best from doing things. I enjoy physical activity and

moving around. When I talk, I often use hand

gestures. I love music. I like to work and talk with

others. I like helping or teaching others.

Score Quadrant D =Most persons will show "dominance" or a higher score in some one ofthe quadrants. Some will show high scores in two or even four of thequadrants. There are no right or wrong answers, only the truth of


7/51

whatever preference pattern you happen to show. Now see InterpretingYour Preference Scores to gain some help on interpreting your testresults

Interpreting Your PreferenceScores

Your preferred learning or receiving style.

If you circled the first statement in quadrant A, you have an AUDITORYreceiving style. The first statement in quadrant B represents a VISUAL style.Read the New Brains article for information on how television grows thisvisual style in many young people today. The first two statements in

quadrant D indicate a KINESTHETIC learning style. While we can all receiveinformation in all three ways, many learners prefer one or two styles (such asvisual and kinesthetic) over another. Your school should help you to use yourpreferred learning style most effectively.

A high score in quadrant A.

1. The quadrants in this test are based on the multiple intelligences model ofDr. Howard Gardner. A high score here can indicate that you preferauditory or linguistic work (first and last two items) and/or logical oranalytical (mathematical) work (second, third, and fourth items). Auditory-linguistic students can explore such career areas as journalism and

language translation; if they also have a positive score on logic items, lawis another possibility. Logical-analytical learners can consider engineering,computer programming, science and technical specialties, or accountantand mathematics options. At Minuteman Regional High School, theScience-Technology Division provides special exploration opportunities forhigh-tech careers.

2. A high score in quadrant B.This right-brained quadrant is based on visual preference. High scoreshere can indicate talent for such careers as artists, architects, designers,landscapers, planners, graphic specialists, and system analysts.Minuteman High School offers exploration in several of these visual areas.

3. A high score in quadrant C.Both quadrant A and quadrant C represent left-brained or logicalcharacteristics. However C adds the talent called intrapersonalintelligence. Persons with a high score in this quadrant are often potentialorganizers who can consider careers in administration or supervision.

4. A high score in quadrant D.
http://www.minuteman.org/topics/ipt.htmlhttp://www.minuteman.org/topics/ipt.htmlhttp://www.minuteman.org/topics/nb.htmlhttp://www.minuteman.org/topics/nb.htmlhttp://www.minuteman.org/topics/ipt.htmlhttp://www.minuteman.org/topics/ipt.htmlhttp://www.minuteman.org/topics/nb.html


8/51

This right-brained quadrant is based on kinesthetic intelligence (items one,two, and three), musical intelligence (item four) and interpersonal intelligence(items five and six). Strong scores here can indicate the desirability ofconsidering working with other people in careers like teachers, nurses,

salespersons (the interpersonal dimension) or of considering movement andaction careers like builders, athletes, repairers, dancers. Minuteman providesexploration for these areas through two divisions--the Commercial Servicesor people-focused Division and the Construction-Power or build-fix division.Most of us will exhibit a mixture of characteristics across quadrants. Forexample, a person might prefer the visual learning style (item #1, quadrantB) but not the visual talent or production preferences (other quadrant Bitems). However, dominance (a higher score) in one or two quadrants iscommon and has career selection significance. Also, those wishing todevelop multiple talents for complex career opportunities should attempt tocapitalize on their preferences and grow strength in their areas of non-

preference. Some persons who do that can score strongly in all quadrantsand then adapt to the shifting demands of a job such as in this example: TheCEO of a corporation shifting to quadrant B as he/she plans companystrategy, to quadrant D in meeting with salespersons, to quadrant C indirecting emergency action, or to quadrant A in reviewing fiscal reports.When a school guidance and career exploration program encourages suchplanning and matching and personal development, it produces"entrepreneurial" graduates. These are students who know where they areheaded and why. They go to college with a focused purpose. They developand use their talents but also work at eliminating weaknesses. They becomepersons who view a career path with enthusiasm and are ready to seize newopportunities. They become positive self-managers. Contact Minuteman tolearn more about this important guidance and growth system now.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


9/51

Visual Kinesthetic

Learning & using mind mappingParticipating in movement

exercises

Using a computer graphic program DancingPreparing visual stories or aids Building & fixing

Preparing video tape or computer

presentationsActing

Drawing or making models Taking field trips

Interpersonal Intrapersonal

Working in teams Listing you goals

Teaching or helping others Leading a team

Hosting an evenAnalyzing your "styles" and/or

intelligences

Persuading or "selling" to others Meditating

Debating Writing poetry

Auditory-Linguistic Logical-Analytical

Giving a speech Interpreting patterns

Writing a story or repor Debating

Preparing jokes Solving puzzles

Playing word games Calculating or computing

Reading Writing a computer program

Musical Naturalistic

Singing Observing & recording

Composing Collecting

Playing an instrument Classifying or identifying

Keeping time to a beat Experimenting

Using music (like Baroque) for learning Forecasting

Teachers can use these activities to help students use or developdifferent talents. Good state assessment systems would allow studentsto demonstrate learning in different ways.


10/51

THINKING STYLE

Mankind has been thinking about thinking since the time of the ancientGreeks. Since 1995, we, as the developers of Thinking Styles, have

noticed an increase in the number of consultancies and training

organisations specialising in elements of thinking. Could this mean thatthere is renewed interest in styles of thinking? If so, Thinking Stylesoffers you a very useful way of learning about different styles of thinkingand understanding the implications and uses of each type.

The original concept for the Thinking Styles psychometric was developedby Fiona Beddoes-Jones in 1995 as a means of adding value to personaland professional development programmes.

Thinking Styles measures peoples' cognitive and linguistic preferencesand levels of flexibility at work for twenty-six 'types' of thinking

(dimensions). It does not measure your thinking ability, nor is it a

measure of your 'intelligence'.

Thinking Styles has a unique scoring system. Not only does it identifyand measure the degree to which you like thinking in a particular way, it

also measures the degree to which you dislike thinking in a particularway, i.e. there may be elements of certain styles of thinking that you

positively dislike doing!

Thinking Styles was developed in collaboration with WDP Consulting

Limited www.consultingtools.com. Version 1 of Thinking Styles waslaunched in 1997 as a beta instrument. Thinking Styles Version 2,

supported by reliability and validity data, was launched in April 2001.

If you would like to view or download the questionnaire and complete it,please click here.

If you would like to see a sample profile - click here.

Thinking Styles in depthMuch of the original work that was done regarding the concepts of

linguistics and cognitive filters was generated by Lesley Cameron-Bandlerand Richard Bandler in early 1970's America in the area of personaltherapy. They did not talk about 'thinking'. Instead, they used the terms'fundamental filters' and 'meta-programmes' to explain the ways in which

people perceive and understand the world around them and how they

then translate that perception of the external world into an internalrepresentation within their own minds. The Bandlers' work is recognisedas some of the first building blocks of Neuro Linguistic Programming

(NLP).

Thinking Styles is at the forefront of research in the area of generative

NLP. It is the first psychometric instrument specifically designed toidentify and measure the cognitive and linguistic dynamics inherentwithin individuals, teams and organisations, at all levels.
http://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/author.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/dimensions.htmlhttp://www.wdpconsulting.com/http://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/questionnaire/questionnaire.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/report.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/author.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/dimensions.htmlhttp://www.wdpconsulting.com/http://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/questionnaire/questionnaire.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/report.html


11/51

Thinking Styles gives you very powerful techniques to help youunderstand yourself and others. By developing your communication skills

you will be able to develop more effective working relationships. ThinkingStyles is ideal for use in situations at work where strong relationships arecritical for success. Click here to view some examples. In a teamenvironment, an understanding of the cognitive, linguistic and

behavioural dynamics that are operating (usually unconsciously) withinthe team can be very beneficial in helping you to work more effectively

with your colleagues.

Cognitive dynamics are the mental processing and thinking which takes

place individually and within the team. Linguistic dynamics are the wordsand language patterns which people use. Behavioural dynamics of

Thinking Styles are those behaviours which occur as a result of the wayin which a person thinks. Thinking (even unconscious thought) alwaysprecedes action.

Linking these different dynamics together will help you to understand the

complex relationships between peoples' behaviours, how they use wordsand the way in which they think. Understanding the thinking processes ofyour teams will enable you to present information to them in a way andat a pace which allows them to think more effectively together, creating

more successful teams. At all levels of the organisation, your meetingswill be more focused, more effective and shorter. For more examples -

click here.

Thinking Styles can also identify cultural cognitive preferences within

teams and organisations. If, for example, an organisation is particularlyproactive, competitive or options oriented, this is likely to be reflected in

the individual and collective profiles of its people. This is particularly true

of the senior team, as organisational culture is profoundly influenced bythe thinking styles of its directors and senior managers.

DIMENSION THINKING STYLE

The Thinking Styles profile identifies 26 ways of thinking. These are called "dimensions" bypsychologists. Each of these can be identified in the language we use and the behaviours we adopt.

Each dimension has:

Specific linguistics or associated language patterns Associated behaviours known as 'surface traits' which are visible to others

Thinking Styles measures: Four Sensory Focused dimensions, exploring the ways you prefer to receive information via

your senses

Eight People Focused dimensions, exploring the ways you interact with people Fourteen Task Focused dimensions, exploring the ways you relate to tasks and activities at work

Dimension ExplanationsHere are the behavioural examples which relate to each type of thinking.
http://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/using.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/case_studies.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/case_studies.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/using.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/case_studies.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/case_studies.html


12/51

Sensory Focused: Explores the ways you prefer to receive information via yoursenses.

Visual thinking: the use of pictures, diagrams and visual imagery internally and externally.Auditory thinking: a focus on the use of words and language, listening and talking things

through.Kinaesthetic thinking: the use of feelings, emotions, intuition and physical exercise.Digital thinking: involves a focus on the facts, and/or the use of data and statistics.

People Focused: Explores the way you interact with people.

Internal thinking: relies on their own judgements & standards, believes oneself to beright, ignores feedback.

External thinking: relies on feedback from others, believes that others are right.

Self referenced thinking: puts their own needs first and ignores the needs of other people.Others referenced

thinking:

responsive to the needs of others and willing to help other people.

Matching thinking: wants to fit in, dislikes confrontation and takes a non-challengingapproach.

Mismatching thinking: dislikes being told what to do, will challenge and confront.Collaborative thinking: involves others, shares information, prefers a team environment.Competitive thinking: wants to win and better either the competition or ones' own

performance.

Task Focused: Explores the way you relate to tasks and activities at work and yourapproach to problem solving.

Big Chunk thinking: focuses on general principles & summary information often in terms ofkey points.

Detail Conscious thinking:believes details are important & attends to detailed information.

Right Brain thinking: creative, naturally multi-tasks, has an untidy workspace, worksbackwards.

Left Brain thinking: processes systematically in sequence, ordered, completes 1 task at atime.

Options thinking: explores opportunity & possibility, seeks choice and alternatives, adds

to work.Procedural thinking: procedures are important, follows instructions & the correct way of

doing things.Moving Towards thinking: focuses on goals & targets, says what they want and has a positive

attitude.

Moving Away Fromthinking:

focuses on problems, makes contingency plans, may worry.

Proactive thinking: initiates action, gets on with things, proactive approach.

Reactive thinking: waits, analyses and plans, reviews all the relevant info and considersconsequences.

Simplicity filter: often simplifies complex issues and prefers things to be easy.

Complexity filter: enjoys the challenge of difficulty and of complex issues.

Sameness thinking: seeks stability and the familiar; prefers gradual change, noticessimilarities.

Differences thinking: notices what is different; seeks variety, has a high capacity &tolerance for change.

The Thinking Styles profile is used in all areas where skill in communication and the need to


13/51

understand how other people think and learn are critical to success. It is a stepping stone tounderstanding and learning how to use language effectively to influence and encourage your staff,

your students or your colleagues. Learning another person's "language" and using it will makemotivating and managing him or her rewarding and enjoyable.

Thinking Styles is used: To develop more creative and dynamic teams

In Customer Relationship Management programmes To gently influence othersThinking Styles plays a vital role in understanding and developing personal cognitive awareness,

helping you to identify which thinking style to use to achieve your objectives and how to developflexibility across the styles. The Thinking Styles consultancy service identifies and helps individualsand teams develop their cognitive skills and behavioural flexibility.

Team Dynamics and Team WorkingBy profiling each member, you will be able to identify and understand the cognitive dynamics within

your team. This will: Help you understand the strengths and weaknesses of the individual team members and of the

whole team Improve relationships through understanding colleagues' thinking styles

Enable tasks to be divided and allocated to those people who are best suited to do them Energise your team

Encourage respect for yourself and for othersTwo Way Profiling

By mapping two peoples' thinking styles against each other, we can help you to: Identify overlaps and potential conflicts Gain a more complete understanding of someone else's styles directly compared to your own Resolve difficult relationships

Identify gaps in thinking style flexibility and potential weaknesses within your profiles

In smaller companies, getting the right relationship between the key senior managers is vital to the

company's success. One of our case studies gives an example of the benefits of two-way mapping ina small consultancy. If you would like to read more - click here.

Customer Relationship ManagementOur Associates have successfully used Thinking Styles in developing strategies for enhancingrelationships with their customers. Teams have found using the Thinking Styles profile helps to:

Enhance their ability to gain and maintain rapport with customers Be able to respond flexibly to customers in ways which fit their styles Probe the underlying needs of customers and explore ways of addressing these needs Learn to recognise easily the thinking styles of their customers through their language and

behaviour

One of our case studies shows how this helped staff in BP Amoco. If you would like to read more -click here.

Sales and Negotiation TechniquesUnderstanding their own Thinking Styles profile and language preferences has helped sales staffidentify the potential buying strategies of their clients. You can: Identify the critical styles of thinking in your clients' buying process

Learn to listen to and observe your customers' thinking preferences Enhance your thinking style flexibility to match your clients' patterns

Speak their language: develop and maintain effective client rapport

Developing Advanced Training SkillsTraining others so that they are able to learn quickly and easily, and moreover, retain and recallwhat they have learned, requires a high degree of skill and understanding. Using your own ThinkingStyles profile we can help you to: Develop your skills as a trainer to a significantly higher level of competence

Develop your understanding of how people think and therefore how they learn Understand how people prefer to be 'taught'

Make your training messages more memorableWe hold regular two-day Workshops for skilled trainers, to enhance their training skills. For more

details - click here.
http://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/workshops/consultancy.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/case_studies.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/case_studies.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/workshops/adtraining.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/workshops/consultancy.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/case_studies.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/case_studies.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/workshops/adtraining.html


14/51

CoachingThinking Styles has proved itself to be highly effective in executive coaching, and is used regularlywith senior managers in the City. We work with you on a one-to-one basis, using your Thinking

Styles profile to: Help you to focus and think through the strengths and potential weaknesses of your profile and

the implications for your preferred areas of work Give you support as you develop your cognitive flexibility

Help you make connections and develop personal insights to help your career progressIf you would like to know more about our personal coaching please click here to contact us.

Presentation Techniques

How often have you attended a presentation that didn't work for you? It could be that the presenterdid not appreciate how his or her own thinking style preferences would be reflected in theirpresentation style. Develop flexibility in your own presentation style

Develop rapport with your audience Understand those techniques which make the "best" presenters successful

Learn to apply those techniques to your own presentationsWe hold regular one day Workshops on developing your presentation skills using Thinking Styles.

Workshop details -click here.

Time Management

Why don't traditional time management courses always work? Could it be that they are trying toteach "Left Brain" methods to "Right Brained" preferenced people? Learn both left and right brain techniques for managing your time

Learn to be both 'creative' and 'logical' Learn which technique to apply for every time management problem

Develop more confidence in your time management skills

If you would like to know more about our coaching in Time Management skills using Thinking Styles,contact us.

Creating the Right Environment for ThinkingHow can you support the development of rapid and effective flexibility for different thinking styles?

You can enhance your flexibility for the most appropriate kind of thinking when you need to bycreating the right environments for your thinking. For example:

Closed spaces can close down thinking, so give yourself some space

To think strategically work in a room with a view to ensure that you get some 'perspective' To make mental connections and think more 'creatively', move around or take a walk To think logically and sequentially surround yourself with linear objects

We can review your working and training environments to identify how they are affecting yourthinking and learning and offer strategies for maximising their effectiveness. If you would like toknow more - click here.

REPORT

The Thinking Styles Report gives a graphic and verbal representation of yourown Personal Profile. There are no right or wrong profiles.

This is a shortened example of an individual's profile from a report with a

possible interpretation.
http://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/contact/contact_us.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/workshops/adpres.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/workshops/adpres.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/workshops/adpres.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/contact/contact_us.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/contact/contact_us.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/contact/contact_us.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/contact/contact_us.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/workshops/adpres.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/contact/contact_us.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/contact/contact_us.html


15/51

The above profile suggests that the person has a high preference for Visual and

Kinaesthetic thinking, a moderate preference for Auditory processing and a lowpreference for Digital thinking. It also shows that there are some elements of both

Auditory and Digital processing which they dislike doing. (To understand which of the

surface traits they have expressed a dislike for, you will need to examine their responsesto the relevant statements in the Thinking Styles Questionnaire).

The above profile suggests that this person has a very strong dislike of Selfbehaviours and a high preference for Others thinking. Potentially, if theynever 'put themselves first' this could leave them permanently exhausted!

Their profile also suggests that they have a high preference for InternallyReferenced thinking and that there are some elements of External thinkingwhich they dislike using. If this means that they tend to ignore feedback fromothers and always believe that they are 'right', potentially they could comeacross as being very arrogant, although their high Others preference mayhelp to mediate this.

Although they have a low preference for Matching thinking, there areelements of Matching behaviours which they dislike doing and they have ahigh preference for Mismatching processing. Potentially, this could lead tothem being perceived as 'argumentative', particularly if they are prepared tochallenge others (which is very likely, given their high Internal score).

Although they haven't disagreed with any statements relating to eitherCollaborative or Competitive processing, their scores suggest a lowpreference for Collaborative thinking and a moderate preference forCompetitive thinking. Behaviourally, I would probably expect to see bothCompetitive and Collaborative behaviours displayed in their workingenvironment.


16/51

You will notice that there is no explanation for the Task Focus dimensions here. This is

because we have used this as a competition for those of you who would like to "have a

go". If you would like to enter our competition to win a copy of the book "ThinkingStyles-Relationship Strategies that work", then click here.

The ReportIn the first part of the report you will find your Personal Summaries and thedimension definitions. In the second part of your report you will find moredetailed descriptions of each Thinking Style.

These are written in a consistent format. We have included those behaviours,filters and language patterns identified through our questionnaires as being

the most relevant to each style. We have also included some of thosebehaviours, language patterns and cognitive filters which are likely to beassociated with each style. For each dimension, there is an explanation onhow to manage and motivate people who score highly against the dimension,whether they are working with you, are working for you or are your manager.Finally we have designed some exercises to increase your flexibility for eachThinking Style. The exercises are designed for people who have a lowpreference or flexibility for the dimension should they choose to increase theirflexibility. Those people who already score quite highly may want to do theexercises just for fun! Click here.

Competition

Have a go at our free competition to win a copy of the book "Thinking Styles -

Relationship Strategies that work".

Read the questions and e-mail us with your ideas:

How would you describe the above Task Focus profile? Using the dimension definitions, what behavioural characteristics might you expect the
http://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/report.html#competitionhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/products/brain.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/products/products_description.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/products/products_description.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/dimensions.html#taskhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/report.html#competitionhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/products/brain.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/products/products_description.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/products/products_description.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/thinking_styles/dimensions.html#task


17/51

individual to display?

What would you suggest that their cognitive strengths and potential weaknesses might

be at work relating to these Task Focus dimensions?

This is an exercise we use on ourLicensing Programme. Every week we will

be selecting a winner who will receive a copy of the book, dedicated to themand signed by the author, Fiona Beddoes-Jones. The

THINKING STYLE HDBI

Ned Hermann developed the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument,HBDI , while he was head of training and management development atGeneral Electric. The HBDI reports individual preferences in thinkingstyles. The instrument is the product of years of brain research by NedHermann. The result of this research is a model of thinking that uses theanalogy of brain function. The model has four quadrants that characterize

the way we think, that is, perceive and make judgments.

Thinking styles are represented as a left-right bias for the left and righthemispheres of the brain and upper and lower bias for the cerebral andlimbic functions of the brain. The presentation of these quadrants is in color.

A Quadrant: Cerebral left hemisphere corresponds to analytic thinking.Thinking in this style prefers:

Logic

Analysis

Facts

Measurement

B Quadrant: Limbic left hemisphere corresponds to implementationthinking. Thinking in this style prefers: Organization

Sequence

Planning

Detail

C Quadrant: Limbic right hemisphere corresponds to social thinking.Thinking in this style prefers:

Interpersonal Social

Kinesthetic

Emotion

D Quadrant: Cerebral right hemisphere correspond to future thinking.Thinking in this style prefers: Holistic
http://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/workshops/licensing.htmlhttp://www.thinkingstyles.co.uk/workshops/licensing.html


18/51

Intuition

Integration

Synthesis

Every healthy individual has the capability to choose any of these four

thinking styles. As individuals our preferences give different weight to eachthinking style. We have a baseline thinking style profile and situation andstress profiles. These can be interpreted from the HBDI report. TheHBDI report is not a measure of performance. While I may prefer toanalyze situations, it does not mean that I am any good at it.

Although the instrument does not provide for performance analysis orprediction, it does have a useful application in the pursuit of happiness.Jobs, hobbies, problems can be organized into the four quadrants accordingto the primary skills required to perform them. Reflection and discussion cantake place around preference profile and activity profile.The HBDI also has group and team applications. The individual thinking

styles of a senior management team, for example, can be overlaid andaveraged to present a composite thinking style for that group. The businessprocesses or problems can be mapped against this profile just as it wasdone for the individual.Knowing your thinking style is the groundwork for improving your decisions.

Thinking styles and accessinginformation on the world wide

web


19/51

Jean Lumb

Department of PsychologyUniversity College of North Wales, Bangor

AbstractThis article describes a project which investigates how thinking styles affect student useof hypertext using concept mapping as an approach to learning on the world wide web.

The project is to be carried out at the University College of North Wales, Bangor, in the

Psychology Department. Past research relevant to this project is described below.

Learning and hypertextCurrent debate about the role of hypertext and hypermedia for learning centres mainlyaround the use of hypertext as a cognitive tool for purposeful learning of complex

material. The ergonomic advantages of hypertext for information retrieval seem to bewidely accepted. Some of the claims made about the advantages of learning fromhypertext are more controversial. Hutchings et al (1992) claim that advantages for users

of hypermedia include greater learner control; improved access to multimedia learning

materials; and a variety of new modalities of interaction for use with learning material.

Jonassen (1993) states that some hypertext researchers and designers believe that

hypertext information structures should reflect the structures of human memory asproposed by Bartlett's (1932) schema theory model of human memory. Schema theory is

a non linear model for representation of knowledge within the human brain. If the

structure in the hypertext interface resembles the way in which the brain encodes

information, this will enable greater changes in knowledge structures of the learner. Byexplicitly mapping the semantic network of an expert onto the hypertext, learners may

come to think like an expert more readily.

McKendree and Reader (1994) challenge the assumption that hypertext and hypermedia

resemble the knowledge structures in the brain in some way. They maintain that

knowledge of how the brain encodes information is poorly understood. Simply havingaccess to information or knowledge does not presuppose that learning takes place. What

is needed is knowledge of the complex ways in which people learn. Learners need to

actively process information in a meaningful way, to reflect upon and use the information

in order for it to be truly learned. What is needed is knowledge of how people learncomplex material. Jonassen (1993) accepts that merely illustrating content structures in

the interface is not sufficient for helping learners acquire those structures. He maintains

that it is the nature of the processing task and goals for learning while interacting with ahypertext that determines the effects of its use on learners' knowledge.

Barker (1993) states that if hypermedia material is to be educationally effective,considerable thought should be given to firstly the learning goals and activities that it

must support; how the nature of the underlying knowledge corpus relates to these

requirements; and how learners differ from each other. Eklund (1995) is positive about


20/51

the potential of hypermedia systems for incorporating these principles into hypertext

software. He recommends the incorporation of advanced navigational devices such as

concept maps into the software to inform users of their place in the process of knowledgeacquisition and past and possible new trails to follow. A semantic (or concept) map is a

graphical representation of an individual's knowledge of a particular subject area or

subject domain. He also recommends the use of an adaptive interface based on severalstereotypical user classes to modify the environment to suit the individual user with the

user making informed decisions about where next to proceed based on his/her

interpretation of the meaning of materials and at each learners own pace.

Peter Whalley (1993) questions the validity of the assumption made sometimes about

linear text - that, unlike hypertext, it is unstructured. He also questions whether it is

desirable to deliberately fragment educational materials in order to make them moreaccessible. Whalley states that Grimes (1975) and DeBeaugrade (1980) have shown how

under a superficially linear form, authors may create complex relational structures.

Whalley states that linear texts contain turn taking cues which promote reflective critical

reading. Fragmentation in hypertext makes it more difficult to perceive the author'sintended argument structure. This makes it more difficult to organise hypertext materials

to support higher level learning. Kommers (1990) describes the failure of hypertext as amedium to improve learning especially for less able pupils as they cannot see the wood

for the trees. Jonassen (1993) carried out three studies of the use of concept mapping

embedded in hypertext for learning. One of these studies resulted in improvement instudent learning. The results of these are discussed below.

Jonassen (1990) accepts the premise that learning is the reorganisation of knowledge

structures and has used two tools for depicting those representations, utilising these toolsfor learning. The first is Preeces (1976) method of free association of word lists to create

a semantic map of knowledge and Buzans (1974) technique of notetaking in the form of

pattern mapping of knowledge structures. These techniques have been incorporated intocomputer environments such as Learning Tool (Kozma, 1987), Semnet (Fisher et al,

1988) and Pathfinder Nets (McDonald, Paap & McDonald, 1990) for production of

semantic nets. In a set of three studies, Jonassen (1990) wanted to investigate the extentto which a semantically structured hypertext affects the acquisition of structural

knowledge, knowledge structures being the organisation of an individual's ideas.

In the first two studies, individuals took part in a learning task where material waspresented either with or without the experts semantic map of the material. In these

studies, there was no difference in knowledge acquisition and structural knowledge

gained between subjects presented with semantic maps compared with subjects who werenot presented with these maps. However, in the third study, experimental subjects were

required to create their own semantic maps of the subject field. There were still no

differences in recall scores. However, in this study, subjects performed significantlybetter on the relationship task than the two groups instructed only to study the materials.

These results support findings of Bower et al (1969) that imposing your own organisation

on material as well as active involvement in processing the material meaningfully

enhances learning. Craik and Lockharts (1972) studies on levels of processing also


21/51

support these results. The more deeply a learner processes information, the more likely it

is that the person will remember material to be learned.

Thinking styles

One possible way in which to determine the complex ways in which peoplelearn is to study the way in which they think. Robert Sternberg (1995)

proposes that thinking involves the representation and processing of

information in the mind. One way to view thought is to consider critical

thinking, in which individuals consciously direct mental processes to find athoughtful solution to a problem as opposed to noncritical thinking, in which

individuals routinely follow customary thought patterns, without consciously

directing how they think. These two different types of thinking will beappropriate for different tasks. Sternberg in 1988, proposed the theory of

mental self government. In a further article discussing this theory, he

examines the nature of thinking styles and impact of current forms of

educational assessment on individual students with differing thinking styleprofiles (Sternberg, 1992). Mental self government relates to the task of

managing or governing everyday activities. The flexible use of the mind formental self government accounts for a variety of thinking styles.

Sternberg (1992) defines a thinking style as a preferred way of thinking. It is

not an ability, but a preferred way of expressing or using one or more abilities.Two or more people at the same level of ability may nevertheless have very

different styles. Sternberg maintains that styles, like abilities are in large part

of a function of the environment and they can be developed. They are alsofluid in the sense that different styles may be used in different situations as

styles seem to be partly a function of tasks and situations. Preferred styles mayalso change over the lifespan. However, the fact that some people retain lessrewarded styles despite environmental pressure suggests that socialisation

does not account fully for the origins of styles, and that there may be pre-

programmed dispositions that are difficult to change.

Sternberg & Lubart (1991a) proposes that there is a link between intellectual

(or thinking style) and creativity. Truly striking levels of creativity are

associated with global and legislative thinking styles compared with localexecutive thinking styles. Individuals with a global legislative thinking style

prefer relatively large abstract issues, ignoring details. They prefer the task of

creating, formulating , imagining and planning. Individuals with local stylesprefer concrete problems requiring detailed work and tend to be pragmatically

oriented. They prefer implementing and applying ideas or plans of others.

Sternberg (1992) maintains that there are consistent biases in measurements of

ability which benefit some thinking styles at the expense of others. He uses

the multiple choice/short answer format as an example of a type of

conventional test commonly used which favours test takers with an executive,


22/51

local style and somewhat those with internal conservative styles as well. He

also suggests that the type of student who gets good grades as assessed by

conventional tests are unlikely to be the students who are most creative whenit comes to generating new ideas in their research regardless of discipline (see

Sternberg & Lubart, 1991a; 1991b, p. 179.) Creative students are more likely

to show profiles of styles that are legislative and global. More recent testsemphasise critical thinking and analysis, indicating there may be a shift away

from benefiting executive styles.

The aim of this project is to test whether there is an interaction between

thinking styles and learning utilising concept mapping as a learning tool for

managing material presented in either hypertext format or linear format. It is

predicted that one type of learning style will be more effective with one typeof presentation of material. It is predicted that there will be a significant

interaction between preferred thinking styles and presentation of material in

either linear or hypertext formats. Subjects with an executive, local profile

will master factual knowledge more effectively through a linear approach butnot see links between areas of knowledge as clearly as subjects who have a

legislative, global style profile. Subjects with this second type of profile willperform well on understanding links between knowledge but will have lower

scores on factual knowledge.

It could be the case that the major role of hypertext and concept mapping is

firstly in the management of learning. Whalley (1993) expresses concern of

writers distance learning materials about the `over organised text which

promotes passive learning which could be a problem for educationalistsdesigning learning packages using hypertext. Eklund (1995) has outlined the

usefulness of concept mapping embedded in hypertext for the management of

learning, assisting the user in establishing current knowledge states andplanning where to go next. The use of concept mapping may also have a

major role to play in developing creativity, particularly the truly distinctive

creativity described by Sternberg.

Dimensions of ThinkingA Framework for Curriculum and Instruction

by Robert J. Marzano, Ronald S. Brandt, Carolyn Sue Hughes, Beau Fly Jones,

Barbara Z. Presseisen, Stuart C. Rankin, and Charles Suhor


23/51

Copyright 1988 by the Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproducedor transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, includingphotocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, withoutpermission from ASCD.

ForewordWho would not want what is taught in school to include an emphasis onstudent thinking? Yet we know that the activities and interaction patterns inmany classrooms do not contribute to growth in thinking. Numerous attemptshave been made to change the situation, with varying degrees of successand frustration. The authors of this book offer a fresh approach.Because of the bewildering army of strategies offered by various advocates,many educators are confused about just what it means to "teach thinking"

and how, other than buying a packaged program, schools can provide for it.As a partial answer, the authors ofDimensions of Thinkinghave developed aframework intended to be the basis for curriculum and staff developmentprograms. They have organized and clarified research and theory fromseveral sources, including philosophy and cognitive psychology, in a formintended to be useful to practitioners.

As you read Dimensions of Thinking, you may be challenged to rethinkconventional views on such matters as student motivation and rewardsystems and the relationship between thinking skills and content knowledge.You will doubtless begin to wonder about the possible impact of teachingthinking on the perennial problems of student failure, disillusionment, and

unmet potential. And you will probably be excited by the possibility of gainsin student achievement that we usually only dream about.Because this publication challenges traditional notions about purposes andmethods of instruction, it has implications for preservice and inserviceteacher education and for refocusing the efforts of supervisors, principals,superintendents, and boards of education. A powerful yet flexible model,Dimensions of Thinkingpromises to influence education far into the future.Marcia Knoll,ASCD President, 1987-88

Copyright 1988 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.

PrefaceWhen the seven of us got together to begin work on this book, we knew itcould not be done perfectly, and a few of us doubted it could be done at all.The idea of a new "taxonomy" of thinking skills was first suggested at aninvitational conference hosted by the Johnson Foundation at the WingspreadConference Center in Racine, Wisconsin, in May 1984. ASCD had called themeeting to ask interested educators how we might best contribute to the
http://www.ascd.org/copyright.htmlhttp://www.ascd.org/copyright.html


24/51

burgeoning interest in teaching thinking. The conferees suggested numerouspossibilities, including preparing a resource book, producing a series ofvideotapes, starting a network, and cooperating with other educationorganizations to promote interest in teaching thinking.In February 1985 Carolyn Hughes, then ASCD president-elect, met with

representatives of other organizations to form the Association Collaborativefor Teaching Thinking. The Collaborative identified five projects that memberorganizations thought would be useful, including one that ASCD offered tosupport financially: development of a framework of thinking skills.Educators wanted a framework because they were hearing more and moreabout published programs designed specifically for teaching thinking. Eachof these programs had its own definition of thinking and its own array ofskills. If schools were to integrate the teaching of thinking with regularacademic instruction, they needed to know what aspects of thinking to teach.We decided to try to answer that question as well as we could.We began knowing that several detailed lists of thinking skills were already

available, but it did not seem useful simply to rearrange them. Besides, theliterature on thinking dealt not only with skills but with several other aspectsof thinking, such as "dispositions" of critical thinkers, creativity, decisionmaking, and the role of knowledge in thinking. We wanted to recognize eachof these aspects of thinking in our framework if we could. We chose to callthe major elements of our framework "dimensions" because, if we could drawa diagram of our model, it would have at least five dimensions.1

The framework presented in this book has been reviewed by numerousresearchers, experts, and practitioners and revised several times in an effortto make it as accurate and helpful as possible. Some 60 people, includingboth researchers and practitioners, met in November 1986 for a secondinvitational conference at Wingspread to criticize the third draft of themanuscript, which was subsequently rewritten again in response to theconferees' recommendations. We appreciate the many helpful comments wereceived, and we feel the framework is stronger because of them. Additionalresearch information on each of the dimensions may be found in acompanion volume, Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction.2

We knew when we began that our final product would not be fullysatisfactory, and for good reason. Thinking is such a complex activity that itis extremely difficult to portray with accuracy and clarity. Some aspects ofthinking are better understood than others, and many are the subject ofconsiderable controversy. Some of the better published programs forteaching thinking skills are grounded in particular conceptions of thinking.They are based on a particular body of research or on a well-conceivedrationale. They are coherentbut also somewhat idiosyncratic. Our aim wasto assemble a cohesive framework drawn from many diverse sources. Forexample, we wanted to include the perspectives of both psychology andphilosophy. Unfortunately, the two traditions are very different, so in a sensewe were trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Nevertheless, despite theseconcerns, we think practicing educators will find this framework useful.


25/51

The framework is intended for use in designing staff development programsfor teachers and other educators and as the basis for curriculum planning atall levels. In the years ahead, we hope to see each of the dimensions morefully reflected in school programs and practices. Some researchers andeducators are concerned about publication of a framework such as this

because they oppose the teaching of skills apart from meaningful context.They see that schools frequently fall into the trap of seeming to teach skillsfor their own sake rather than providing for their useful application in goal-directed activities. We believe that occasional explicit instruction in core skillsand processeswhen related to a useful purposecan be beneficial tostudents, but in general we, too, question the value of teaching skills apartfrom content.We recogize that this framework can be misinterpreted and misused, but it isnot intended as a scope and sequence chart for a separate thinking skillscurriculum. To the contrary, we believe that whether or not schools decide tooffer special thinking skills programs, thinking should pervade the entire

curriculum. Accordingly, we have tried to identify aspects of thinking sofundamental that students should use these skills and processes repeatedlyin the course of learning academic content.

Endnotes

1 It would, of course, be difficult to represent more than three dimensions graphically, so wehave not attempted that. We acknowledge also that, as Ray Nickerson has pointed out, ouruse of the term is somewhat inappropriate because we are not actually referring tomeasurable extensions in space.2 Jones, B.F., and L. Idol, Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction (Hillsdale, N.J.:

Erlbaum, in preparation).

Copyright 1988 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.

1. Thinking as the Foundation of SchoolingIn recent years, many Americans have come to recognize that students inour schools do not think as skillfully and critically as we might wish. Abarrage of books, articles, and reports has appeared in support of teachingthinking. For example, such prominent organizations as the EducationCommission of the States (1982) and the College Board (1983) have

highlighted the teaching of thinking. High-impact reports such as A Nation atRisk(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) have pointedto deficiencies in higher-level thinking as a major weakness in Americaneducation. Widely read journals such as Educational Leadership havedevoted entire issues to the topic.Many of these publications cite students' inability to answer higher levelquestions on tests or to perform well on complex academic tasks. Forexample, Silver's (1986) analysis of the results of nationwide testing by the
http://www.ascd.org/copyright.htmlhttp://www.ascd.org/copyright.html


26/51

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) includes convincingexamples of how students approach academic tasks in a mechanical fashionwithout much apparent thought about what they are doing. A classicillustration is the following NAEP problem.

Estimate the answer to 3.04 x 5.3

a. 1.6 b. 16 c. 160 d. 1,600 e. don't know

Only 20 percent of the 13-year-olds and 40 percent of the 17-year-olds gotthe right answer. Yet when asked to compute the answer to a similarproblem, 60 percent of the 13-year-olds and 80 percent of the 17-year-oldsanswered correctly (Burns, 1986). Other evidence suggests that students ofall ages have many misconceptions that are not being effectively addressedby existing instructional methods. Anderson and Smith (1984), for instance,have noted that elementary students can pass chapter quizzes onphotosynthesis and still not understand that plants make their own food.These and countless other examples in the reform literature suggest that

America's students often lack rigorous thought and perhaps even that

thinking is not valued in our schools. Indeed, the main message oftencommunicated to students is that they should provide "the right answer."

According to Doyle's (1983) study of academic work in American schools,accountability and testing drive schooling. Students learn early in the gamethat all classroom activities are not equal; some things are tested, and othersare not. By the time students have reached high school, they know the rulewell: "Learn what will be tested." The result, despite teachers' goodintentions, is devaluation of independent thought.

The Goal of Education

Such philosophers as Robert Ennis, Matthew Lipman, and Richard Paul holdthat the development of rational thinkers should be the primary goal ofeducation. Paul (1986b) envisions the end product of education as theinquiring mind:

A passionate drive for clarity, accuracy, and fair-mindedness, a fervor for gettingto the bottom of things, to the deepest root issues, for listening sympathetically toopposite points of view, a compelling drive to seek out evidence, and intenseaversion to contradiction, sloppy thinking, inconsistent application of standards, adevotion to truth as against self-interestthese are essential components of therational person (p. 1).

Others would say that the goal is to develop mature thinkers who are able to

acquire and use knowledge. For example, Anderson (1977) and Rumelhart(1980) stress the fundamental role of "searching for meaning" in cognition.Toward this end, model learners work actively to integrate new informationwith what they already know, to select what is important, to make inferencesbeyond the information given, and to think strategically about their ownlearning.For many philosophers, psychologists, and educators, the development ofrational thought and the search for meaning need no justification; their


27/51

centrality to education is self-evident (Kirkpatrick, 1936). More pragmaticreasons, though, are not hard to find. Certainly the success of anydemocratic system depends on individuals' ability to analyze problems andmake thoughtful decisions. A democracy thrives on the productivity of itsdiverse constituencya productivity fostered by free, critical, and creative

thought on issues of common interest.Seiger-Ehrenberg (1985), who in her lifetime developed several thinking-skills programs, expresses the rationale for teaching thinking in terms ofindividual and social needs and benefits. "By the time students graduatefrom high school, they should be able to consistently and effectively takeintelligent ethical action to accomplish the tasks society legitimately expectsof all its members and to establish and pursue worthwhile goals of their ownchoosing" (p. 7). She defines "intelligent ethical action" as "using rationalthought processes to arrive at a decision . . . taking into account . . . the well-being of those affected" (pp. 8-9). She proposes that these outcomeswhichcan be achieved only by teaching students to thinkshould be the basis for

planning the entire curriculum.

The Need for a Framework for Teaching Thinking

Many programs designed specifically for teaching thinking are now available.Costa's (1985a) Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinkingincludes descriptions of more than 30 such programs or approaches.

Although these resources are useful and show great progress in ourawareness of the need to foster thinking, the different definitions of thinkingand the number of available options can be confusing. In fact, it would be amistake to assume that thinking instruction is somehow contained in this

abundance of programs and that offering one or more of them is sufficient.Such an assumption is dangerous because it ignores the need toconceptualize basic skills such as reading and writing as thinking andbecause it ignores the need to infuse teaching thinking in all curriculumareas.What has been missing in current theory, and practice is an organizingframework for teaching thinkinga latticework to systematically examinethemes common to the different approaches and relationships among them.

An appropriate framework would allow practitioners in different subject areasand grade levels to develop a common knowledge base and a commonlanguage for teaching thinking. In this book we seek to develop such aframework.

Dimensions of Thinking

At the outset, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our effort. Theframework presented here is meant to be a useful tool for practitioners. It isnot offered as a model of how the mind works or as an explanatory theory.Rather, we are guided by Anderson's (1983, p. 12) definition: a frameworkis


28/51

a "general pool of constructs for understanding a domain, but is not tightlyenough organized to constitute a predictive theory."Such noted scholars and researchers as Perkins (1981), Sternberg (1980),Gardner (1983), Anderson (1983), and Johnson-Laird (1983) havedeveloped highly sophisticated theories and models of cognition and

intelligence. No duplication of their work is intended here. Rather, we havetried to draw from many scholarly works to identify the "dimensions" thatappear to be threads running through both research and theoryperspectives that can be used to analyze various approaches to teachingthinking and to provide direction for planning curriculum and instruction.

Accordingly, we have identified five dimensions of thinking: Metacognition

Critical and creative thinking

Thinking processes

Core thinking skills

The relationship of content-area knowledge to thinking

These dimensions do not form a taxonomy. They are neither discrete norcomparable categories. They overlap in some cases, and they relate to eachother in different ways. Therefore, they do not form a hierarchy. Nor are theyintended as ends in themselves. We chose them because they reflect thevarious domains of thinking as they are understood in terms of currentresearch. Educators can use this framework as a resource to match thedemands of the curriculum with the needs of students, knowing that this is aworking document that will change as research provides new information.The first dimension, metacognition, refers to our awareness and control ofour own thinking. For example, students' beliefs about themselves and about

such things as the value of persistence and the nature of work will heavilyinfluence their motivation, attention, and effort for any given task.Critical and creative thinking are dominant themes in the literature onthinking. We consider this dimension to include these two different butrelated ways of characterizing thinking. Regardless of the particularprocesses or skills involved, an individual's thinking can be described asmore or less creative or critical.We conceive of thinking processes, such as concept formation,comprehension, decision making, and problem solving, as anotherdimension of thinking. Whereas skills, such as ordering data or verifying theaccuracy of statements, can be accessed randomly as the situation arises,

the cognitive processes are goal oriented. To comprehend a passage, solvea problem, or engage in scientific inquiry are important academic activities intheir own right. We view them as being more or less macro-level operationsthat take place over time in variable but somewhat predictable sequences ofgeneric skills.We refer to these more micro-level operations as core thinking skills. Theyare best described as basic cognitive operations used in metacognitivereflection and in the thinking processes. The skills of comparing and


29/51

classifying, for example, are used frequently in decision making and problemsolving.These first four dimensions do not exist in isolation. Individuals must thinkaboutsomething, and the content of our thinking greatly influences how wethink. For example, our ability to classify and order data probably depends

more on our knowledge of the topic than on our knowledge of the skills ofclassifying and ordering. Knowledge is related to the other dimensions incomplex and subtle ways.

A key characteristic of the dimensions is that they occur simultaneously. Anindividual may be thinking metacognitively ("Do I understand this word? Is itimportant to what follows?") while using skills and processes ("How can Irepresent this problem? What would I need to do to produce a goodessay?")in critical and creative ways. When writing a paper, for example, a studentmight be monitoring attitudes, such as the desire to go out and play ballrather than study, while using a specific thinking skill such as summarizing.Our framework does not distinguish as separate dimensions several aspects

of thinking that need to be addressed in any organized effort to foster studentthinking and therefore might have been included as additional dimensions.One of these is cognitive development: the growth in students' capacities forthinking as they mature and gain experience. Another is cognitive style.Research and everyday experience confirm that individuals think differently,so schools must not expect a single style of thinking to fit all students equallywell. We also considered having a separate chapter on attitudes anddispositions but decided to discuss this important aspect of thinking in thecontext of the other dimensions.

The Razor's Edge

Before discussing the dimensions in depth, we want to warn against teachingthem as ends in themselves. We do not recommend that a district or schooluse this or any other framework as the basis for a scope and sequence chartcalling for isolated instruction in thinking. Rather, students should use theskills, processes, and metacognitive strategies in connection with learningregular classroom content. They should view the skills as means tocomprehending a theory, solving a problem, or drafting an essay.We do not mean to suggest, however, that students do not need practice in agiven skill or that they should never be taught specific skills in adjunctcourses. Clearly, some students need more practice than others, and tryingto learn skills and content at the same time may overwhelm some of them.Nevertheless, even when cognitive and metacognitive skills are taughtdirectly, the goal should be to learn valuable information. To be effective, drilland practice must have functional meaning (Sticht & Hickey, in press).Meaningless drill and practice will not produce thinking students.Teachers in every subject area, then, have a dual agenda. They need todevelop in all students a rich knowledge base, and they need to provide


30/51

students with a repertoire of cognitive and metacognitive skills and strategiesthat will enable them to use the knowledge efficiently in meaningful contexts.

Thinking in Historical Context

Any conception of thinking is always from the perspective of a particular timeframe. Thinking was perceived differently in the 10th century than it wasduring the Enlightenment. Different times have their own unique thoughtprocesses, and current thought patterns reflect the present era.Our effort is but one of a long list of similar attempts to map what is knownabout thinking onto curriculum and instruction. More than 70 years ago,Dewey (1916) wrote, "The sole direct path to enduring improvement in themethods of instruction and learning consists in centering upon the conditionswhich exact, promote, and test thinking." Similarly, in 1961 the NationalEducation Association identified the improvement of thinking as central to

American education:Thus in the general area of the development of the ability to think, there is a fieldfor new research of the greatest importance. It is essential that those who haveresponsibility for management and policy determination in education committhemselves to expansion of such research and to the application of the fruits ofthis research. This is the context in which the significant answers to such issuesas educational technology, length of the school year and content of teachereducation must be sought and given (Educational Policies Commission, 1961,pp. 14-15).

Just as educators' interest in thinking can be traced back several decades,interest in thinking and its relationship to human behavior is as old ascivilization itself. The study of thinking has at least two strong traditionsthephilosophical and the psychological.

A Great Tradition: Philosophy

The roots to the philosophical interest in thinking reach back to the classicalpast. Greene (1984) notes that in the Western world, philosophy precededby at least 2,000 years the growth of what we now call science.Indeed, philosophy was seen as the queen of sciences. To think or reason,according to early philosophers, was to take the stance of the objective andcontemplative spectator and, in doing so, to discover truth. Plato describedthe philosopher-king as one who could discern through introspection theforms or ideas behind appearances. Aristotle discribed this process of

discerning truth through rational thought as grasping the design or telos ofreality. In The Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle also saw reason as a guide tocorrect behavior: "To know what excellence is is not enough; we mustendeavor to acquire it and to act accordingly."Inquiry is one of the philosopher's primary tools. According to Socrates, thephilosopher continually uses discussion and argument to try to "attain toeach thing itself that is; he doesn't give up before he grasps by intellectionitself that which is good itself" (in Goldman, 1984).


31/51

The spirit of inquiry runs through the entire history of philosophy. It shapedmany of the modern notions of science. For example, in the 17th century,Descartes wrote that the philosopher's primary responsibility was to developan accurate method of investigation. As a mathematician, Descartesgravitated toward developing a system closely related to analytic geometry.

Dewey observed that, because inquiry leads to change, a democratic societyshould nurture the spirit of inquiry, lest society stagnate and the energies ofits citizens turn inward, destructively.Philosophy, then, has been inexorably tied to the study of thinking. Suchgreat scholars as Hegel, James, Spinoza, and Bacon, along with thosementioned above and many others, have greatly influenced how we thinktoday and how we view thinking. The current interest in teaching thinking,then, is fundamentally a philosophical issuebut it is also a psychologicalissue.

The Second Great Tradition: Psychology

Not until about the mid-19th century did scholars view the human mind as a"working mechanism" with underlying operations that could be scientificallystudied (Rowe, 1985). The biologists Darwin (1809-1882) and Spencer(1820-1903) observed correlations between the evolutionary increase in theflexibility of animal behavior and the increasing size of animals' brains. Inshort order, the attention to identifying the operations that constitute thinkingincreased. The first psychological laboratory was founded in Leipzig byWundt and his students to investigate the basic building blocks of allcognition, which they thought to be sensations and perceptions. Since thoseearly days of psychology, the study of thinking has taken many forms,

among them Gestalt psychology, behaviorism, psychometrics, andinformation-processing theory.Primarily concerned with perception, Gestalt psychology assumes that allorganisms have an innate tendency to organize information taken from theenvironment. But the organization cannot be explained as a simple matter ofsmall, independent parts combined in some cumulative fashion. Instead,human beings organize information in a gestalt (a structure, form, orconfiguration) different from the sum of its parts. Such scholars asWertheimer, Necker, Koehler, Luchins, Dunker, and Taylor used the notionof a gestalt to explain many aspects of thinking.

Although Gestalt psychology focuses strongly on perception, behavioralpsychology is primarily concerned with learning. In behavioral or stimulus-response psychology, the probability of a given response in an organism isdirectly related to how the response is associated with the stimulus; morefrequently practiced responses will be more likely to endure. Much of thecurrent emphasis on skill practice in the classroom stems from this principle.Theorists commonly associated with behaviorism include Thorndike, Hull,Osgood, and Skinner.


32/51

Another strong trend in the psychological tradition is the psychometricapproach. Psychometrists tend to focus on the products of behavior ratherthan on performance itself; thus, test scores are analyzed with sophisticatedstatistical techniques. In this approach, the tasks presented to students inaptitude and intelligence tests are considered valid indicators of intelligence.

Early analysis of such tests indicated that a general factor or aptitudeappeared central to all forms of intelligence. Recently, other factors havebeen identified, such as crystallized intelligence (information we learn fromour culture) and fluid intelligence (genetically determined abilities such as thecapacity of one's short-term memory). Psychologists commomly associatedwith the psychometric approach include Guilford, Thurstone, Cattell, Carroll,and Horn.The psychometric approach to psychology has included a focus on children'sdeveloping intelligence. Binet and Simon's early research sought to identifyschoolchildren unlikely to succeed in normal classrooms. Piaget andInhelder's studies of child logic and reasoning paralleled Montessori's

examination of children's learning and pedagogy, while Gesell sought tounderstand the social psychological and parenting influences on youthfuldevelopment. Bruner, Berlyne, and Kagan have conducted many studies thatseek to understand the developing mind of the child as part of a largerexplanation of human development and psychology.The most recent psychological approach to the study of thinking isinformation processing. This approach focuses on how we acquire, transmit,store, and transform information. Many successful analyses of thinkingforexample, most of what we know about the limitations of human memoryhave been made using this approach. Information-processing theory hasmade possible the development of powerful computer models (commonlycalled artificial intelligence) that simulate human thought. Among manyothers, Newell, Simon, Greeno, Schank, Abelson, Rumelhart, Minsky, andPapert are pioneers of this approach.

Dual Perspectives

Philosophy and psychology, the two traditions contributing most to the studyof thinking, each provide a perspective essential to fostering thinking in theclassroom. The philosophical tradition deals broadly with the nature andquality of thinking and its role in human behavior. The psychological traditionexplains the workings of specific cognitive operations. Both perspectivesmust be considered in the development of a framework for teaching thinking.In the following chapters, we draw from both traditions to discuss the fivedimensions of thinking and their implications for educational practice. Wesee the potential impact of this framework as both powerful and broadpowerful because it could drastically restructure the conceptualization andimplementation of schooling; broad because it could affect, among otherelements, curriculum design, assessment techniques, and ped

thinking style

Documents