Title The centrality of subject matter in teaching ...€¦ · Educational Research Journal { ~...

Title The centrality of subject matter in teaching thinking: John dewey's idea of

psychologizing the subject matter revisited Author(s) Zongyi Deng Source Educational Research Journal, 16(2), 193-212 Published by Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research. This document may be used for private study or research purpose only. This document or any part of it may not be duplicated and/or distributed without permission of the copyright owner. The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. © Hong Kong Educational Research Association 2001 This article was published in the Educational Research Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 193-212. Archived with permission of the Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research.

Educational Research Journal { ~ lf-!iJt% *=*~J, Vol. I 6, No. 2, Winter 2001 ©Hong Kong Educational Research Association

The Centrality of Subject Matter in Teaching Thinking: John Dewey's Idea of Psychologizing the Subject Matter Revisited 1

Zongyi Deng National Insti-tute of Education

Nanyang Technological University

This paper attempts to reveal the central role of subject matter in teaching

thinking, and in so doing, criticise the skill-oriented approach adopted in

Singapore. Based upon Dewey s idea of psychologizing the subject matter, this

paper introduces the idea-based approach in which subject nwtter is used as

the most important intellectual resource for developing thinking and as a cen

tral framework for introducing educative experience. Focusing on the

assumptions about subject matter, learning to think, and teaching thinking, a

comparison and contrast between the nvo approaches has been made to reveal

the problems inherent in the skill-oriented approach. This paper contends that

the skill-oriented approach fails to consider subject matter to be the most im

portant resource in developing thinking. It is grounded in a faulty assumption

which separates subject matter and thinking. It creates a tendency of ignoring

the concepts, principles, and criteria embodied in subject nwtter in disciplin

ing and enhancing thinking, of reducing teaching thinking into generic

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Zongyi Deng, Na

tional Institute of Education, Nan yang Technological University, 1 Nan yang \Valk,

Singapore 637616. Email: [email protected]

194 Zongyi Deng

techniques, and of restricting and undermining the impulses, dispositions, and

freedom of learners. Further, this paper espouses an approach which combines

teaching subject matter for conceptual understanding and developing higher

order thinking together, based upon Dewey's idea and current advances in

cognitive psychology.

Key words: thinking; teaching; John Dewey

Introduction

The concept of "thinking school" represents one of the major initiatives for

preparing the younger generation of Singaporeans to meet the challenges of

the 21st century.2 lts basic idea is to make younger Singaporeans better think

ers through cultivating in them the ability to think critically and creatively.

To implement this initiative, the curriculum specialists at the Ministry of

Education in Singapore has developed a new Thinking Programme (Chua

& Leong, 1998).3 At the heart of the programme are eight core thinking

skills adopted from Marzano et al. 's (1988) Dimensions of thinking-namely

focusing, information-gathering, remembering, organising, analysing,

generating, integrating, and evaluating. The eight core thinking skills are

incorporated into Marzano's ( 1992) Dimensions of Learning framework

involving: (1) positive attitudes and perception about learning; (2) thinking

involved acquiring and integrating knowledge; (3) thinking involved ex

tending and refining knowledge; (4) thinking involved using knowledge

meaningfully; and 5) productive habits of mind. Through these dimensions

of learning, the core thinking skills are claimed to enable students to ac

quire and integrate knowledge as well as extend and refine it in its subsequent

use. In the spirit of the Thinking Programme, the Ministry of Education has

developed training programmes through which all in-service teachers are to

be trained in the teaching of thinking skills. The National Institute of

Education, the only teacher education institution in Singapore, has embarked

on redesigning and conducting teacher education programmes, which equip

pre-service teachers to teach thinking skills in schools.

Centrality of Subject

I am concerned that the way of

ing Programme is largely driven b~

concept of learning processes whic

the subject matter in the school cun

matter of developing thinking skill

skill-oriented approach.4 However,

important concept of subject matte1

Resnick ( 1987) argues that the ke~

pends on linking the general proces

What is the role of subject matter

is the relationship between teaching

These two questions are very cru

oriented approach.

It is my concern that the curre

sion of thinking skills and their i

concerning the central role of sub_

per attempts to recover the central

John Dewey's idea of psychologiz

I believe is implied by Dewey al

which provides an essential theot

different approach to teaching thin

concerned with the development o

subject matter. This will be follc

taught decimal numbers to srh gra<

compare and contrast the under]

thinking, learning to think, teachi

and in so doing, unveil some of tl

oriented approach. The paper wi:

combines teaching subject matte1

oping higher-order thinking toget

advances in cognitive psycholog:

While this paper is about the

Zongyi Deng

ining the impulses, dispositions, and

oouses an approach which combines

derstanding and developing higher

vey 's idea and current advances in

!nts one of the major initiatives for

aporeans to meet the challenges of

younger Singaporeans better think

y to think critically and creatively.

.lum specialists at the Ministry of

new Thinking Programme (Chua

ogramme are eight core thinking

) Dimensions of thinking-namely

mbering, organising, analysing,

The eight core thinking skills are

nensions of Learning framework

~ption about learning; (2) thinking

vledge; (3) thinking involved ex

nking involved using knowledge

f mind. Through these dimensions

claimed to enable students to ac

xtend and refine it in its subsequent

me, the Ministry of Education has

.vhich all in-service teachers are to

skills. The National Institute of

itution in Singapore, has embarked

ucation programmes, \vhich equip

lls in schools.

Centrality of Subject 195

I am concerned that the way of teaching thinking adopted in the Think

ing Programme is largely driven by a classification of thinking skills and a

concept of learning processes which are generic in essence, independent of

the subject matter in the school curriculum. Teaching thinking is primarily a

matter of developing thinking skills. I call this way of teaching thinking the

skill-oriented approach.4 However, at the heart of the curriculum is the highly

important concept of subject matter as organised fields of inquiry and study.

Resnick (1987) argues that the key to enhancing higher-order thinking de

pends on linking the general processes with rich domain-specific knowledge.

What is the role of subject matter in teaching higher-order thinking? What

is the relationship between teaching thinking and teaching the subject matter?

These two questions are very crucial and yet largely ignored in the skill

oriented approach .

It is my concern that the current Thinking Programme, with the obses

sion of thinking skills and their infusion, has obscured the central issues

concerning the central role of subject matter in teaching thinking. This pa

per attempts to recover the central role of subject matter through revisiting

John Dewey's idea of psychologizing the subject matter. I will discuss what

I believe is implied by Dewey about psychologizing the subject matter,

which provides an essential theoretical underpinning for a fundamentally

different approach to teaching thinking-namely the idea-based approach

concerned with the development of understanding major ideas in a particular

subject matter. This will be followed by an examination of how Lampert

taught decimal numbers to 51h graders to illustrate this approach. Then I will

compare and contrast the underlying assumptions about subject matter,

thinking, learning to think, teaching thinking between the two approaches,

and in so doing, unveil some of the endemic problems inherent in the skill

oriented approach. The paper will end with espousing an approach which

combines teaching subject matter for conceptual understanding and devel

oping higher-order thinking together, based upon Dewey's idea and cunent

advances in cognitive psychology.

While this paper is about the Thinking Programme in Singapore, it pro-

196 Zongyi Deng

vides ideas, observations, and comments that are more generally useful for

other Asian countries, provided tha.t teaching thinking skills has recently

gained strong currency in Asian. As I will argue, the skill-oriented approach

is grounded in a faulty assumption which separates subject matter and

thinking. It fails to recognize subject matter to be the most important intel

lectual resource in developing thinking. It creates a tendency of ignoring

the concepts, principles, and criteria embodied in subject matter in guiding,

disciplining, and enhancing thinking, of reducing teaching thinking into a

body of generic techniques and procedures, of restricting and undermining

the impulses, interests, dispositions, freedom and initiatives of learners in

their growth of thinking. I hope this work will contribute to the current

debate about how to cultivate creativity and critical thinking in Asian

students.

The Skill-oriented Approach

Two strategies have been employed in the Thinking Programme, both of

which epitomize the skill-oriented approach. In the first strategy, students

are taught thinking skills explicitly in a non-cunicular context. They learn

thinking skills through teacher explanation and modelling, and then apply

them in everyday situations. In the second strategy, thinking skills are in

fused into the content of core school subjects-such as mathematics, English,

science, and history. Thinking skills are explicitly taught in the context of

their use or application to a specific subject matter content. Subject matter

provides students the context or some background information for acquir

ing and exercising thinking skills. For example, the skill "generating" can

be taught to secondary students through the topic algebraic expressions. As

reconunended in the Programme, the teacher first asks students to think of a

number and add 3 to the number, and students are led to realize that the

result can be written as "X+ 3", where X is used to represent the number

they think of. Then the teacher guides students to generate algebraic ex

pressions for the situation: choose a number, then multiply it by 3 and add 2


to the product. Further, students ,

expressions for other situations st

• Subtract 8 from a number 1

• Mary is twice as old as her

• David is 5 em taller than A

• Sue spent $ X for a new bl

• A rectangle has length L c1

• The cost of an orange is t.

mango costs X c (Yee, Lin

Which particular thinking skill stt

ing algebraic expressions repres

infusion lesson, which does not l

matter concerned, its particular cor

The teacher needs not to examine

about algebraic expressions mat!

to be taught. Whether skills are t::

the context of a particular subject

vidual identity, independent of

emphasis on discrete thinking sk

of the subject matter content.

Psychologizing the Subject Ma

Dewey's idea of psychologizing

theoretical underpinning of the i

Dewey conceived thinking and su

ing is the "method of intelligent

connections between something

result, so that the two become cc

perience enacted and undergon(

and transform our ways of thinki

ing to Dewey, subject matter is a

"embodies the cumulative outco:

Zongyi Deng

ts that are more generally useful for

aching thinking skills has recently

Jl argue, the skill-oriented approach

hich separates subject matter and

atter to be the most important intel

~· It creates a tendency of ignoring

bodied in subject matter in guiding,

f reducing teaching thinking into a

tres, of restricting and undermining

~edom and initiatives of learners in

tork will contribute to the current

ity and critical thinking in Asian

the Thinking Programme, both of

)ach. In the first strategy, students

non-curricular context. They learn

ion and modelling, and then apply

·nd strategy, thinking skills are in

cts-such as mathematics, English,

explicitly taught in the context of

iect matter content. Subject matter

1ckground information for acquir

x.ample, the skill "generating" can

:he topic algebraic expressions. As

:her first asks students to think of a

tudents are led to realize that the

X is used to represent the number

.tudents to generate algebraic ex

)er, then multiply it by 3 and add 2


to the product. Further, students are asked to practice generating algebraic

expressions for other situations such as,

• Subtract 8 from a number N and halve the result.

• Mary is twice as old as her brother. Her brother is X years old.

• David is 5 em taller than Ali. Ali is H em tall.

• Sue spent $ X for a new blouse and has $2 left.

• A rectangle has length L em and breadth B em.

• The cost of an orange is 40 c less than the cost of a mango. Each

mango costs X c (Yee, Lim, Hang, Sin, & Ang, 1999).

Which particular thinking skill students need to develop as a result of learn

ing algebraic expressions represents the central concern in planning the

infusion lesson, which does not have a necessary bearing with the subject

matter concerned, its particular conceptual and methodological configuration.

The teacher needs not to examine what is involved in knowing or reasoning

about algebraic expressions mathematically to identify the thinking skills

to be taught. Whether skills are taught in a non-curricular context or within

the context of a particular subject matter, they nevertheless retain their indi

vidual identity, independent of the subject matter. Both strategies place

emphasis on discrete thinking skills rather than conceptual understanding

of the subject matter content.

Psychologizing the Subject Matter and the Idea-based Approach

Dewey's idea of psychologizing the subject matter provides an important

theoretical underpinning of the idea-based approach to teaching thinking.

Dewey conceived thinking and subject matter in terms of experience. Think

ing is the "method of intelligent experience" which "discovers the specific

connections between something which we do and the consequences which

result, so that the two become continuous" (Dewey, 1916, p. 145). The ex

perience enacted and undergone by us, on the other hand, would modify

and transform our ways of thinking and perceiving (Dewey, 1916). Accord

ing to Dewey, subject matter is a particular form of human experience which

"embodies the cumulative outcome of the efforts, the strivings, and the sue-

198 Zongyi Deng

cesses of the human race generation after generation" (Dewey, 1902, p.

190). It, therefore, provides the "working capital" and the "indispensable

resource" for developing thinking (Dewey, 1916). The key is to introduce

educative experiences through psychologizing the subject matter, which

entails the following three aspects.

In the first place, subject matter is used to determine criteria, essential

elements and features that are desirable for learners. Dewey wrote,

... the significance of subject matter .. .is to supply definite standards .... The

material of school studies translates into concrete and detailed terms the mean

ings of current social life which it is desirable to transmit. It puts clearly before

the instructor the essential ingredients of the culture to be perpetuated, in such

an organised form as to protect him from the haphazard efforts he would be

likely to indulge in if the meanings had not been standardised. (Dewey, 1916,

p. 182)

In the second place, psychologizing the subject matter requires interpreting

learners to discem facts, ideas, interests, capabilities, and dispositions "stir

ling" in their experiences which are the "sign(s) of index" of the potentialities

of further growth, using the subject matter as reference. As Dewey (1902)

stated,

From the side of the child, it is a question of seeing how his experience already

contains within itself elements-facts and truths-of just the same sort as those

entering into the formulated study; and, what is of more impmtance, of how it

contains within itself the attitudes, the motives, and the interests which have oper

ated in developing and organizing to the plane which it now occupies. (p. 189)

In the third place, it requires discovering resources and conditions that could

foster the learning processes and growth, using the subject matter as guidance:

From the side of the studies, it is a question of interpreting them as outgrowths

of forces operating in the child's life, and of discovering the steps that inter

vene between the child's present experience and their richer maturity. (p. 189)

The above three aspects of psychologizing the subject matter outline

what it might take for a teacher to carry out the idea-based approach, in

which subject matter is used as a central framework for introducing educa

tive experiences. It requires an examination of subject matter to identify


key concepts, principles, criteria.

understanding and thinking. It en

the lenses of the subject matter, t

ways of thinking, and prior know

further development. Further, it r

rying forward these impulses, h

significant end defined by the sul

requires a correlation between the

ers and the subject matter.

The Case of Magdalene La

Some of the points made above c

Lampert's (1989) description ofl

mal numbers to Yh graders.5 Mag,

education at Michigan State Univ

responsibility for mathematics tea

teaching mathematics to a fifth-:

tary school. She collected exam]

the classroom interactions, kept j

assessing the children's understa

then began the process anew. U ~

the practice of teaching for cor

thinking. I use her teaching of th

an example because it best illust

gizing the subject matter, \Vhic

teaching thinking.

The content taught involves

which is larger or if they are eqL

step-by-step prescription: "Add z

mal places. Now ignore the deci1

larger" (p. 225). Pupils need not

Zongyi Deng

ter generation" (Dewey, 1902, p.

1g capital" and the "indispensable

ey, 1916). The key is to introduce

)gizing the subject matter, which

;ed to determine criteria, essential

:or learners. Dewey wrote,

. to supply definite standards .... The

concrete and detailed tenns the mean

·able to transmit. It puts clearly before

·the culture to be perpetuated, in such

m the haphazard efforts he would be

1ot been standardised. (Dewey, 1916,

ubject matter requires interpreting

~apabilities, and dispositions "stir

gn(s) of index" of the potentialities

er as reference. As Dewey (1902)

of seeing how his experience already

l truths-of just the same sort as those

¥hat is of more impmtance, of how it

ves, and the interests which have oper

lane which it now occupies. (p. 189)

esources and conditions that could

;ing the subject matter as guidance:

)n of interpreting them as outgrowths

d of discovering the steps that inter

lee and their ticher maturity. (p. 189)

•gizing the subject matter outline

out the idea-based approach, in

ramework for introducing educa

tion of subject matter to identify


key concepts, principles, criteria, and features that are essential to quality

understanding and thinking. It entails an interpretation of learners through

the lenses of the subject matter, to discern their impulses, habits of minds,

ways of thinking, and _prior knowledge that provide a point of departure for

further development. Fur.ther, it requires that subject matter is used in car

rying forward these impulses, habits of mind, and ways of thinking to a

significant end defined by the subject matter. In other words, the approach

requires a correlation between the attitude, impulses, and experience of learn

ers and the subject matter.

The Case of Magdalene Lampert's Teaching

Some of the points made above can be illustrated by looking at Magdalene

Lampert's ( 1989) description of her teaching the introductory unit on deci

mal numbers to 51h graders. 5 Magdalene Lampert was a professor of teacher

education at Michigan State University. For a number of years, she assumed

responsibility for mathematics teaching from a classroom's full-time teacher,

teaching mathematics to a fifth-grade class in a Michigan public elemen

tary school. She collected examples of student work, videotaped many of

the classroom interactions, kept journals reflecting on her own practice and

assessing the children's understanding, planned the next day's lesson, and

then began the process anew. Using all these as the database, she analysed

the practice of teaching for conceptual understanding and higher-order

thinking. I use her teaching of the introductory unit on decimal numbers as

an example because it best illustrates the above three aspects of psycholo

gizing the subject matter, \Vhich undergird the idea-based approach to

teaching thinking.

The content taught involves comparing two decimal numbers to decide

which is larger or if they are equal. Usually, it is taught as an algorithm, a

step-by-step prescription: "Add zeros after the digits to the right of the deci

mal places. Now ignore the decimal point, and see which of the numbers is

larger" (p. 225). Pupils need not understand anything about what the num-

200 Zongyi Deng

bers themselves are meant to represent in order to follow this procedure.

In contrast to this common way of teaching decimal numbers, Lampert's

teaching aimed at helping students not only become competent at using the

procedure, but also capable of understanding the underlying mathematical

principles, and of reasoning about solutions mathematically. It required psy

chologizing the subject matter in a way that could foster conceptual

understanding and higher-order thinking in students.6 Lampert's psycholo

gizing first entailed a reasoning of what is involved in knowing

mathematically about comparing decimal numbers, with the purpose of iden

tifying the mathematical principles and forms of reasoning that underlie the

competence she wished her students to achieve. The reasoning led her to

conclude that knowing how to compare decimal numbers mathematically

entails more than acquiring procedural competence. It requires conceptual

competence and certain ways of mathematical reasoning as well-e.g., how

to articulate the underlying mathematical plinciples, how to weigh evidence,

and how to prove, justify, and evaluate conclusions. The reasoning helped

her concentrate the subsequent instruction on four mathematical principles

that are essential for reasoning about decimal numbers mathematically

namely, (1) geometric progression of the base, (2) the relationship between

digit and place, (3) the "two-way" ratio between places, and (4) bounded

infinity.

Lampert's interpretation of learners and selection of representational

tools were guided by her understanding of what involved in knowing math

ematically about comparing decimal numbers. She sought to connect the

mathematical principles and ways of reasoning she \van ted students to de

velop with the experiences, impulses, and prior knowledge of students.

Acknowledging that students had considerable experience with various de

nominations of bills and coins which could provide a point of departure for

discussing and reasoning about decimals, she decided to use money as a

V·/ay to represent decimal relationship. After the first lesson, she found out J'

that students' understanding of decimal fractions became more fragile as

zeroes were added between the decimal point and the nonzero point. She


saw it as a meaningful opportm

of mathematical principles

Accordingly, she chose fraction<

based "line of symmetry" as tw

"responsive" to both student thi1

standing and reasoning she atte

The subsequent lessons taug

and then taught them how to ch<

among decimals. Her teaching<

teaching congruent with ide:

constructivism which emphasi1

matter and social discourse in th

1991; 1993). She guided the r ematical symbols and opera

mathematics was related to the

were introduced not simply to

specific modes of thinking whi<

the representational tools to c<

principles, by making conn<

representations. Dialogue was<:

among students themselves. An

find difficult about these math

actions according! y.

As compared to the skill-c

sents a radical change in focus f<

thinking skills should students m

asks, "What does it mean to thir

that a subject matter, if taught b

the development of thinking ab

ing hypotheses, making judge1

subject matter itself as a way of

order thinking involves, among

Zongyi Deng

in order to follow this procedure.

~aching decimal numbers, Lampert's

Jnly become competent at using the

.nding the underlying mathematical

ons mathematically. It required psy

way that could foster conceptual

gin studen-ts.6 Lampert's psycholo

f what is involved in knowing

Ll numbers, with the purpose of iden

forms of reasoning that underlie the

' achieve. The reasoning led her to

~ decimal numbers mathematically

competence. It requires conceptual

tatical reasoning as well-e.g., how

l principles, how to weigh evidence,

conclusions. The reasoning helped

on on four mathematical principles

ecimal numbers mathematically

~ base, (2) the relationship between

> between places, and ( 4) bounded

s and selection of representational

Jf what involved in knowing math

Imbers. She sought to connect the

1soning she wanted students to de

and prior knowledge of students.

lerable experience with various de

lid provide a point of departure for

Is, she decided to use money as a

lfter the first lesson, she found out

fractions became more fragile as

l point and the nonzero point. She

'r !


saw it as a meaningful opportunity for developing genuine understanding

of mathematical principles and mathematical ways of reasoning.

Accordingly, she chose fractional parts of a circle and places around a units

based "line of symmetry" as two other representational tools, which were

"responsive" to both student thinking and the kinds of mathematical under

standing and reasoning she attempted to foster in students.

The subsequent lessons taught students how to use representational tools

and then taught them how to choose those tools to reason about comparison

among decimals. Her teaching of these lessons is an example of the kind of

teaching congruent with idea-base social constructivism-a kind of

constructivism which emphasizes both the role of key ideas of the subject

matter and social discourse in the constructive processes of learners (Prawat,

1991; 1993). She guided the process of constructing meaning for math

ematical symbols and operations so that what students learnt about

mathematics was related to the central ideas of the subject matter. Students

were introduced not simply to a set of mathematical principles, but also to

specific modes of thinking. which were informed by the principles. She used

the representational tools to convey to students each of the mathematical

principles, by making connections, moving back and forth between

representations. Dialogue was encouraged between teacher and students and

among students themselves. And she continued to assess what students might

find difficult about these mathematical principles and reasoning, and take

actions according! y.

As compared to the skill-oriented approach, Lampert's approach repre

sents a radical change in focus for teaching thinking. Instead of asking, "Which

thinking skills should students master in learning a particular topic?", the teacher

asks, "\Vhat does it mean to think mathematically about that topic?". It testifies

that a subject matter, if taught beyond a general and superficial level, involves

the development of thinking abilities in students-such as analysing, generat

ing hypotheses, making judgement, and justifying-that are peculiar to that

subject matter itself as a way of understanding expetience. Teaching for higher

order thinking involves, among other things, helping students understand certain

202 Zongyi Deng

concepts, principles, and criteria, as well as learn to think in a way that is

informed and governed by these concepts, principles and criteria. It also re

quires a teacher to be sensitive of what attitudes, impulses, and tendencies are

being created in students, and to judge what attitudes, impulses, and tendencies

are actually conducive to continuous growth in their thinking and understanding,

through the lens of subject matter.7

A Comparison and Contrast: The Itlea-based and the Skill-oriented

Approaches

The idea-based approach and the skill-oriented approach make strikingly

different assumptions about subject matter, thinking, learning to think, and

teaching thinking. A comparison and contrast can render problematic cer

tain aspects of the skill-oriented approach.

Subject matter. For the idea-based approach, the subject matter of an

academic discipline is a special kind of human experience associated with

special modes of insight, ways of thinking, and dispositions of mind. It is an

embodiment of critical thought within a particular complex, sophisticated,

and important area of inquiry (Dewey, 1916). Subject matter involves a

body of concepts and principles, ways of reasoning, as well as well articu

lated criteria that inform and guide quality thinking within that area (Schwab,

1964 ). It provides guide to future observations and reasoning, enables

anticipations of possible solutions, and economizes the working of mind

(Dewey, 1902). In short, subject matter has the potential of guiding,

disciplining, expanding, and enhancing thinking, and hence, it is the most

important resource in enhancing thinking.

On the contrary, the skill-oriented approach views subject matter as a

body of inert, ready-made information, apart from methods of thinking and

habits of mind.8 Subject matter provides merely necessary background in

fomlation for thinking, and accordingly, it is used as the medium of teaching

thinking. Thinking skills, not subject matter, are considered to be the most

important tool or resource in promoting thinking. As a result, the approach

tends to downplay the role of subject matter, and in so doing, highlights the


importance of thinking skills ir

As one of the key champions f<

Bodies of knowledge are impc

Thinking skills never become

quire knowledge and to reasc

kind of knowledge to which tl

[an interview with Sternberg]

Thinking and learning to t,

subject matter imply two diffen

ing to think. For the idea-basec

inextricably intertwined with th

requires understanding not onl~

ject matter, but also the specific

within that subject matter. Thin

understand concepts and princ

guided by the concepts/princi1

criteria. Through learning to th

ing to principles, students even

by means of concepts, princip

Unlike the idea-based app

conceives thinking in terms of

in themselves, apart from a pm

thinking is viewed as basicall

generic mental skills or proce•

as being centred upon this bod

necessary governing norms an

This domain-specific knowle

ciples and competence to er

core of reasonable judgemen

lost if CT [critical thinking]

tions and domain-specific kn

of information. (Facione, 19'

Teaching thinking. Corre~

Zongyi Deng

~II as learn to think in a way that is

•ts, principles and criteria. It also re

:titudes, impulses, and tendencies are

tat attitudes, impulses, and tendencies

th in their thinking and understanding,

~a-based and the SkiH-oriented

oriented approach make strikingly

tter, thinking, learning to think, and

)ntrast can render problematic cer

ch.

approach, the subject matter of an

·human experience associated with

1g, and dispositions of mind. It is an

t particular complex, sophisticated,

, 1916). Subject matter involves a

)f reasoning, as well as well articu

y thinking within that area (Schwab,

;ervations and reasoning, enables

l economizes the working of mind

tter has the potential of guiding,

thinking, and hence, it is the most

lg.

approach views subject matter as a

apart from methods of thinking and

s merely necessary background in

it is used as the medium of teaching

atter, are considered to be the most

thinking. As a result, the approach

ttter, and in so doing, highlights the


importance of thinking skills in the development of higher-order thinking.

As one of the key champions for the skill-oriented approach stated,

Bodies of knowledge are important, of course, but they often become outdated.

Thinking skills never become outdated. To the contrary, they enable us to ac

quire knowledge and to reason with it, regardless of the time or place or the

kind of knowledge to which they're applied (Sternberg, 1985, in Quinby, 1985

[an interview with Sternberg], p. 53).

Thinking and learning to think. The above two various conceptions of

subject matter imply two different sets of assumptions of thinking and learn

ing to think. For the idea-based approach, the capacity to think critically is

inextricably intertwined with the subject matter concerned. Learning to think

requires understanding not only the key concepts and principles of the sub

ject matter, but also the specific modes of reasoning, criteria, and justification

within that subject matter. Thinking is believed to be developed as students

understand concepts and principles, and learn to reason in a fashion that is

guided by the concepts/principles, in accordance to certain standards and

criteria. Through learning to think in a way that is norm governed, accord

ing to principles, students eventually are able to create orders in experiences

by means of concepts, principles, and norms (Hirst, 1965).

Unlike the idea-based approach, however, the skill-oriented approach

conceives thinking in terms of a set of generic skills, which can be learned

in themselves, apart from a particular subject matter. Being good at critical

thinking is viewed as basically a matter of being proficient at a body of

generic mental skills or procedures. Accordingly, learning to think is held

as being centred upon this body of thinking skills or procedures, devoid of

necessary governing norms and guiding principles. As Facione observes,

This domain-specific knowledge includes understanding methodological prin

ciples and competence to engage in norm-regulated practices that are at the

core of reasonable judgements in those specific contexts. Too much of value is

lost if CT [critical thinking] is conceived of simply as a list of logical opera

tions and domain-specific knowledge is conceived of simply as an aggregation

of information. (Facionc, 1990, p. 1 0)

Teaching thinking. Corresponding with the above two distinct sets of

204 Zongyi Deng

assumptions are two differing beliefs about how thinking should be taught.

For the idea-based approach, teaching thinking requires a teacher's reason

ing of what it means to know ~he subject matter as well as what is involved

in thinking about that subject ma~ter critically, to determine certain concepts,

principies, standards or criteria, and modes of reasoning that are essential

for quality understanding and thinking. Teaching critical thinking is largely

a matter of helping students understand these concepts, principles, and

criteria, and of teaching them to make appropriate use of these concepts,

piinciples, and crite1ia that "our culture has developed for disciplining think

ing and increasing its fruitfulness" (Bailin, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, 1999,

p. 297). It entails an unfolding of the subject matter in a way that connects

with the experience of learners and fosters their attitudes, impulses, and

dispositions of mind. It is an effort to build upon the curiosity, impulses,

dispositions, and experience of learners, moving towards achieving the

learning goals defined by the subject matter, in terms of quality under

standing and thinking. In this sense, teaching thinking is a transformative

endeavor, enabled and constrained by the subject matter.

On the contrary, for the skill-oriented approach, teaching thinking is

primarily a matter of developing thinking skills. It requires a teacher to

command a repertoire of generic pedagogical strategies or techniques-such

as questioning, brainstonning, and collaborative learning (see Chua & Leong,

1998)-which have no intiicate healing with the subject matter taught. Think

ing skills may be brought to bear upon an independent subject matter, and

are taught in the context of that subject matter. However, the subject matter

is not used to determine concepts, principles. and criteria that guide and

inform quality thinking, nor is it used in interpreting the expeiience of learners

and in carrying forward the impulse and dispositions of learners to certain

significant outcomes. It creates the impression that teaching thinking is

merely a matter of acquisition and practising of cognitive skills, which are

free of governing norms and guiding concepts/principles. Teaching think

ing is, accordingly, largely a technical manoeuvre, independent of the subject

matter.


The Problems of the Skill-(

The problems of the skill-oriente

the separation of thinking and su

to Dewey ( 1916), is "radically fc

tricably interconnected. For one

subject matter to a competing i

involving a particular kind of su

an embodiment of methods, wa:

Dewey ( 1916) points out that th

finds its root in the dualism of r

world are two separate and inde

One problem of the skill-or

subject matter as an aggregatior

subject matter as the means anc

sight of. Because of seeing sul

inert, ready-made information,

ject matter as an embodiment<

has the potential of enhancing

the thinking of the future gener;

matter as the capital and indisp

ment of higher-order thinking.

Another problem is the t

tors (e.g., interest, attitudes,

in the experience of learner

separation of subject matter·

has great difficulty in percei\

the signs of index of the pote

ticular subject matter domair

"out growth of force" in tea<

1902). In teaching thinking,

generic techniques or strate~

Zongyi Deng

bout how thinking should be taught.

thinking requires a teacher's reason

::t matter as well as what is involved

ically, to detennine certain concepts,

odes of reasoning that are essential

Teaching critical thinking is largely

nd these concepts, principles, and

appropriate use of these concepts,

1as developed for disciplining think

in, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, 1999,

1bject matter in a way that connects

sters their attitudes, impulses, and

build upon the curiosity, impulses,

rs, moving towards achievin o- the b

matter, in terms of quality under-

lching thinking is a transformative

he subject matter.

ted approach, teachino- thinkino- 1·s b b

:ing skills. It requires a teacher to

5ical strategies or techniques-such

)fative learning (see Chua & Leong,

'ith the subject matter taught. Think

m independent subject matter, and

1atter. However, the subject matter

ciples, and criteria that guide and

terpreting the experience of leamers

dispositions of learners to certain

pression that teaching thinking is

sing of cognitive skills, which are

ncepts/principles. Teaching think-

1oeuvre, independent of the subject

r Centrality of Subject 205

The Problems of the Skill-oriented Approach

The problems of the skill-oriented approach are rooted in the conception of

the separation of thinking and subject matter. Such a conception, according

to Dewey (191-6), is "radically false". Subject matter and thinking are inex

tricably interconnected. For one thing, thinking is "a directed movement of

subject matter to a competing issue" (p. 165). One cannot think without

involving a particular kind of subject matter. For another, subject matter is

an embodiment of methods, ways of thinking, and habits of mind. Further,

Dewey (1916) points out that the separation of thinking and subject matter

finds its root in the dualism of mind and world-the idea that mind and the

world are two separate and independent realms.

One problem of the skill-oriented approach is the tendency of viewing

subject matter as an aggregation of inert information, leading to a pitfall of

subject matter as the means and resource of developing thinking to be lost

sight of. Because of seeing subject matter as simply as an aggregation of

inert, ready-made information, the skill-oriented approach fails to see sub

ject matter as an embodiment of human understanding and thought which

has the potential of enhancing, expanding, disciplining and transforming

the thinking of the future generation. As a result, it fails to recognise subject

matter as the capital and indispensable intellectual resource in the develop

ment of higher-order thinking.

Another problem is the tendency of undermining the internal fac

tors (e.g., interest, attitudes, impulses and prior knowledge) contained

in the experience of learners in developing thinking. Because of the

separation of subject matter from thinking, the skill-oriented approach

has great difficulty in perceiving how the internal factors can constitute

the signs of index of the potentialities of higher-order thinking in a par

ticular subject matter domain, and how these factors can be used as the

"out growth of force" in teaching thinking and understanding (Dewey,

1902). In teaching thinking, the skill-oriented approach has to resort to

generic techniques or strategies which have no necessary bearing with

206 Zongyi Deng

the internal factors inherent in the experience of learners. These tech

niques or strategies cannot motivate learners intrinsically (Dewey, 1916).

Nor can they evoke a certain "quality of response" in learners in their

learning of critical thinking (Dewey, 1938).

The third problem is the tendency of reducing teaching thinking into a

body of ready-made instructional techniques or procedures. Under the influ

ence of the conception which separates thinking from subject matter, instead

of deriving from a teacher's intellectual observations and analysis of the sub

ject matter in the light of students' impulses, motivations, prior knowledge and

experience, teaching methods are authoritatively recommended to teachers.

Methods tend to be reduced to "a cut and dried routine, to following mechani

cally prescribed steps" (Dewey, 1916, p. 169). They represent a certain form of

"external control" which leads to "restriction of freedom" of individual learn

ers (Dewey, 1938). This tendency, along with the two already mentioned, does

not create "educative" experience that "arouses curiosity, strengthens initiatives,

set up desires and purposes that are sufficiently intense to carry a person over a

dead place in the future" (Dewey, 1938, p. 38). Instead, it would lead to

"miseducative" experience that "has the effect of an-esting or distorting the

growth of further experience." (p. 25)

It is important to point out that the skill-based approach can be traced

back to the model of information processing in cognitive psychology of the

1950s and 1960s. In this model, subject matter is treated as a body of inert

information, and thinking as the processing of information-its acquisition,

its integration, and its application. It fosters an instrumental view of teach

ing thinking, a view conceming with fixed teaching strategies and generation

across subject matters. As a result, this model tends to totally ignore the

central role of subject matter in enhancing thinking. It is not surprising that

proponents of the skill-oriented approach have devoted so much attention

to the cultivation of thinking skills in students (Prawat, 1991). However,

without adequately addressing the role of subject matter in teaching thinking,

learning outcome will often be the mere mastery of facts and procedures.

The absence of good understanding of subject matter will present a barrier


to higher-level thinking. As Prawa

to concentrate on the "how to" as1

dressing what students are expect(

Discussions I am concerned that our cun-ent pr

advance us far enough to achieve 1

tion to become better thinkers. W1

skill-oriented approach is based u

ing which separates subject mat

consider subject matter to be the

developing thinking. It fails to ac

criteria embodied in subject mattt

It tends to undermine the interest:

of learners in learning to think c

thinking into ready-made techniq

and initiatives of individual learn

However, it must be recogni

make a contribution to the teachi

ti ve skills and processes that are es

are not explicitly articulated in tt

these skills and processes, the i'

teaching higher-order thinking.

the complexity of the idea-base

teachers. In order to teach acco1

this paper, a teacher needs to ha

depth understanding of the subj

sensitive to learners, and be ab]

and dispositions imply the p

Furthermore, he/she needs to be

that help learners not only to rec

the kind of understanding and tr

Zongyi Deng

;perience of learners. These tech

arners intrinsically (Dewey, 1916).

r of response" in learners in their

1938).

)f reducing teaching thinking into a

~ues or procedures. Under the influ

hinking from subject matter, instead

>bservations and analysis of the sub

es, motivations, prior knowledge and

itatively recommended to teachers.

dried routine, to following mechani-

69). They represent a certain fonn of

ion of freedom" of individualleam

vith the two already mentioned, does

uses curiosity, strengthens initiatives,

ently intense to carry a person over a

:, p. 38). Instead, it would lead to

effect of atTesting or distortin a the '-' b

,kill-based approach can be traced

;ing in cognitive psychology of the

matter is treated as a body of inert

ing of information-its acquisition,

ers an instrumental view of teach

l teaching strategies and generation

model tends to totally ignore the

g thinking. It is not surprising that

h have devoted so much attention

udents (Prawat, 1991). However,

mbject matter in teachina thinkina 0 ~'

mastery of facts and procedures.

tbject matter will present a barrier


to higher-level thinking. As Prawat (1991) suggests, it is counterproductive

to concentrate on the "how to" aspects of thinking without adequately ad

dressing what students are expected to think about.

Discussions 1 am concerned that our current preoccupation with thinking skills does not

advance us far enough to achieve the goal of preparing the younger genera

tion to become better thinkers. What I have argued, in this paper, is that the

skill-oriented approach is based upon a faulty conception of critical think

ing which separates subject matter and thinking. This approach fails to

consider subject matter to be the most important intellectual resource for

developing thinking. It fails to acknowledge the concepts, principles, and

criteria embodied in subject matter in disciplining and enhancing thinking.

It tends to undemline the interests, impulses, motivations, and dispositions

of learners in learning to think critically. And it tends to reduce teaching

thinking into ready-made techniques that might stifle and linlit the freedom

and initiatives of individual learners.

However, it must be recognised that the skill-oriented approach does

make a contribution to the teaching of thinking. It highlights certain cogni

tive skills and processes that are essential for skilful thinkers, whlch, however,

are not explicitly articulated in the idea-based approach. Without attending

these skills and processes, the idea-based approach might not suffice for

teaching higher-order thinking. On the other hand, we must bear in mind

the complexity of the idea-based approach and the demands it places on

teachers. In order to teach according to the kind of teaching described in

this paper, a teacher needs to have a very sophisticated, profound, and in

depth understanding of the subject matter. He/she needs to be extremely

sensitive to learners, and be able to see how their impulses, motivations,

and dispositions imply the potentialities of higher-order thinking.

Furthermore, he/she needs to be able to create conditions and environment

that help learners not only to realise their potentialities, but also to achieve

the kind of understanding and thinking characterised by the subject matter.

208 Zongyi Deng

This kind of teaching is very complex, demanding, and challenging. It might

not be a practical approach for most ordinary classroom teachers. 9

What seems promising is a combination of teaching subject matter for

conceptual understanding and developing higher-order thinking together,

with attending to certain features of the two approaches. Subject matter

should be employed as the most fundamental intellectual resource and tool

for developing thinking. Instructions should be concentrated on helping stu

dents to understand the key concepts and principles and to develop thinking

strategies or skills that are appropriate for working within various subject

matter domains. Teachers ought to initiate students to not only the cognitive

strategies or skills, but also the key concepts/principles that inform and guide

the thinking process, and the relevant standards and criteria that define and

characterise quality thinking. Furthermore, the teacher should be sensitive

as well as responsive to the impulses, motivations, and habits of learners,

and should foster, not restrict, the freedom and initiatives of learners.

Nonetheless, Dewey's idea of psychologizing the subject matter pro

vides an essential theoretical underpinning for the combined approach which

considers subject matter as the fundamental intellectual resource and as es

sential framework for introducing and organizing learning experience. Such

a combined approach finds strong support from new developments in cog

nitive psychology as well. Theoretical advances in cognitive psychology

espouse the crucial role of "deep disciplinary content" in enhancing thinking:

"one cannot think deeply about trivia; one cannot think in a vacuum" (Brown,

1997, p. 412). Furthermore, current progress in the areas of cognition and

instruction leads to the emergence of "psychologies of subject matter"

regarding using subject matters of valious scholarly disciplines to introduce

meaningful and educative learning experience to children of various ao-es ~ b '

which is Deweyan in spirit and is unique to the discipline of educational

psychology (Shulman & Quianlan, 1995; Mayer, 1992). Mayer (1992) ar

gues that psychologies of subject matter provides the groundwork for

instructional programmes that help students develop domain-specific think

ing strategies. He believes that it could open a fruitful area of research on


cognition and higher-order thir

tional reform" in the new decac

adopting a new perspective of :

ing thinking that is very differen

Notes 1. An earlier version of this ar

ing Qualities Initiative C

Baptist University. The ;

Gopinathan for their helpf

2. Two other major initiative

3. For background informatic

Tan-Niam, & Mashhadi (l

4. I acknowledge that such

today given the fact that a<

two decades have testified

higher-order thinking. H<

skill-oriented approach in

nitive psychology of the 1

today. It places emphasi~

derstanding of subject m;:

5. The characterization of l

approach to the teaching

dorse this particular char:

6. I need to point out that

Lampert's writing. She u

7. It is worth pointing out tl

"best practices" of math(

ternational Mathematic

attributes is a clear unde

subject matter in terms c

Another is that the subj1

Zongyi Deng

·manding, and challenging. It might

·inary classroom teachers. 9

Ltion of teaching subject matter for

!lg higher-order thinking together,

~two approaches. Subject matter

ental intellectual resource and tool

1ld be concentrated on helping stu

principles and to develop thinking

=>r working within various subject

~students to not only the cognitive

>ts/piinciples that inform and guide

ndards and c1iteria that define and

re, the teacher should be sensitive

otivations, and habits of learners,

m and initiatives of learners.

ologizing the subject matter pro-

~ for the combined approach which

tal intellectual resource and as es

anizing learning experience. Such

t from new developments in cog

jvances in cognitive psychology

ry content" in enhancing thinking:

:annot think in a vacuum" (Brown,

ress in the areas of cognition and

sychologies of subject rnatter"

scholarly disciplines to introduce

ence to children of various ages,

: to the discipline of educational

.Mayer, 1992). Mayer (1992) ar-

~r provides the groundwork for

:s develop domain-specific think

)en a fruitful area of research on


cognition and higher-order thinking, creating "a promising path to educa

tional reform" in the new decades. We are on the verge of formulating and

adopting a new perspective of subject matter, learning to think, and teach

ing thinking that is very different from the one of the skill-oriented approach.

Notes 1. An earlier version of this article was presented at the First Annual Think

ing Qualities Initiative Conference, June 23-24, 2000, Hong Kong

Baptist University. The author acknowledged William Wu and S.

Gopinathan for their helpful comments on the earlier draft.

2. Two other major initiatives are IT-masterplan and National Education.

3. For background infom1ation of this new Thinking Programme, see Han,

Tan-Niam, & Mashhadi (1998).

4. I acknowledge that such an approach would be rejected by scholars

today given the fact that advances in cognitive psychology over the last

two decades have testified the importance of subject matter content for

higher-order thinking. However, as I will point out in this paper, the

skill-oriented approach in the Thinking Programme is grounded in cog

nitive psychology of the 1950s and 1960s, not cognitive psychology of

today. It places emphasis on discrete skills rather than conceptual un

derstanding of subject matter.

5. The characterization of Lampert's teaching in terms of the idea-based

approach to the teaching of thinking is mine; she may or may not en

dorse this particular characterization.

6. I need to point out that the phrase psychologizing was not used in

Lampert's writing. She used the phrase reasoning.

7. It is worth pointing out that Lampert's case reflects many attributes of

"best practices" of mathematics teachers documented in the Third In

ternational Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). One of the

attributes is a clear understanding of what is involved in knowing the

subject matter in terms of key ideas and interconnections for learners.

Another is that the subject matter is taught for in-depth, meaningful

21D Zongyi Deng

and conceptual understanding. The third is that students have sufficient

opportunities for solving cha11enging problems and discussing math

ematical concepts (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).

8. As indicated in the subsequent discussion on the problems of the skill

oriented approach, this approach is grounded in the model of information

.processing in cognitive psychology of the 1950s and 1960s, which

viewed subject matter as a body of inert information, and thinking as

the processing of information.

9. The above Lampert's teaching should not be taken as a typical example

of how the idea-based approach is carried out by common

schoolteachers. Lampe11 is a very exceptional scholar-practitioner: she

is not only an experienced classroom teacher with skills and disposi

tions to teach for conceptual understanding, but also a university

professor who is deeply knowledgeable about the subject matter and

principles of teaching and learning.

References

Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. (1999). Conceptualising critical

thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(3), 269-283.

Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming school into communities of thinking and learn

ing about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52(4), 399-413.

Chua, M. H. P., & Leong, H. (1998). The thinking program in Singapore-An

overview. In M. L. Quah & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Thinking Processes: Going be

yond the suiface curriculum (pp.79-83). Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Dewey, J. (190211990). The child and the curriculum and the school and society.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (191611966). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.

Dewey, J. (193811997). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.

Facionc, P. A. ( 1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for pur-

poses of educational assessment and instruction: Research findings and

recommendations prepared for the committee on pre-college philosophy (ERIC

Doc. No. ED 315-423). American Philosophical Association.


Han, C., Tan-Niam, C, & Mashhadi,

thinking in Singapore: Backgrow

sented at the annual conferencE

Singapore.

Hirst, P. H. (1965). Liberal educati

Archambault (Ed.), Philosophicc.

York: Humanities Press.

Lampert, M. (1989). Choosing and usi

In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances ir.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kil

learning. Alexandria, VA: As

Development.

Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughe~

S. C., & Suhor, C. (1988). Dinu

fum and instruction. Alexanc

Cuniculum Development.

Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and i

cational psychology. Journal oj

Prawat, R. S. (1991). The value ofi,

ment of thinking. Educationa/1

Prawat, R. S. (1993). The value of i<

Educational Researcher, 22(2),

Quinby, N. (1985). On testing and te:

Sternberg. Educational Leader.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education ar.

Academy Press.

Schwab, J. J. (1964). The structure<

G. W. Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.),

(pp. 6-30). Chicago, IL: Rand

Shulman, L. S. & Quinlan, K. M. (

subjects. In D. C.Berliner & 1

psychology (pp. 399-422). Ne·

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999).

teachers for improl'ing educati

Zongyi Deng

third is that students have sufficient

ng problems and discussing math

rt, 1999).

1ssion on the problems of the skill

~ounded in the model of information

y of the 1950s and 1 %0s, which

inert information, and thinking as

d not be taken as a typical example

::h is carried out by common

~ceptional scholar-practitioner: she

m teacher with skills and disposi

!rstanding, but also a university

able about the subject matter and

s, L. ( 1999). Conceptualising critical

21(3), 269-283.

o communities of thinking and learn

chologist, 52(4), 399-413.

1inking program in Singapore-An

~ds.), Thinking Processes: Going be

Singapore: Prentice Hall.

rriculwn and the school and society.

;s.

·ation. New York: The Free Press.

ation. New York: Touchstone.

llement of expert consensus for pur

nstruction: Research findings and

ttee on pre-college philosophy (ERIC

)phical Association.


Han, C., Tan-Niam, C, & Mashhadi, A. (1998, November). Critical and creative

thinking in Singapore: Background to the new thinking programme. Paper pre

sented at the annual conference of the Educational Research Association,

Singapore.

Hirst, P. H. (1965). Liberal education and the nature of knowledge. In R. D.

Archambault (Ed.), Philosophical analysis and education (pp. 113-138). New

York: Humanities Press.

Lampert, M. ( 1989). Choosing and using mathematical tools in classroom discourse.

In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching Vol. 1 (pp. 223-264).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Marzano, R. J. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of

learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Marzano, R. 1., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin,

S.C., & Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions ofthinking: Aframeworkforcurricu

lum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within edu

cational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 405-412.

Prawat, R. S. (1991). The value of ideas: The immersion approach to the develop

ment of thinking. Educational Researcher, 20(2), 3-IO.

Prawat, R. S. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning.

Educational Researcher, 22(2), 5-16.

Quinby, N. (1985). On testing and teaching intelligence: A conversation with Robert

Sternberg. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 50-53.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Schwab, J. J. (1964). The structure of the disciplines: Meaning and significance. In

G. \V. Ford & L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum

(pp. 6-30). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Shulman, L. S. & Quinlan, K. M. (1995). The Comparative psychology of school

subjects. In D. C.Berliner & R. C. Calfee(Eds.), Handbook of educational

psychology (pp. 399-422). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Stigler, J. \V., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from tlze ·world's

teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.

212 Zongyi Deng

Yee, W. H., Lim, B. H., Hang, K. H., Sin, K. M., & Ang, G. C. (1999). The thinking

programme: Infusing thinking into mathematics-secondary one. Singapore:

Cun·iculum Planning & Development Division, Ministry of Education.

Educational Research Journal (~if ©Hong Kong Educational Research

The Virtual Schoo Virtual Scrapboo~ its Potential Appl;

Benny K. K. Chan, Dennis P. The Virtual School of Biodiversil)

The University of Hong Kong

Tim Brailsford Informatics Institute of Infonnatil

School of Computer Science and

University of Nottingham, United

Will J. Trewhella The Virtual School of Biodiversi~

School of Life and Environmenta

University of Nottingham, Unitec

The Virtual School of Biodiversity (

ment of Ecology & Biodiversity at

Life and Environmental Sciences

Natural Hist01)' Museum, London. 1

institutional collaboration and tlze

materials via the World Wide Heb (

is a Virtual Scrapbook that is a Wel

CmTespondence conceming this atticl

Virtual School of Biodiversity, Dcpa

sity of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road,

Title The centrality of subject matter in teaching ...€¦ · Educational Research Journal { ~...

Documents

Transcript of Title The centrality of subject matter in teaching ...€¦ · Educational Research Journal { ~...