Disciplined Thinking

by | Saturday, February 23, 2008

One of the key aspects of the TPCK framework is the manner in which disciplinary knowledge interacts with pedagogy and technology. Till this date I did not have an adequate way of discussing how disciplinary knowledge and pedagogy interact, that is until I came across Janet Donald’s book Learning to Think: Disciplinary Perspectives.

Discipline is often used to describe a “set of system of rules and regulations” and this definition plays out differently in different contexts. For instance, in the military sense of the word, discipline is “behavior in accord with rules of conduct; behavior and order maintained by training and control” and the other in the educational sense of the term, discipline is a “a branch of instruction or learning.” Gardner has argued that latter form of disciplinary thinking is maybe the greatest invention of mankind, and the primary responsibility given to schools. It is no surprise that our interest is in the latter sense of the word.

According to Gardner, disciplines provide us with Knowledge (Facts, concepts & relationships); Methods (Knowledge creation & validation processes); Purposes (Reasons why the discipline exists); and finally Forms of representation (Genres & symbol systems). The key question for us as educators is how disciplines differ from each other and whether these differences matter to teaching and learning. For instance, it can be argued that all disciplines can or should be taught through the same instructional strategies. So in that sense, mathematics can be taught using the same instructional strategies that we use to teach architecture, or music. So even if disciplines differ from each other, this is not a difference that makes a difference. A contrary position is that different disciplines need to be taught differently, i.e. this is a difference that makes a difference!

Clearly this is an empirical question and one that Donald seeks to answer, and answer it does, clearly and emphatically. And she does this both by identifying what is common to all disciplines and how they differ.

Summarizing over 25 years of research, Donald offers six fundamental, general thinking processes of expert and student thinking in different disciplines. These six processes describes what changes as students learn and think in specific disciplinary contexts. They are:

– Description: of context, conditions, facts, functions, assumptions, and goals
– Selection: of relevant information and critical elements
– Representation: organizing, illustrating, and modifying elements and relations
– Inference: drawing conclusions, forming propositions
– Synthesis: composing wholes from parts, filling gaps, developing course of action
– Verification: confirming accuracy and results, judging validity, using feedback

Though these six processes apply to all disciplines, Donald shows that different disciplines emphasize certain processes and under-emphasize others. For instance problem description in literature would be very different from that in engineering, as would the nature of inference, synthesis and verification. Verification in engineering would be pragmatic (does it work?), while that in literature could be a search for interpretive coherence. One can make similar arguments for how these six processes play out differentially in other disciplines as well.

So what does this mean for instruction, or as we have been phrasing this, does this difference make a difference? Donald spends and entire chapter arguing against content-neutral, simplistic one-size-fits-all educational strategies that would apply equally well to all disciplines. As Pintrich* says in his review of the book:

Donald makes the case that instructional improvement must develop out of tasks, knowledge, and ways of thinking that characterize each discipline or field. This makes instructional improvement a much harder task, as it is not as simple as just picking up a few new instructional techniques at a faculty development workshop and then using them in class. Instructional improvement involves thinking clearly and deeply about the nature of the discipline and the desired knowledge and thinking processes and then designing instruction to facilitate and encourage the use of the knowledge and processes… There is no one “royal” road or a single developmental pathway that all instructors or all students must follow in the development of student thinking.

This lack of a single “royal road” is exactly the argument that Matt and I have been making in our TPCK related work. The only difference is that we include technology as being part of the mix and this further complicates both content and pedagogy – and the relationships between them.


* Pintrich, P. R. (2004). Understanding the Development of Student Thinking in the College Classroom. [Review of the book Learning to think: Disciplinary Perspective]. The Journal of Higher Education.

Topics related to this post: Books | Learning | Psychology | Teaching | Technology | TPACK | Worth Reading

A few randomly selected blog posts…

Education & the Rise of AI Influencers

Education & the Rise of AI Influencers

I have been thinking hard about the nature of generative AI, what sets it apart from other technologies that have come in the past. It seems to me there are two key factors. The first is its ability to engage in dialogue, in natural language and the second are its...

How to identify AI generated text?

How to identify AI generated text?

I think I solved the biggest educational challenge of our time, namely: How do we recognize AI generated text from human-created ones? Just to provide some context, the advent of large language models and generative AI have made it essential that we, as educators,...

Introducing David Pogue

Introducing David Pogue

My college (The Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College) was one of the sponsors of the Arizona School Board Association Annual Conference. As a part of this, we got the privilege to introduce and have lunch with the keynote speaker. As it turns out the keynote speaker...

When does the brain make up YOUR mind?

When does the brain make up YOUR mind? Does this question make any sense? Anyway, this was prompted by an article that showed that "Researchers using brain scanners could predict people's decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making...

The distance education revolution

TCRecord this week features an article by Gary Natriello titled Modest Changes, Revolutionary Possibilities: Distance Learning and the Future of Education. As the abstract says In this essay, I take stock of the developments shaping distance learning and consider the...

A pome a day

Greg Casperson is a graduate student in our Ed Psy & Ed Tech program. He has been engaged, over the past few months, in the most interesting experiment. He carefully selects and posts to his website one poem every day! Greg's RSS feed has become one of the first...

Hype, Luck, and Numbers: More Gratuitous Self-Promotion

Hype, Luck, and Numbers: More Gratuitous Self-Promotion

[Because apparently one self-congratulatory post this year wasn't enough] A few months ago, I wrote about some academic recognition that came my way, noting how "time in the field" eventually leads to certain accolades. Well, 2024 continues to bring two more pieces of...

Engineered for Attachment: The Hidden Psychology of AI Companions

Engineered for Attachment: The Hidden Psychology of AI Companions

Note: This post was co-authored with Melissa Warr and cross-posted on the Civics of Technology website as Artificial Intimacy: How AI is Engineered to Hijack Human Connection (published: April 27, 2025). Authors’ note: We had almost finished writing this post,...

Hype & Luck: Gratuitous Self-Promotion (2024 Edition)

Hype & Luck: Gratuitous Self-Promotion (2024 Edition)

It is natural, if you have been working in a field for a while, and have been somewhat successful, that some accolades will come your way, just by dint of being around long enough. As Bing Chat wrote, when asked to create a funny, self-deprecating profile of me in the...

3 Comments

  1. Punya Mishra

    I wish I did. The problem I am facing at this time is that I have desperately fallen behind on my blogging. Summer teaching being the main culprit. Hopefully I will be back in full force in a week’s time.

    Reply
  2. Punya Mishra

    Thanks, JordyW. I have fixed the errors (I had incorrectly typed in Diamond instead of Donald in a couple of spots).

    Reply
  3. jordyw

    The author is Janet Gail Donald. I’ll have to check it out.

    Donald, J. 2002: Learning to Think: Disciplinary Perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. October 2006

    Diamond, R. M. and Adam, B. A. (Eds.) 1995a: The disciplines speak: rewarding the scholarly, professional, and creative work of faculty. Washington: American Association for Higher Education.
    Diamond, R. M. and Adam, B. A. (Eds.) 1995b: Describing the work of faculty: disciplinary perspectives, in Diamond, R. M. and Adam, B. A. (Eds.) The disciplines speak: rewarding the scholarly, professional, and creative work of faculty. Washington: American Association for Higher Education. pp. 1-14.

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. fun math review games - fun math review games... As you seem to know what your doing blogging wise, do you know what the best…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *