Disciplined Thinking

by | Feb 23, 2008 | Books, Learning, Psychology, Teaching, Technology, TPACK, Worth Reading

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.

A few randomly selected blog posts…

TPACK Newsletter, Issue #10, May 2011

TPACK Newsletter, Issue #10: May 2011 Welcome to the tenth edition of the (approximately quarterly) TPACK Newsletter! TPACK work is continuing worldwide. This document contains recent updates to that work that we hope will be interesting and useful to you, our...

Learning science with the body

Learning science with the body

We often think and understand the world using our bodies. Our senses and movement shape how we form and process knowledge. Paul Reimer, Rohit Mehta and I explore this idea and its educational implications in a new article published in iWonder: Rediscovering School...

Educators as Designers

Educators as Designers

How might we? Three words, and a question mark. At one level it is a simple question—leaving open what it is that we might do. But at another level its openness is its strength. Because inherent within it is a call to action, a discomfort with the way things are, and...

The Allegory of the Cave

Plato's Allegory of the Cave (see Wikipedia entry) illustrates "our nature in its education and want of education." It is maybe one of the most famous allegories in literature and philosophy, a precursor to the kinds of mind-games (think brain in a vat) that...

Information is beautiful

Anybody who knows me (and/or reads this blog) will know of my love of issues related to representation (see all postings under that category). So I am always looking out for new and interesting representations. An lovely example sent to me by Patrick Dickson is...

Teaching design, some ideas

I recently received an email from a teacher in Poland, seeking advice for a curriculum outline for their Design Technology Section. They said, and I quote: Unfortunately, I have minimal experience with the subject as a teacher or as a student in my younger years,...

Teaching TPACK @ BYU

I just found out about IPT287: Instructional Technology for ElEd and ECE a course taught at Brigham Young by Charles Graham (an active TPACK researcher and the adviser of Suzy Cox about whose dissertation I had written about here). Of particular interest to me was a...

Presentation at University of Zurich

Presentation at University of Zurich

I was invited by my friend Dominik Petko, Professor of Teaching and Educational Technology at the Institute for Educational Science at the University of Zurich to make a presentation to their faculty and staff. The video of my presentation (Contextualizing TPACK...

Symmetry: new ambigram

I love the idea of self-reference, words or sentences that refer to themselves in some manner or another. For instance consider the sentence, This is a sentence. This is an example of a relatively benign self-referential sentence. Other examples may not be less...

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 *