Introduction
Pedagogical scholars have come up with different concepts and theories to improve learning in schools. Schools are classified based on the adopted approaches to learning. This paper seeks to discuss and analyse the concept of ‘thinking school’ and its relevance to society. According to Hyerle and Alper (2014), a thinking school refers to an educational community in which members collectively focus on giving consistent, careful thought to all events and functions that unfold. In light of this, both staff and learners must learn how to think reflectively, creatively, and critically (Koivista & Jokinen, 2006) to apply these skills in developing an effective curriculum and extra-curricular activities. Students across a range of skills will reflect successful outcomes, besides showing co-operative and independent learning, favourable achievements, and derive joy from learning (Davis & Wilcock, 2006). Furthermore, how members interact with and express considerations for one another demonstrates the benefits of this notion, as does the positive psychological well-being of staff and learners (Hyerle & Alper, 2014).
The concept of ‘Thinking School’ evokes images of students and teachers who demonstrate problem-solving skills, innovative thinking, critical thinking, and creative thinking. The modern market value and demand for intellectual capital have driven many schools to shift their emphasis from content knowledge to thinking skills (Trickey & Topping, 2004). Teaching and evaluating higher-order thinking is encapsulated in the thinking schools. ‘Thinking schools’ nurture thinking and committed citizens to drive countries forward (Koh, Tan, & Tee, 2012). To achieve these objectives, stakeholders of education should review their curriculum and system to develop the thinking and learning skills and dispositions for the future. ‘Thinking school’ encourages educators to expand their range of teaching and learning approaches to include novice and innovative pedagogies, communicate successfully, collaborate extensively, and solve issues reflectively. This concept advocates teaching for insight and higher-order thinking as opposed to repetitive memorization of both procedural and factual knowledge. Schools can adopt the ‘thinking school’ perspective of learning by emphasising and providing more professional development for educators in assessment that is authentic (Koh et al., 2012).
History of Education
Grammar and Song Schools
Schools were unknown in England when St Augustine arrived in 597. He was obliged to create both churches and schools in England because there were no schools or churches (Gillard, 2011). Thus, he and his successor established two versions of schools, namely grammar schools and song schools. The first type was founded to teach Latin to English priests, while the second type of school was formed to train boys to sing in cathedral choirs. In essence, song schools were professional schools for those engaged in the performance of the services. On the contrary, grammar schools facilitated the general education needed by all professionals. The education concept at this time derived from the contemporary Roman and Hellenistic schools of rhetoric. It consisted of grammar, logic, music, astronomy, rhetoric, arithmetic, and geometry (Lawson & Silver, 2013). However, Latin grammar and literature were the main focus of the grammar schools, as the objective of the school was mainly vocational (Gillard, 2011).
The Viking Invasions and King Alfred
Beginning in 866, a long series of Viking invasions disrupted the development of schools in England. However, Wessex, under the rule of King Alfred, resisted Viking invasions, thereby allowing schools to flourish in the region. Allegedly, Alfred had spent many years in Rome, learning Latin. He translated Pope Gregory’s Pastoral Care into English and made copies for all cathedrals in his kingdom. Of note, the King bewailed the decline of education in England. He attributed the decline of learning to the invasion of the Vikings, who ravaged and burnt churches which had been filled with treasures and books (Lawson & Silver, 2013). Owing to his passion for the songs and literature of his people, King Alfred resisted the invasions of these pagans and war mongers (Gillard, 2011). He influenced the reconstruction of the school system in England following its devastation by the Vikings. He drove them out of Winchester, London, Oxford, Chichester, and Southampton, although the invasion went on for almost a century. The son and grandson of King Alfred continued the legacy of their predecessor and supported education in their Kingdom, despite persistent attacks by the Norsemen.
Post 1044: Vocational Training
Another dramatic event in the evolution of the education system came with the invasion of England by the Normans and William the Conqueror in 1066. The invaders foisted Lanfranc, an Italian adventurer, as the archbishop of the Diocese of Canterbury. The monkish Lanfranc frustrated the efforts to expel monks from monastic cathedrals, including Canterbury (Hoeppner Moran, 2014). Thus, schools were left to the care of non-resident and royal bishops because they were often bustratesmen. In particular, Lanfranc expressed little interest in schools or schoolboys; whereby, learning was limited to psalms and service recitation.
The Conquest mainly caused the gradual substitution of Norman for English schoolmasters and the translation of Latin into Norman-French rather than English. In fact, the language became the vernacular of the overall civilian in England until Edward III took over the reins (Hoeppner Moran, 2014). Education was mainly about vocational training, and involved many pupils who desired to be monks or priests. However, there was occasional extension and a couple of cases of the education of young members of noble and royal families.
1100-1500: Secularisation, Universities
Around 1100, collegiate churches and cathedrals had established schools with the schoolmaster as their most active officers and teaching as their priority. However, new schools started emerging, most of them provided by other stakeholders rather than churches. Some schools, such as those at Walham, Bedford, and Christchurch, were handed over to secular canons from monastic control. Such schools became ‘free or partially free grammar schools (Gillard, 2011). However, monasteries fought back in an attempt to regain control of these schools. The education provided by these schools did not qualify as a liberal education (PESGB, 2016). The average achievement of the learners was limited to reading and writing in other schools, and chanting and an elementary understanding of Latin.
With the shifting control of schooling came an initiation of change in the school curriculum. Rhetoric was given equal treatment as grammar for younger pupils, while education for older people placed more emphasis on logic than before because of the increasing availability of many works by Aristotle. Still, education was generally perceived to be an enterprise of Christianity. Notwithstanding, the concept of liberal, exemplified by a preparation for the specialised study of theology, law, or medicine, started to blossom. In this vein, Williams (cited in Gillard, 2011) argued that the concept of the Seven Liberal Arts, which dates back to about the 5th century, “began to be realized with [...] adequacy” with the flowing in of new material from classical learning coupled with fresh attitudes towards it (Williams, 1961; cited in Gillard, 2011). This change provided the foundation for the establishment of universities.
Universities
Oxford University first began its operation in 1096. The banning of English students from attending universities in Paris by Henry II accelerated its growth. Rioting between students and townspeople led to the construction of primitive halls of residence, which transformed into the first Oxford colleges, including University College (1249), Balliol (1260), and Merton (1264). However, these colleges were established by bishops and enrolled only wealthy graduates (Brockliss, 2016). Students who could not endure the hostility of townspeople moved to Cambridge in 1209 and formed themselves into an organisation headed by a chancellor in 1226.
University students studied an arts foundation course in grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Further studies in astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, and music culminated in bachelor's and master's degrees. Nevertheless, these further studies students were taught by masters who had been approved by the universitas (colleagues) after completing the course (Gillard, 2011). The position of professors had not been conceived by then. University degrees served as licenses to teach. Of note, the development of Oxford and Cambridge was rapidly replicated across England.
1300-1400: Renaissance, Grammar Schools, Apprenticeship
The 12th century saw the stagnation of education in England, attributed to the Black Death of 1349 and subsequent plagues in 1361 and 1367. No college was established after Queen's College in 1340 until 1379 with the founding of New College at Oxford. Similarly, Cambridge experienced a rather long stalemate in the founding of its colleges. After the founding of Corpus Christ College in 1349, no other college was established for almost a century, until the founding of God’s House to restore the supply of grammar masters whose shortage had caused dozens of schools to shut down. The shortage was in part due to the outbreaks (Gillard, 2011). During this era, the Church’s control over education had begun to wane, although it was not entirely removed. In fact, religious provision of schools is still a major characteristic of contemporary education in England (Orme, 2006). The church faced multiple challenges, especially from new universities that were determined to be independent, deciding their conditions for awarding bachelor's and master's degrees.
Admission to independent schools was not limited to a specific locality, but admitted students from all over the country. These schools combined the educational philosophy of mixed schools and the social training of the chivalric system (Gillard, 2011). They were closely connected to the colleges of the universities and their effects had a significant effect on the system of education.
1600-1800: Universal Education
The Renaissance started in England relatively later than in Italy and other European nations. Specifically, it started in the late sixteenth century and early seventeenth century. Unlike the Reformation, which resulted in changes to the structure of the school system, the Renaissance had little impact on the curriculum (Charlton, 2013). The Reformation reorganised the school system with the addition of Greek and Hebrew to the main Latin curriculum. However, the education provided in the universities and grammar schools remained rigid and narrow. On the other hand, the Renaissance extended education to the laity in conjunction with the reforms of King Henry, who diminished the control of monks.
The 6 C’s of Education for the 21st century
The 6 C’s are the pillars of learning in the 21st century. The connotations of the 6 C’s are think critically, communicate clearly, work collaboratively, embrace Culture, develop Creativity, and utilize Connectivity (Infogram, 2017). Critical thinking enables individual learners to manage information. Information is presented in a multitude of forms from multiple media. It involves information that learners must filter and analyze, authenticate and process, and must ultimately synthesize in a manner that is useful to the individual. In particular, critical thinking directly relates to problem solving, which describes the ability to make use of information to create solutions to problems (Fullan, 2012).
Communication facilitates a way for individual learners to present information through many forms of media. Communication among and between learners and instructors must be clear, concise, effective, and engaging. It also must be presented in n meaningful manner to both the individual and the target audience (Eadie, 2009). Collaboration engages the persons in a specific context via an association between them. Such associations are meaningful to communities and help people accomplish various processes within the shared environment. Collaboration involves partnership, teamwork, leadership, assistance, and alliance that serve to benefit the entire members of the community.
Creativity offers an avenue for both instructors and students to express themselves. In this regard, the structure is invalid without a function. As a result, the learner must be able to create something with the knowledge they have obtained. People can only achieve a purpose by creating something from the knowledge they have gained (Wakelin, 2013). Culture inspires people to appreciate where they have come from, their identity, and how they can forge into the future. It relates the individual to their surrounding, including the art, drama, dance, language, technology, people, religion, history, dance, and poetry (Fullan, 2012).
Connectivity keeps people in touch with their world. In contemporary times, people are increasingly being connected through technology, which is changing the world at a fast pace. Understanding that connections are personal regardless of the means of contact is important; wherefore, people must remain in touch with the way technology may change for every individual (Fullan, 2012).
Essentials for Adopting the Thinking Schooling Philosophy
Embracing the thinking schooling ideology entails transitioning from the traditional passive learning to engaged learning (Claxton, 2013). Engaged learning means relying less on rote learning, repetitive exams, and one-size-fits-all instruction, and instead applying learning that engages learners and perpetuates discovery through experiences. Further, Claxton (2013) asserts that engaged learning takes into account structured teaching, learning of life-long skills, and the development of character via innovation and creative strategies and approaches. To achieve full implementation of the principles enshrined in the thinking schooling philosophy, stakeholders of education must develop policies that aim to change the focus of education from quantity to quality.
In engaged learning, students are the proactive agents in the process, while the teacher plays the role of a facilitator (Fielding & Moss, 2011). This strategy contrasts with the traditional model of learning, where teachers supply the information for learners to memorise and regurgitate, and do not contribute actively to their acquisition of procedural and factual knowledge. On the other hand, engaged learning does not mean higher attention by students to their teachers during a typical session of repetitive drill and practice (Craft, 2010).
Learners who are engaged take near full responsibility for their learning, which involves specific tasks, such as using strategies to achieve learning objectives, collaborating with fellow students, and maintaining enthusiasm in the entire learning process. In such learning, teachers simply take the role of designers of learning opportunities. In this role, teachers create learning environments at different sessions for students to collaborate to solve real-world problems, accomplish authentic tasks, and construct their meaning of various aspects of the world. Based on Ng (2015), such teachers are co-learners with their subjects as opposed to a supplier of answers to the problems students face during a learning session.
Engaged learning emerges as a mental disposition that teachers must nurture throughout the school days of learners. In theory, this approach renders students who achieve distinction in a specific subject but fail to appreciate the content or the process of learning a failure in the system. Conversely, a student who leaves the education system with a passion for learning more and learning continuously renders the education system a success, at least for the student (Ng, 2008).
The emphasis on engaged learning means a move to authentic assessment from the traditional technique of assessing students. Moss, Girard, and Haniford (2006) explain that conventional assessment of learning outcomes in students has originally focused on the reproduction of procedural and factual knowledge. Typically, the items in the assessment claim to objectively measure the ability of students to remember discrete facts, specific information, and to apply routine computational formulas or procedures (Moss et al., 2006). The results of the rather superficial traditional assessment merely provide a partial representation of the students’ capacity at a given point in time and in an unnatural setting. Notwithstanding, such assessment outcomes have often been used for high-stakes decision-making, such as the ranking of students for placement and certification, the judgment of the professional capacity and performance of teachers, and the assessment of overall school and the efficacy of systems (Nichols & Berliner, 2008).
Past research has highlighted the inadequacies of the conventional method of assessing learners. Specifically, these studies have concluded that conventional assessment has proven inefficient in establishing a valid evaluation of students’ thinking proficiency or supporting their abilities to undertake real-world tasks (Wakelin, 2013).
Traditional paper-and-pencil tests focus on reproduction of knowledge and cognitive processing skills in artificial settings. Conversely, authentic assessment stresses various learning outcomes, including the construction of knowledge, complexity of thinking, elaborateness of communication, problem solving, and collaboration of students (Young, 2008). Indeed, proponents of this form of assessment have advocated for the all-round assessment of learning outcomes and progress on real tasks closely aligned with instructional goals of higher order. Authentic assessment measures the actual ability of students or captures the potential of students in relation to accomplishing real-world tasks (Christodoulou, 2016). Authentic assessment premises on the purpose and assessment of learning to be contextualised and beneficial to students (Craft, 2010).
The main objectives of learning are to prepare young learners to become critical thinkers, productive workers, and lifelong learners in the new knowledge-based economies (Koh et al., 2000). Attaining this objective requires classroom assessments of learners to shift to constructivist learning approaches to facilitate specific students’ outcomes, including higher-order thinking, in-depth conceptual understanding, real-world problem-solving, and communication skills. According to Koh, Ta, and Ng (2012), these skills are essential for the success of learners to excel in the contemporary, knowledge-based economy.
Assessment Literacy
To implement authentic assessment effectively, teachers must have a good understanding of assessment. That is, he or she must be assessment literate. Assessment literacy refers to having an insight into the principles of proper assessment. Such teachers must meet five distinct requirements (Koh, Tan, & Ng, 2012). First, they must know how to begin an assessment with a clear assessment purpose (Christodoulou, 2016). Second, they must understand the significance of assessing various forms of interrelated achievement targets, such as developing quality products, achieving performance skills, developing reasoning skills, and mastering content knowledge. Third, they must know how to choose appropriate assessment techniques for specific kinds of outcome targets. Fourth, they must know how to sample and gather the achievements of different students as per the representative performance tasks (Christodoulou, 2016). Fifth, they must know how to avoid assessment bias and distortion that emerge from practical and technical issues.
Teachers who are assessment literate express specific characteristics. Not only must these teachers be competent to develop and apply top-notch authentic assessments, but also master evaluative skills necessary to judge students and share feedback with students in a timely and formative manner (Christodoulou, 2016). Improving assessment literacy of teachers to design authentic assessment tasks and develop a rubric would allow them to stimulate higher-order thinking skills in their students and match such skills to the higher-order goals in instruction and learning (Christodoulou, 2016). The majority of educational assessment and learning theory experts agree on the integral role that assessment plays in instruction; therefore, educators must use it to support student learning in routine learning. Therefore, boosting the quality of the tasks for classroom assessment would likely improve instruction quality and promote engaged learning and subsequent creation and success of thinking schools.
Informative Assessment
William (2011) elucidates 5 strategies that he believes are central to successful formative assessment practice in a classroom setting. The first strategy entails sharing, understanding, and clarifying the learning objectives and criteria for success. This strategy enables teachers to get their students to understand the nature of their experience in class and how their learning will be assessed. The second strategy involves designing effective discussions, activities, and learning tasks in the classroom, which must elicit proof of learning. In practice, it involves educators developing effective classroom instructional strategies that facilitate assessment of performance (William, 2011). The third strategy is to provide feedback that propels learning forward. Teachers implement this strategy by collaborating with students to offer information that they need to improve their understanding of problems and find their solutions. The fourth strategy involves mobilizing students as instructional resources for each other. Under this strategy, teachers should activate students to involve each other in learning through discussions and working groups. The fifth strategy entails teachers activating students to own their learning. As a result, students will self-regulate their learning, thus improving their performance (William, 2011).
Research on self-regulation of students integrating self-monitoring and self-assessment shows that students who engage in such activities are likely to build confidence in their capacity to learn, gain internal attributions, as well as a feeling of empowerment, as well as a sense of autonomy (Dweck, 2012). These behaviours help students take accountability for their own learning and improve performance (Goodrich, 2012).
Authentic Intellectual Work
Authentic assessment involves authentic intellectual work, which helps learners engage in higher-order thinking and problem solving as opposed to rote use of factual and procedural knowledge. Teachers target authentic student performance by designing assessment and assignment tasks that mobilize students to construct meanings or knowledge via in-depth, disciplined inquiry. Such tasks must be real-world problems that have applicability and meaning beyond academic success. Authentic assessment promotes engaged learning through the use of complex, meaningful, and engaging tasks (Griffiths & Burns, 2012). Such tasks are designed to motivate learners to take responsibility for their own learning through self-peer-assessment, to develop strategies in their learning, to collaborate with classmates, and to be enthusiastic during the process of learning. Koh and Luke (2009) explain five criteria that can be adopted in evaluating the quality of assessment tasks and student assignments across subjects. These criteria are described in subsequent paragraphs.
Knowledge depth
Bloom’s taxonomy of target learning outcomes elucidates three versions of knowledge: factual, procedural, and conceptual or advanced (Griffith & Burns, 2012). Factual knowledge refers to an insight into discrete, decontextualised content parts. Procedural knowledge refers to insight into the use of discipline-specific skills, principles, techniques, tools, methods, and algorithms. Conceptual knowledge, on the other hand, refers to an insight into the way a specific subject matter is structured and organised, the way the different information bits are interrelated in a systematic way, and the way they function together. These forms of knowledge are necessary in engaging students during the learning process.
Knowledge criticism
Models of critical literacy and pedagogy suggest that knowledge criticism is a predisposition to the development of alternative perspectives, new solutions, or knowledge and critical arguments (Christodoulou, 2016). Assessment task requires students to judge the value, credibility, and reliability of various sources of knowledge by comparison and critique, as opposed to accepting and presenting all information as provided. According to Christodoulou (2016), the authentic pedagogy draws together the imperatives of critical education with different education models for new economies.
Manipulation of knowledge
Manipulation of knowledge requires students to apply higher-order thinking and reasoning capacity in text, intellectual artefacts, and knowledge reconstruction (Stobart, 2014). Evers and Kneybar (2016) state that knowledge manipulation entails structuring, interpreting, analyzing, and synthesizing information. In this light, authentic assessment tasks ought to create opportunities for learners to hypothesize and generalize to solve problems, make concconclusionsand discover new meaning of the world.
Sustained writing
This criterion requires that students elaborate on their insight, explanation, viewpoint, and conclusions by generating written prose that can be sustained (Evers & Kneybar, 2016). Sustained writing, therefore, presents as a relative measure for teachers or markers to use instead of being affiliated with a single subject or benchmark of age for the generation of semantic complexity or a single volume.
Link to the real world beyond the classroom
This criterion stressed the extent to which the task of assessment and affiliated artefact has a perceived connection to a process, activity, or task outside the classroom or school. To be authentic for learning of students and serve as the assessment of authentic accomplishments, assessment tasks should nurture higher-order thinking and problem-solving capacities to solve, be beneficial to individuals and societies. In this case, the mastery gained in school would transfer easily to life beyond school (Stotbart, 2014).
Self-regulation of Learning
Students need guidelines and opportunities to learn and engage in self-assessment to become actively engaged in the process of learning. Based on Fielding and Moss (2011), specially designed programs can help teachers with pragmatic strategies for teaching and techniques to create opportunities for students to not only reflect on their learning, but also assess their work and learning progress. When learners think about and evaluate their work, they can act on the evidence of their learning and take accountability for learning (Fielding & Moss, 2011).
Conclusion
The idea of schools as critical thinking institutions implies that both teachers and students are expected to demonstrate innovative thinking, problem-solving skills, and creative thinking. A key goal of thinking schools is to promote thinking and commitment among citizens and, in this way, foster the growth and development of a country. The UK has a protracted history of education, starting with the grammar and music schools during the Roman invasion, followed by the reconstruction of the school system by the Vikings. The Normans advanced vocational training in England following their invasion. Securitisation sought to liberalise education in England, which was up to this point under the yoke of Christianity. This led to the establishment of universities such as Oxford. The Renaissance period paved the way for universal education in England, thereby extending knowledge to the common man. While this historical background has really influenced the development of education in England, the 6 C’s are a more effective tool for fostering education in the 21st century. This is because they promote effective communication, creativity, connectivity, and critical thinking among students and instructors alike. The 6 C’s also set the stage for the adoption of engaged learning, which is a prerequisite for critical thinking within the realms of educational institutions. Engaged learners are more likely to be fully involved in their learning, including collaborating with instructors and fellow students. This demands a high level of assessment literacy from teachers to establish the levels of engagement of individual students. This can be realised through knowledge sharing, giving feedback, and mobilising students to take an active role in learning. More importantly, teachers must be able to link theories learnt in the classroom to activities in the real world. More importantly, instructors should guide learners on how to engage in self-assessment, which is essential in the learning process.
References
Brockliss, L.W.M. 2016. The University of Oxford: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christodoulou, D. 2016. Making good progress? The future of Assessment for Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Charlton, K. 2013. Education in Renaissance England. London: Routledge.
Claxton, G. 2013. What's the point of school?: Rediscovering the heart of education. London: OneworlPublicationson.
Craft, A. 2010. Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age. Trentham Books, Staffordshire.
Dweck, C. 2012. Mindset. London: Robinson.
Eadie, W.F. 2009. 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook, Volume 1. London: Sage.
Evers, J., & Kneybar, R. 2016. Flip the system. Oxon: Routledge.
Fielding, M., & Moss, P. 2011. Radical education and the common school. London: Routledge.
Fullan, M. 2012. Great to Excellent: Launching the Next Stage of Ontario's Education Agenda.
Gillard, D. 2011. Education in England: a brief history.
Goodrich, K. 2012. Self-regulation of learning leads to students ' performance improvement.
Hoeppner Moran, J.A. 2014. The Growth of English Schooling, 1340-1548: Learning, Literacy, and Laicization in Pre-Reformation York Diocese. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Hyerle, D. & Alper, L. 2014. Pathways to thinking schools. London: Corwin.
Infogram 2017. The 6 C's of Education for the 21st Century.
Koh, K., & Luke, A. 2009. Authentic and conventional assessment in Singapore schools: An empirical study of teacher assignments and student work. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), pp. 291-318
Koh, K. H., Tan, C., & Ng, P. T. 2012. Creating thinking schools through authentic assessment: the case in Singapore. Educ Asse Eval Acc, 24, 135-49.
Lawson, J., & Silver, H. 2013. A Social History of Education in England. London: Routledge.
Moss, P. A., Girard, B. J., & Haniford, L. C. 2006. Validity in education assessment. Review of Research in Education, 30, pp. 109-162.
Ng, C. H. 2008. Multiple-goal learners and their differential patterns of learning. Educational Psychology, 28(4), pp. 439-456.
Ng, C. 2015. Learners' Goal Profiles and Their Learning Patterns over an Academic Year.
Nichols, S.L., & Berliner, D.C. 2008. Testing the Joy Out of Learning. Educational Leadership,65(6), pp. 14-18.
Orme, N. 2006. Medieval Schools: From Roman Britain to Renaissance England. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
PESGB 2016. Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.
Stobart, G. 2014. The Expert Learner: Challenging the myth of ability. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Trickey, S., & Topping, K. J. 2004. Philosophy for children: a systematic review. Research Papers in Education,19(3), pp.365-380
Wakelin, J. 2013. Education: Purpose and control. Suffolk: Arima Publishing.
William, D. 2011. Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, US.: Solution Tree Press.
Young, M. 2008. Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. London: Routledge.
