Skills for the 21st Century: teaching higher-order thinking

Robyn Collins

This article originally appeared in the April 2014 edition of ISQ Briefings, a publication of Independent Schools
Queensland. Republished with permission.

It is hard to imagine a teacher or school leader who is not aware of the importance of teaching higher-order
thinking skills to prepare young men and women to live in the 21st Century. However, the extent to which
higher-order thinking skills are taught and assessed continues to be an area of debate, with many teachers and
employers expressing concern that young people cannot think.
What are we talking about when we talk about higher-order thinking? Brookhart (2010) identifies definitions of
higher-order thinking as falling into three categories: (1) those that define higher-order thinking in terms
of transfer, (2) those that define it in terms of critical thinking, and (3) those that define it in terms of problem
solving.
In the category of transfer, Anderson, Krathwohl et al (2001) define transfer in how it differs from retention: Two
of the most important educational goals are to promote retention and to promote transfer (which, when it
occurs, indicates meaningful learning) retention requires that students remember what they have learned,
whereas transfer requires students not only to remember but also to make sense of and be able to use what
they have learned.
While learning for recall requires thinking, the higher-order thinking is in transfer. That is, students not only
acquire the knowledge and skills, but also can apply them to new situations. It is this kind of thinking, according
to Brookhart (2010) that applies to life outside of school where thinking is characterised by a series of transfer
opportunities (rather) than as a series of recall assignments to be done.
The critical thinking category includes definitions that refer to reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on
deciding what to believe or do (Norris & Ennis, 1989) and artful thinking, which includes reasoning,
questioning and investigating, observing and describing, comparing and connecting, finding complexity, and
exploring viewpoints (Barahal, 2008).
In critical thinking, being able to think means students can apply wise judgment or produce a reasoned
critique. The goal of teaching is then to equip students to be wise by guiding them towards how to make sound
decisions and exercise reasoned judgment. The skills students need to be taught to do this include: the ability
to judge the credibility of a source; identify assumptions, generalisation and bias; identify connotation in
language use; understand the purpose of a written or spoken text; identify the audience; and to make critical
judgments about the relative effectiveness of various strategies used to meet the purpose of the text.
In the problem-solving category Brookhart provides the following definition: A student incurs a problem when
the student wants to reach a specific outcome or goal but does not automatically recognize the proper path or
solution to use to reach it. The problem to solve is how to reach the desired goal. Because a student cannot
automatically recognize the proper way to reach the desired goal, she must use one or more higher-order
thinking processes. These thinking processes are called problem solving (Nitko & Brookhart, 2007). They may
include remembering information, learning with understanding, critically evaluating ideas, formulating creative
alternatives, and communicating effectively.
The broad definition of problem solving is that it is the skill that enables a person to find a solution for a problem
that cannot be solved simply by memorising (ibid). While there are many closed problemsin maths for
examplethat require students to use memory to repeatedly practice a particular algorithm, many problems are

open-ended and cannot be solved from memory alone. Or they may have more than one solution. Or they may
be genuine problems where an answer is not yet known. Problems may also be open-ended in that solutions
change as circumstances change. For example, living within a budget is an open-ended problem.
Bransford and Stein (1984) point out that problem solving is the general mechanism behind all thinking,
including recall, critical thinking, creative thinking, and effective communication. They assert that to recall
something, students have to identify it as a problem ("I need to memorise the planets, a poem, a list of capital
cities. How can I do that?") and devise a solution that works for them. Similarly, critical thinking is a matter of
problem solvinghow well does Shakespeare develop this character?and communication also involves
problem solvingwho is my audience? How do I need to best communicate with them? What words might I use
to persuade?
Project Zero developed at Harvard University, provides an example of how teachers might help students to
think by viewing works of art, using an Artful Thinking Palette (Barahal, 2008). Students were asked to use six
thinking dispositions to view art: exploring viewpoints, reasoning, questioning and investigating, observing and
describing, comparing and connecting, and finding complexity. Teaching students these thinking skills is not
only useful in art but in other disciplines, and in preparation for standardised tests such as the Queensland
Core Skills Test.
Brookhart (2010) argues that if teachers think of higher-order thinking as problem solving they can set lesson
goals to teach students how to identify and solve problems at school and in life. This, she says, involves not
just solving problems set by the teacher but solving new problems that they define themselves, creating
something new as the solution.
How do we teach higher-order thinking?
While Blooms Taxonomy is not the only framework for teaching thinking, it is the most widely used, and
subsequent frameworks tend to be closely linked to Blooms work. A committee under the leadership of Dr
Benjamin Bloom created the Taxonomy in 1956. Blooms aim was to promote higher forms of thinking in
education, such as analysing and evaluating, rather than just teaching students to remember facts (rote
learning). Learning was divided into three domains of educational activity:

Cognitive: mental skills (Knowledge)

Affective: growth in feelings or emotional areas (Attitude or self)

Psychomotor: manual or physical skills (Skills)

While all three domains are important for a rounded person, it is the first domain (Cognitive) that is the subject
of this paper. The cognitive domain involves knowledge and the development of intellectual skills (Bloom,
1956). The abilities and skills within the domain are listed in six major categories starting from the simplest
thinking behaviour to the most complex (see Table 1). It is generally accepted that each behaviour needs to be
mastered before the next one can take place. This is useful knowledge in assisting teachers in their lesson
planning.

In the mid-nineties, Lorin Anderson (2000), along with her colleagues, revisited the cognitive domain in the
learning taxonomy and made two major changes. She changed the six categories from nouns to verbs; and
slightly rearranged them so they became:

Using the Taxonomy, teachers have a framework available to them that allows them to scaffold teaching
thinking skills in a structured way. Teachers can do this through the following stages.

1. Specifically teaching the language and concepts of higher-order thinking

Teachers should not only teach the language and concepts but also tell students what they are doing and why
higher-order thinking skills are necessary for them to problem-solve at school and in life. For example, by using
a common language, students can recognise the skill they are exercising and the level of complexity of a
question. When they see words like define, recognise, recall, identify, label, understand, examine, or
collect, they know they are being asked to recall facts and demonstrate their knowledge of content. When they
see words like, apply, solve, experiment, show, or predict, they understand they are being asked to
demonstrate application. And when a question begins with appraise, judge, criticise, or decide, they
understand the higher-order thinking skill they are practising is evaluation. Teachers also have an instant
checklist of whether or not the level of work they require from students is of sufficient complexity. Students
should begin to practice higher-order thinking skills from primary school, but by the time they reach year 11 and
12 the bulk of class and assessment questions and discussion should be in the higher levels of the taxonomy.
2. Planning classroom questioning and discussion time to tap into particular higher-order thinking
skills
The important word here is plan. Teachers, on the whole, are very good at thinking on their feet; however,
without meticulous planning they are likely to ask recall questions rather than questions that require higherorder thinking. Similarly, discussions can be de-railed if they are not planned with a higher-order thinking
learning objective in mind. While this does not mean every question or discussion has to be pitched at higherorder thinking, a good proportion should be. By carefully planning lessons and discussions, teachers can
ensure the proportion is right. It is useful to ask a colleague to observe a class with a view to recording the
percentage of higher-order thinking skills practiced in a lesson; or even to ask students to use the knowledge
they have gained in learning the language of thinking to record the teacher's use of higher-order terms; or to
observe and assess their classmates in planned activities. Teachers should also encourage students to reflect
on their learning so they understand their thinking strengths and weaknesses.
3.

Explicitly teaching subject concepts

The research is overwhelmingly in favour of explicit, direct instruction (Hattie, 2005; Marzano, 2011). This is
particularly so in the teaching of concepts. Students need to understand the critical features that define what
higher-order thinking skills they are practising. Once again, Blooms Taxonomy (or the Core Skills of the
Queensland curriculum) is a useful place to start. In any subject area, students should be aware of the key
concepts they must learn. They must be able to identify them and they must practice them. Teachers can help
by alerting students when a key concept is being introduced, and identifying the explicit characteristics of the
concept. Students need to understand whether the concept is concrete, abstract, verbal, nonverbal, or
process.
For example, often students who perform poorly in mathematics have difficulty with nonverbal concepts. Simply
working problems again and again with no verbal explanation will do little to help these students to understand
maths concepts. Teachers have to spend time helping students to make strong connections between the
manipulation of the symbols, the associated language and some form of concrete materials and images. By
working through problems with students and verbalising the appropriate language, students begin to
understand mathematical procedures.
Conversely, students who have difficulty with verbal concept formation need multiple examples with relatively
less language, which may confuse them. That is, some students need to be shown how to solve a problem,
some students told, and some need both.
In countries where attainment in maths is particularly high, it seems teachers ensure students have mastered
basic concepts before proceeding to more sophisticated ones. Where students do not master basic concepts
they are likely to attempt to memorise rather than to understand. While this works for them in the early years, it
leads to misunderstanding and the inability to apply knowledge in the later years of schooling. It is also possibly
the reason why many students turn off maths.
Thomas and Thorne (2009) suggest a multi-step process for teaching and learning concepts, which includes:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

name the critical (main) features of the concept

name some additional features of the concept
compare the new to the already known
name some false features of the concept
give the best examples or prototypes of the concept (what it is)
give some non-examples or non-prototypes (what the concept isn't)
identify other similar or connected concepts.

4.

Providing scaffolding

Scaffolding involves giving students support at the beginning of a lesson and then gradually turning over
responsibility to the students to operate on their own (Slavin, 1995). Without this limited temporary support
students are unlikely to develop higher-order thinking skills; however too much scaffolding can be as
detrimental as not enough. Kauchan and Eggen (1998) suggest teachers should provide only enough support
so that learners make progress on their own. Too much or too little support can interfere with the development
of higher-order thinking skills. Too little support, and students are left floundering; provide support even though
students dont ask for it, and they get the message they cannot do the task on their own.
Kauchan and Eggins (1998), propose the following guidelines:
1.

2.

3.

5.

Use scaffolding:

During initial learning, with a variety of examples to describe the thinking processes involved

Only when needed, by first checking for understanding and, if necessary, providing additional
examples and explanations

To build on student strengths and accommodate weaknesses.

Provide structured representations and discussions of thinking tasks:

Visually represent and organise problems in concrete examples such as drawings, graphs, hierarchies,
or tables

Demonstrate how to break up a thought problem into convenient steps, using a number of examples
and encouraging students to suggest additional examples

Discuss examples of problems and solutions, explaining the nature of problems in detail and relating
the worked-out solutions to the problems. This practice reduces the students need for additional
teacher assistance.

Provide opportunities for practice in solving problems

Provide teacher-directed practice before independent practice, spot-checking progress on practice and
providing short responses of less than 30 seconds to any single request for assistance

Assign frequent, short homework assignments that are logical extensions of classroom work

Link practice in the content area to complex, real-life situations.

Consciously teach to encourage higher order thinking

In order to foster deep conceptual understanding, consider using the following strategies:

Teach skills through real-world contexts

Vary the context in which student use a newly taught skill

Emphasise the building blocks of higher-order thinking

Build background knowledge

Classify things in categories

Arrange items along dimensions

Make hypotheses

Draw inferences

Analyse things into their components

Solve problems

Encourage students to think about the thinking strategies they are using (more details available
online:http://theonlinepd.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/teachinghigherorderthinking.pdf).

Using assignments and assessments that require intellectual work and critical thinking is associated with
increased student achievement. These increases have been shown on a variety of achievement outcomes,
including standardised test scores, classroom grades, and research instruments. The increases have been
demonstrated in reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. And they have been documented
particularly for low-achieving students. Evidence from both the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) report clear evidence that in
mathematics and science instruction emphasising reasoning is associated with higher scores in all grade levels
tested, while in reading, teaching for meaning (including thinking about main ideas, author's purpose, theme,
and using real texts) is associated with higher NAEP performance, Wenglinsky (2004).
Higgins et al (2005), for example, did a meta-analysis of studies of thinking-skills interventions on student
cognition, achievement, and attitudes. He and his colleagues found 29 studies, mostly from the United States
and the United Kingdom that reported enough data to calculate effect sizes. They found very strong effects.
The average effect of thinking-skills instruction was:

0.62 on cognitive outcomes (for example, verbal and nonverbal reasoning tests), over 29 studies.

0.62 on achievement of curricular outcomes (for example, reading, maths, or science tests), over 19
studies.

1.44 on affective outcomes (attitudes and motivation), over 6 studies.

Assessing higher-order thinking skills has also been shown to assist disadvantaged students. The 'Higher
Order Thinking Skills' (HOTS) program designed by Pogrow (2005) specifically for educationally disadvantaged
students, is based on four kinds of thinking skills: (1) metacognition, or the ability to think about thinking; (2)
making inferences; (3) transfer, or generalising ideas across contexts; and (4) synthesising information. The
project is a pure thinking skills approach to assist disadvantaged students in grades 48 in the United States. It

combines the use of Socratic dialogue, drama, and technology, and has been used in approximately 2,600
schools in 48 states. It produced student gains in standardised tests, on measures of metacognition, in writing,
in problem solving, and in grade point average.
Furthermore, Pogrow found that in studies contrasting the efficacy of teaching higher-order thinking skills with
teaching enhanced content instruction, the former was much better at setting up students to be flexible,
allowing them to understand understanding and to handle a variety of content.
Finally, research has shown that student motivation increases when teachers hold them accountable for higherorder thinking. This seems to be so, because teaching students higher-order thinking tasks forces them to
engage in thinking about particular things, and undertaking assessment that requires intellectual work and
critical thinking. Memorising, while it is useful in some cases, does not increase students autonomy and, to a
large extent, does not contribute to mastery, although it might be argued that knowing basic facts is essential in
providing building blocks for understanding. Also, it should be noted that knowing things for immediate recall is
a relatively unimportant skill. In most things we do, it is not the facts that are important but how we apply
knowledge. For example, knowing the times table is useful to save time, to help in estimating and because rote
learning builds useful pathways in the brain, but it is only when we use our knowledge of tables to manage our
finances, plan a budget, or make decisions about whether one item is more expensive than another, that we
exercise problem solving and higher-order thinking.
Therefore, in order to assess so that students can demonstrate mastery, teachers need to plan assessment
items that allow students to use all the skills of the Taxonomy: analysis, evaluation, and creation (the "top end"
of Bloom's Taxonomy); logical reasoning; judgment and critical thinking; problem solving; and creativity and
creative thinking.
There are countless resources online and on paper to assist in the teaching of higher-order thinking, and while
these are useful, an effective teacher needs to make few changes to programs already in place in order to
ensure that students are encouraged to think. The research suggests that constant awareness of the language
teachers use, and reflection on how the skills might be incorporated in every lesson, are pivotal in making the
difference.
Bibliography
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P. et al (2001), A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A
revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon
Barahal, S. (2008), Thinking about Thinking: Pre- Service Teachers Strengthen their Thinking Artfully, Phi Delta
Kappan 90 (4)
Bloom B. S. (1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain, New York: David
McKay Co Inc.
Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984), The IDEAL Problem Solver, New York: W. H. Freeman
Brookhart, S. (2010), How to Assess Higher Order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom,
ASCD, http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/Overview/How-to-Assess-Higher-Order-Thinking-Skills-in-YourClassroom.aspx
Hattie, J. (2009), Visible Learning: a Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, Oxon, OX:
Routledge
Higgins, S., Hall, E., Baumfield V. & Moseley D. (2005), A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of the Implementation of
Thinking Skills Approaches on Pupils, in Research in Education Library, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science
Research
Kauchak, D., & Eggen, P. (1998), Learning and Teaching: Research-based Methods (3rd ed.), Boston: Allyn
and Bacon
Marso, R., Pigge, F. (1992), A Summary of Published Research: Classroom Teachers Knowledge and Skills
Related to the Development and Use of Teacher-Made Tests, paper presented at the annual conference of the
Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL
Marzano, R. (2011), The Art & Science of Teaching/ The Perils and Promises of Discovery Learning,
Educational Leadership, Volume 69, Number 1
Nitko, A. & Brookhart, S. (2007), Educational Assessment of Students, Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall
Norris, S. & Ennis, R. (1989), Evaluating Critical Thinking, Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications
Pogrow, S. (2005), HOTS Revisited: A Thinking Development Approach to Reducing the Learning Gap After

Grade 3, Phi Delta Kappan

Slavin, R. (1995), A Model of Effective Instruction, The Educational Forum, 59
Thomas, A., and Thorne, G. (2009), How to Increase Higher Order Thinking, Metarie, LA: Center for
Development and Learning, http://www.readingrockets.org/article/34655
Wenglinsky, H. (2004), Closing the Racial Achievement Gap: The Role of Reforming Instructional Practices,
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12 (64)
Further Reading
Brookhart, S. (2010), How to Assess Higher Order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom,
ASCD, http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/Overview/How-to-Assess-Higher-Order-Thinking-Skills-in-YourClassroom.aspx
Teacher and author Susan M. Brookhart answers the questions: What does higher-order thinking look like? And
how can teachers assess it across the disciplines?
Brookhart begins by laying out principles for assessment in general and for assessment of higher-order thinking
in particular. She then defines and describes aspects of higher-order thinking according to the categories
established in leading taxonomies, giving specific guidance on how to assess students in the following areas:

Analysis, evaluation and creation

Logic and reasoning

Judgment

Problem solving

Creativity and creative thinking

The book covers how to use formative assessment to improve student work and then use summative
assessment for grading or scoring.
Interesting sites:
http://theonlinepd.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/teachinghigherorderthinking.pdf
This site provides excellent information about why we should teach higher-order thinking skills and how to
teach them.
Research in Action:
http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/Overview/How-to-Assess-Higher-Order-Thinking-Skills-in-YourClassroom.aspx
This site includes a series of four short videos in which Dr Susan Brookhart describes, with examples, how best
to assess higher order thinking skills in your classroom. The videos include: why higher order thinking is
important, principles for designing assessment, assessing reasoning and assessing creativity. While the author
regularly promotes her book in these videos, the contents of the videos are useful and worthwhile as simple
and succinct summaries for teachers considering how to assess their students.