Quellmalz’s framework of thinking skills

Description and intended use

Edys Quellmalz is an educational psychologist who produced an integrated thinking skills framework to help teachers and learners understand the strategies and processes used in problem-solving. She draws on work by philosophers such as Ennis, by psychologists such as Guilford and Sternberg, and on Bloom’s taxonomy. Her framework (1987) is intended for use in the design of instructional and assessment tasks as well as in classroom practice. She wishes greater emphasis to be placed on higher-order skills, since these are needed in different subject areas as well as in solving real-life problems. She provides illustrations of analysing, comparing, inferring and evaluating in the subject domains of science, social science and literature (1987). Within subject areas, Quellmalz urges teachers to ‘emphasise the use of a full problemsolving process, rather than drill on isolated components’ (1987, p. 95).

The proposed framework is hierarchical only in that a distinction is made between lowerand higher-order thinking skills (Stiggins, Rubel and Quellmalz, 1988). It includes a lower-order category called recall, which is a combination of the Bloom categories of knowledge and comprehension. While recall is a means of gaining access to existing knowledge, higher-order thinking is about restructuring it. The higher-order thinking strategies and processes are all needed in problem-solving and are not seen as hierarchical in terms of difficulty or progression. The higher-order framework as presented in 1987 (see table 3.5)

Table 3.5. Quellmatz’s higher-order thinking strategies and processes

Strategies

Students engage in purposeful, extended lines of thought where they: identify the task (or type of problem)

define and clarify essential elements and terms gather, judge and connect relevant information

evaluate the adequacy of information and procedures for drawing conclusions and/or solving problems.

In addition, students will become self-conscious about their thinking and develop their self-monitoring problem-solving strategies.

includes strategies in which demands are made on both cognitive and metacognitive processes (all of which are seen as teachable).

Stiggins, Rubel and Quellmalz (1988) provide definitions of the higher-order cognitive processes which we paraphrase as follows:

•Analysis involves restructuring knowledge by getting information from abstract visual representations, by classifying items, or in terms of whole-part or causal relationships.

•Comparison goes beyond whole-part relationships and involves explaining how things are similar and how they are different.

•Inference is deductive (moving from the general to the specific) or inductive (moving from details to a generalisation).

•Evaluation involves judging quality, credibility, worth or practicality using established criteria.

For each of these processes, trigger words and sample activities are provided, together with an indication of the corresponding Bloom taxonomy processes (e.g. recall requires knowledge and comprehension, and inference requires application and synthesis).

92 Frameworks for Thinking

Evaluation

Quellmalz’s framework is successful in that it accommodates reasoning skills identified by philosophers within the critical thinking tradition and cognitive skills identified by psychologists studying problem-solving. It encompasses both cognition and metacognition and the categories are applicable to both convergent and divergent thinking (although the examples provided suggest that she is more interested in the former). Quellmalz helpfully emphasises a ‘plan-monitor-review’ cycle which includes problem finding, but does not address affective, conative and social aspects of thinking. Dealing only with thinking skills, she does not refer to the dispositions which support critical thinking.

The definitions used by Quellmalz, while clear, do not always accord with common usage or with those used in other taxonomies. This problem is most acute with the very broad ‘analysis’ category. Whereas for Bloom and for Anderson, sorting and classifying as well as translating from one form of representation to another are indicators of understanding, for Quellmalz they fall under ‘analysis’. ‘Comparison’ overlaps with every other category, so it is doubtful whether it should be treated separately. For Quellmalz ‘inference/ interpretation’ extends beyond deductive and inductive reasoning and is an umbrella term which also covers ‘apply a rule’, ‘synthesise’ and ‘create’. It is not known to what extent teachers who use the framework are able to consistently classify questions and tasks.

Quellmalz worked with the Arkansas Department of Education to apply her framework across the curriculum in the form of a reading/ thinking/writing intervention, the McRAT (Multicultural Reading and Thinking) programme (Quellmaltz, 1987; Quellmalz and Hoskyn, 1988). This was designed to promote relective reading, the ability to back up opinions with evidence and effective written communication. Participating teachers received 18 days of training over two years and the approach yielded moderate effect sizes (up to 0.65) in a controlled trial (Fashola and Slavin, 1997).

Quellmalz believes that learners construct meaning in the context of project work where they are asked to solve problems in different curriculum areas. She values extended problem-solving activities, for example reading and discussion leading to extended writing. Her

framework has the appeal of simplicity and highlights for teachers the importance of modelling and teaching metacognitive skills. Schools and school districts have successfully used it to infuse critical thinking across the curriculum.

Summary: Quellmalz