CHAPTER 2: The Language of Thinking
Language of Thinking: 1. The words in a language that refer to a mental processes and mental products. 2. Words that describe and evoke thinking.
What is the difference between a laugh and a giggle? Between a chortle and a chuckle? A cackle and a guffaw? The sound of human amusement comes in many forms. And even though in a broad sense each of the above words is synonymous with the word laugh, it is more accurate to say that each one has its own special meaning, its own unique associations of sounds and innuendos.
Laughter is important. We enjoy it, and when other laugh, it can be important to hear exactly what kind of laugh it is. Because laughter can signify many things: pleasure, love, friendship, malice, playfulness, nervousness, even pain. This is not to say that each individual instance of laughter has multiple meanings. On the contrary; nothing is so simple and simply leasing as a heartfelt laugh. But when you consider as a whole all the varieties of laughter - all of their different meanings and intents - the phenomenon of human laughter is astonishingly complex.
When phenomenon is complex, it tends to have many words to describe it. So it is with laughter. Another such human phenomenon, even more complex and copiously named, is thinking.
Thinking. It’s what you do in your head, right? Well, yes. But choosing the words to identify precisely what kind of thinking you (and others) are doing can be quite a challenge. The English language contains literally hundreds of ways to name and describe different kinds of thinking. To see how this is so, take a moment to consider the meaning of these six words:
guess surmise assume
suppose presume speculate
Broadly, all these words describe a similar kind of thinking process. They all mean: to form an opinion based on inconclusive evidence. More precisely, however, each word marks a subtle and important difference in the relationship of evidence to opinion. For example, the word guess suggests no or weak evidence, whereas the word suppose suggests an opinion based on a moderate amount of evidence. The word surmise suggests a stronger, inferential (but still not irrefutable) link to evidence. When these words are attached to statements, they each qualify the information content of the statement in a different way.
There are two main reasons for having so many words to describe thinking. The first is that it is important for language to provide cues to tell us how statements should be evaluated or interpreted. For example, if you read in a magazine that white bread causes cancer, and you’re in the middle of eating a sandwich, it helps if the magazine text also includes words to describe the thinking behind the statement - words that tell you, for instance, whether the statement is a speculation, a hypothesis under investigation, or an inference based on carefully gathered evidence.
The second reason we have a rich vocabulary of thinking is that word teach concepts and thereby create paths for thinking to follow. The more ways of describing thinking that are available to language learners, the more paths learners will have along which to direct their thinking. Having lots of words to describe precise differences in kinds of thinking makes it possible to think more precisely.
WHAT IS THE LANGUAGE OF THINKING?
The language of thinking consists of all the words and modes of communication in a natural language that refers to thinking processes and thinking products. These include words like think, believe, guess, conjecture, hypothesis, evidence, reasons, estimate, calculate, suspect, doubt, and theorize, to name just a few. (For a more complete list of a language of thinking vocabulary, see the vocabulary list included (scroll down a bit). These words describe either a kind of mental activity (e.g., guessing, estimating, theorizing), or a product of mental activity (e.g., a guess, estimate, theory).
We all use language of thinking terms all the time, for example when we say things like: “I guess that’s the right phone number,” “I believe we are in the midst of a major change in world politics,” and “that’s an interesting conclusion.”
One place where you might expect to hear lots of language of thinking is in the school classroom. After all, school is a place where we expect thinking to occur. And some classrooms do indeed seem to have a rich language of thinking; one hears teachers and students use plenty of intellectually evocative words like reasons, conclusions, evidence, and opinion. But in other classrooms the language of thinking is sparser, and teachers and range of more precise cognitive processes.
In terms of the quality of students’ thinking, does it really make a difference whether the classroom language of thinking is rich or sparce? Judge for yourself. Here are two examples of language of thinking in the classroom. The first example is a dialogue between a fourth-grade teacher and her students. The second example is the same dialogue, recast to reflect a richer language of thinking.
The class has been studying aviation, and students have just finished reading about the life of Amelia Earhart. The language of thinking words used by teacher and students are emphasized in bold.
Teacher: Amelia Earhart disappeared somewhere over the Pacific Ocean in 1937; no remains from a plan crash have ever been found. People have said many different things about what happened to Amelia and her plan. What do you think happened? Does anyone have any ideas about why she disappeared?
Student #1: Maybe her engine blew up.
Teacher: That’s one idea. Any other ideas?
Student #2: I don’t think her engine blew up; I think she just didn’t want to come home. Maybe she ran away.
Student #1: Yeah, maybe she’s living on a desert island; maybe she landed her plan on purpose on a nice sandy beach somewhere.
Teacher: What makes you think she might have got lost “on purpose”?
Student #1: It would be fun, and maybe she had enemies at home.
Teacher: Let’s ask the rest of the class; is this a good guess about what happened to Amelia Earhart?
Notice that the words used most frequently in this example are “think” and “idea.” Used as they are, these words lack specificity, and are broadly construed to cover lots of different kinds of thinking. For example, the first time the teacher uses the word think, he is asking students to propose a theory. Later, when he asks students what makes them think that Amelia Earhart got lost on purpose, he is asking for reasons to support a proposed theory. But although he is asking children to do two different things - to propose theories and to give reasons - his language doesn’t provide the children with any verbal cues that specify the different kinds of thinking he expects of them.
Here is the same example, rewritten to reflect a much richer language of thinking. Again, the language of thinking vocabulary is in bold.
Teacher: Amelia Earhart disappeared somewhere over the Pacific Ocean in 1937, no remains from a plan crash have ever been found. People have held many different theories about what happened. What is your theory? Why do you think Amelia disappeared?
Student 1: Maybe her engine blew up.
Teacher: That’s one theory. Is there any evidence to support that theory?
Student #1: Well...they never found any remains, so when it blew up, the plan probably fell into the ocean.
Teacher: The fact that no remnants were ever found doesn’t contradict the theory that her engine blew up. But I’m not sure it proves it. Does anyone else have another theory?
Student #2: I don’t think her engine blew up; I think she just didn’t want to come home. Maybe she ran away.
Teacher: Is this a theory you are suggesting?
Student #2: Yeah, I’m suggesting it, but it’s just a possibility. Maybe she’s living on a desert island; maybe she landed her plan on purpose on a nice sandy beach somewhere, so she could have a more peaceful life. She was very famous, you know. I guess lots of reporters probably bugged her.
Teacher: You give some interesting reasons to support this theory; is there any evidence you know of - evidence that suggests that she did want to run away from publicity?
Notice in this latter example, the teacher’s language cues and supports very specific patterns of thinking. He explicitly asks the children to propose theories and connects the concept of theory to the concept of supporting evidence, thereby communicating to the class something important about how theories are built. Further, he encourages the children, too, to use language of thinking terminology to more precisely identify their own thinking, such as when he asks a child to clarify whether his statement was intended as a theory. By responding to the student in this way, the teacher is building on the concepts he introduced earlier in the dialogue, and communicates to the student that if he meant his comment as a theory, supporting reasons and evidence should also be offered.
A common objection to using a rich language of thinking like the one in the foregoing dialogue is that many students - especially younger students - aren’t familiar with the vocabulary words or the concepts behind them, words like theory, evidence, and proof. But language of thinking vocabulary represents important concepts to think with, and we know from experience with language learning in general that concepts and vocabulary are best learned in natural, everyday contexts, such as reading and conversation. So deciding to use a rich language of thinking in the classroom doesn’t mean that children must already know the precise definitions of sophisticated words. Rather, it is an effective way to introduce and teach such a language.
A Language of Thinking Vocabulary
On the next page is a long list of (only some!) language of thinking terms. The length of the list isn’t meant to intimidate: there is no expectation that teachers will or should use all these words in instruction. We offer a long list for two reasons. First, it gives a view of the range and scope of the language of thinking terms in relatively common usage (most readers will know the meaning of every single one of these words). Second, the list is a helpful resource for educators who want to enrich the language of thinking in their classrooms, and we refer to the list in several of the activities described in the next chapter
A Language of Thinking Vocabulary
advance
affirm
allege
analyze
appraise
appreciate
apprehend
ascertain
assert
assess
assume
attest
aver
believe
calculate
cerebrate
certify
claim
cogitate
cognize
comprehend
concede
conclude
confirm
conjecture
consider
construe
contemplate
contend
contradict
contravene
convince
corroborate
criticize
decide
declare
deduce
define
deliberate
demonstrate
deny
derive
detect
determine
disbelieve
discern
disclaim
discover
discredit
discriminate
dispute
dissect
dissent
divine
doubt
elucidate
entertain
establish
estimate
evidence
examine
explain
explore
fathom
glean
grasp
grope
grounds
guess
hypothesize
imply
infer
inquire
inspect
interpret
intuit
investigate
judge
justify
know
maintain
meditate
muse
observe
opine
perceive
ponder
posit
postulate
presume
probe
process
profess
propose
propound
prove
question
rate
realize
reason
rebut
reckon
recognize
recollect
reflect
remember
research
resolve
review
ruminate
scrutinize
show
solve
speculate
state
study
submit
substantiate
suggest
suppose
support
surmise
survey
suspect
sustain
testify
theorize
think
understand
validate
verify
warrant
weigh
Amazing, isn’t it, the range of words there are to describe the life of the mind?
Why is a language of thinking important?
While there are plenty of reasons to support the view that good thinking is cultivated by exposure to a rich linguistic environment, here is an interesting paradox. Classroom texts - at all levels, even college texts - use very few words from the above list. Yet research shows that even children in the early elementary grades have acquired the necessary conceptual apparatus to understand the meanings of many of these terms, even if they haven’t yet been introduced to the actual vocabulary word (Olson & Astington, 1990). For example, although fourth graders might not be familiar with the word confirm, they are familiar with the conceptual components that the concept of confirm is built out of (i.e., the concept of true and false beliefs and the concept of reasons for believing something).
Why is the linguistic environments of schools so sparse? Perhaps one reason is a well-meaning bus misguided desire to make learning easy. Educators and textbook writers tend to simplify language, in order to make the presentation of difficult material more attractive and accessible to children. Yet doing this prevents learners from receiving the important linguistic cues they need, in order to guide and manage their own thinking. How, exactly, does the language of thinking help students to think better? here are two important ways.
The language of thinking helps students organize and communicate their own thinking more precisely and intelligently. Words are precision instruments. They create categories to think with - categories to apply not only to received information, but also to one’s own thoughts. For example, it is a small step from learning that other people’s theories - for instance the theories of scientists or historians - involve claims and assumptions, to an awareness that one’s own thinking often takes the form of theory making, and likewise calls for the finding of evidence and the giving of reasons.
The language of thinking communicates and reinforces standards for thinking. Words tell you what kinds of thinking are appropriate when. For example, earlier, in the second version of the Amelia Earhart dialogue, recall how the teacher used the word “theory” to communicate that there are certain standards of thinking associated with theory making - standards that include the seeking of evidence and the giving of reasons. Using certain words with students signals expectations about what is sometimes called “the level of discourse.”
Here is another example. Suppose you are discussing Huckleberry Finn in English class. If you simply ask your students why they think Huck ran away, you will probably get a brief, one-sentence response (something like, “Pap beat him”). Buf if you set standards for students’ responses in the phrasing of your questions - for example, by asking them for reasons to support their view, by asking them to consider alternative interpretations, by asking them to analyze Huck’s motives, and so on - you are raising the level of discourse, and are thus more likely to elicit detailed, thoughtful responses.
The Bottom Lines: Incorporating A Language Of Thinking Into The Culture Of The Classroom
Suppose you want to make a language of thinking a part of your own school or classroom culture. What are the elements of success? REcall the four cultural forces mentioned in the introduction: models, explanation, interaction, feedback. These are four powerful ways in which a culture teaches, or enculturates, patterns of good thinking. Models are examples or demonstrations of good thinking in practice. Explanation concerns the direct transmission of information relevant to good thinking. Interaction involves the active use of good thinking practices with other community members. And feedback refers to informative input by community members about the soundness of their thinking practices.
These four cultural forces can all be put to use in cultivating the language of thinking in the classroom. To begin with, modeling a language of thinking means incorporating examples and demonstrations of language of thinking words and concepts into regular classroom practice. For instance, using lots of language of thinking words in class and pointing them out in newspapers and textbooks are ways of modeling a language of thinking.
Secondly, providing explanations in a language of thinking means directly teaching the meaning of language of thinking terminology, along with direct instruction in its use. So, for example, you might explain to students what the word conclusion means, and also explain how to appropriately draw their own conclusions and identify the conclusions of others.
thirdly, culture is an active and interactive phenomenon. Enculturating a language of thinking involves providing lots of opportunities for learners to use language of thinking terms and concepts in their everyday classroom interactions with others. This means creating the expectation that students will use these terms in their writing, in their group work with other students, and in speaking with you the teacher.
Finally, providing feedback in a language of thinking means providing students with informative encouragement and guidance around their use of language of thinking terms and concepts. In large part, feedback in language of thinking happens much the same way feedback occurs in other language learning: through expert rephrasing of novice talk. We saw this in the Amelia Earhart dialogue, when the teacher rephrased what students said to reflect more precise language of thinking concepts. An example of this is when a student says “I think such and such,” and a teacher responds by saying, “that’s an interesting theory you are proposing.” The teacher’s response is feedback because the teacher is acknowledging the student’s thought, and is, through the use of the word theory, communicating information about how to recast the thought more precisely. Other forms of feedback around a language of thinking might include traditional assessments of students’ knowledge of language of thinking vocabulary and concepts, in the form of exams or quizzes.
The foregoing points about how the four cultural forces can be put to use in cultivating students’ language of thinking are useful as instructional “bottom lines” - checkpoints teachers can use to make sure that the language of thinking is being incorporated into the classroom culture. Here are the four forces, spelled out explicitly as bottom lines. As a rule of thumb, any lesson or activity that touches on at least two of these bottom lines will most certainly be doing students’ thinking some good.
To enculturate a language of thinking, the bottom lines are:
Model and exemplify a language of thinking. Use a rich language of thinking regularly in classroom discourse- a language of thinking that includes much of the vocabulary from the list in the previous chapter. Under normal circumstances, “regularly” means every day, in every subject.
Provide explanations about the purpose and use of language of thinking terms and concepts. Point to, and discuss, language of thinking words in all sorts of written and verbal material- in textbooks, newspapers, lectures, speeches, news reports, posters, magazine articles, and so on. Encourage students to point to such language, too. (For example, explain the purpose of the word claim in a news report that states: “witnesses claim to have seen a blond man running for the scene of the crime”.)
Encourage interaction. When students are writing, answering questions in class, or talking with you and each other, prompt them to use a rich language of thinking themselves.
Ensure encouraging and informative feedback. Support students’ efforts to use a language of thinking and provide information about the use of language of thinking words and concepts by recasting student talk more precisely.
Chapter 3 illustrates how these bottom lines play out in actual classroom settings. Called “pictures of practice,” the following pages present vignettes and examples that show how teachers use and teach a language of thinking in their classrooms. For educators who wish to try out some of these ideas in their own school or classroom, the following chapter also provides step-by-step- guidelines for instruction.
CHAPTER 3- The Language of Thinking: Pictures of Practice
It is said that the motto of Michelangelo was “I am still learning.” We should be grateful that he didn’t feel he had to know everything about sculpture before he took up the chisel!
Learning new ideas and putting them into practice can sometimes have an odd sort of rhythm. On the face it, one would think that full understanding should come before practice. Look before you leap, so to speak. But in fact, not only is this nearly impossible in many cases, it is also unadvisable. Understanding is often acquired through practice. People who have been through training programs or professional schools know this only too well. For instance, how many people come out of a teacher education program really knowing how to teach? It is only by a good measure of hands-on-practice that full understanding of what it means to be a teacher genuinely starts to develop.
This commonsense point is offered by way of reassurance to readers who may be interested in trying to do something with the language of thinking in their classroom, but feel uncertain about their grasp on some of the concepts presented in the previous chapter.
The present chapter offers snapshots of a language of thinking in practice. Our purpose is to make vivid some of the more theoretical points made earlier, so that interested educators can identify a strategy for cultivating students’ language of thinking that fits with their own instructional interests and settings. This chapter, along with the other “pictures of practice” chapters, is divided into short sections. Here is a preview of the language of thinking sections to come:
Ms. Peter’s Poster
A story about how a sixth-grade teacher directly introduces the concept and the vocabulary of a language of thinking to her class.
Language of Thinking and Aspects of Teaching
An illustration of how the language of thinking can be built into several standard facets of teaching- facets such as presenting information, asking students questions, and conducting classroom discussions.
Albert’s Toothache
A short dialogue that shows how a second-grade teacher uses rich language of thinking concepts and vocabulary as he leads his young pupils in a book discussion.
Taking the Plunge: Guidelines for Instruction
Two different starting points for beginning to teach a language of thinking each with step-by-step guidelines.
Continuing On: Making a Language of Thinking a Permanent Part of the Classroom Culture
Tips and strategies for keeping a language of thinking alive in the classroom, organized by the four cultural forces: models, explanation, interaction, and feedback.
Troubleshooting: Questions and Answers About a Language of Thinking
A handful of common concerns about teaching a language of thinking and what to do about them.
Ms. Peter’s Poster
______________________________________________________________________
Early in the school year Ms. Peters decided she wanted to cultivate a rich language of thinking in her sixth-grade classroom. To this end, she designed a poster with several key language of thinking words on it. But not too many words. Ms. Peters put lots of blank spaces on the poster, which she hoped students would fill in, later on, with additional language of thinking words they found on their own. Here is the poster Ms.Peters made. Following it is a sample of the discussion she had with her class, in which she introduced the idea of a language of thinking.
LANGUAGE OF THINKING
guess comprehend question
hypothesis decide imply
conclude ___________ deny
investigate demonstrate ___________
confirm justify interpret
criticize ____________ ___________
__________ reason ___________
believe reflect ___________
claim ____________ ___________
research verify ___________
________ evidence ___________
One Monday morning, Ms. Peters tacked the language of thinking poster onto the bulletin board.
“What do all these words have in common?” she asked her students.
They stared hard at the poster, but remained silent.
“These are all words that have to do with thinking,” she said. “They are words that give us important information about the kind of thinking that is behind things we read or hear. I know this sounds confusing at first, so here is an example. Suppose I say to you, ‘All cats are black.’ ” (Ms. Peters writes this sentence on the board.) “Does my statement give you any information about my thinking?”
No one responded, so Ms. Peters continued:
“Imagine all the different ways I might have said that sentence to give you more information about my thinking. Here are some examples.”
Ms. Peters wrote the following sentences on the board, underlining the thinking words.
I guess all cats are black.
I have investigated whether all cats are black.
I am certain that all cats are black.
In my opinion, all cats are black.
Not everyone agrees with the view that all cats are black.
“Notice that each of those sentence says something different about my thinking. The ‘thinking words I use- words like guess, opinion, and investigate- are clues about the thinking I’ve done. They tell you something about how sure I am about what I am saying (for example, when I use the words guess or certain). And they also indicate whether I have thought carefully about what I am saying (like when I use the word investigate).”
Students began to look a little more interested. One put up a hand and said, “Like when you guess, you really aren’t very sure. And if you’re certain, then you’re really sure.”
“Right, that’s the idea,” said Ms. Peters. “Now, why does it matter whether you know anything about my thinking, or about the thinking behind any other statements that you read or hear? Because it is your job to decide what attitude to take toward what people tell you. Only you can decide whether or not to believe what you read and hear. No one else can do it for you. You have to decide whether what you read or hear is interesting, whether it is intended to persuade you, to inform you, to to intrigue you, or to mislead you. Thinking words help you make these kinds of decisions.”
Ms. Peters pointed to the poster again. “These words are precise words, and they have a special name. They are called language of thinking words. They are words that precisely describe the kind of thinking behind statements, and words that precisely describe the kinds of thinking going on in our own minds.”
Ms. Peters paused to take students’ questions, then continued.
“Notice that there are lots of blank spaces on the poster. That is because I’ve only written down a few language of thinking words here. There are many more! And I need you to help me find them. Whenever you hear or read a thinking word, whether it is in class or outside of school, we’ll talk about it and put it up on the poster.”
During the next few weeks, the blank spaces on Ms. Peter’s poster start to fill up. Ms. Peters makes a point of noting and appreciating language of thinking terminology students use in class, and, whenever possible, writes their words down on the poster. Students catch the spirit. For example, in math period, a student points to the title of a new math workbook called “Exploring Algebra.”
“Is ‘explore’ a language of thinking word”? the student asks.
“Interesting thought,” Ms. Peters comments. “What reason do you have for thinking it might be?”
“Well, in this title, the way they use ‘explore’ means they want you to think about algebra- but they want you to think about it in a special way. Like you’re supposed to have fun exploring it as if you were an adventurer to something.”
Ms. Peters agrees. “Explore” does seem like a language of thinking word. So she writes it on the poster, commends the student for noticing it, and asks the class if anyone has any ideas about what kind of thinking the word explore describes. After a bit of discussion and a consultation of the dictionary, the class decides that explore is a “mental adventure” word. it describes the kind of thinking you do when you are just starting to think about something new and are about to discover lots of new things. One student points out that sometimes you use the word explore when you want to try to look at all sides of something, for example as Ms. Peters used it when she told them to explore new points of view when they were writing stories last week.
Meeting the Bottom Lines
The foregoing chapter discussed four bottom lines for teaching a language of thinking. Here they provide a useful way of analyzing Ms. Peters’s story.
Bottom Line: Model a language of thinking. yes X no
Ms. Peters models a language of thinking by using rich language of thinking herself. Importantly, she uses precise words for thinking when she asks students questions, and she encourages students to use them in their responses to her questions (this is also a kind of feedback).
Bottom Line: Provide explanations about the purpose and use of language of thinking terms and concepts. yes X no
Ms. Peters uses the poster to straightforwardly explain the concept of a language of thinking and several key language of thinking terms. She also explains the purpose of a language of thinking, emphasizing how it helps people make their thinking more precise and effective.
Bottom Line: Encourage interaction. yes X no
You can’t always do everything at once. Ms. Peters’s lesson does not incorporate much student/student interaction. However, in the days and weeks to come, as students start to add to the poster, her lessons become more interactive.
Bottom Line: Ensure encouraging and informative feedback. yes no x
It is not Ms. Peters’s intent to provide a lot of feedback in this lesson. Her main purpose is to introduce and explain the idea of a language of thinking, although she does provide some positive feedback when she notes and commends students’ use of language of thinking terminology and writes their words on the poster.
Following Up: Integrating the Lesson Into the Classroom Culture
Ms. Peters keeps the language of thinking poster on the wall throughout the school year: As a visually accessible explanation, it keeps the notion of a language of thinking present in her own and in her students’ mind. It also serves as a way to encourage cultural interaction. Ms. Peters encourages students to use the words on the poster in their writing and conversation, and she often refers to the poster during class discussions. For example, when a student makes a particularly stark statement, unqualified by any language of thinking terminology (such as the statement slavery caused the Civil War), she asks the student to look at the poster to find words that more precisely represent his thinking. Pointing to the words on the poster, she asks questions like: Are you making an assumption? What reasons do you have to support your claim? How can we probe this view further? She also makes a point of continuing to note and commend the students’ use of language of thinking words. And, when students say things that aren’t expressed in the language of thinking but could be, she rephrases students’ word choice conversationally, so that that they get informative feedback about how to think and talk more precisely. Thus the cultural force of feedback, not so present at first, comes into play.
Students grow accustomed to the poster. It becomes a game to try to find new words to add to it. Classroom dictionaries and theasauruses get used more than ever, and Ms. Peters has encouraged students to take responsibility for leading class discussion around the new words they find.
Language of Thinking and Aspects of Teaching
____________________________________________________________________
Almost all teachers make certain instructional moves in the context of their daily teaching activities- moves like presenting information, assigning homework, giving quizzes and tests, asking questions, and conducting class discussions. These instructional practices are everyday aspects of teaching, and they present a convenient framework within which to cultivate the language of thinking. Here is an example of how language of thinking words and concepts can be built into some of the everyday aspects of teaching a history unit.
Aspect: Presenting Information
Imagine you are a teacher who is beginning a unit on the history of the national park system in the United States, an you want to explain to your students how the first national park was founded. As you were planning this unit, you knew that you wanted to introduce many of the language of thinking terms that are central to the study of history terms such as claim, evidence, belief, and confirm. In the first class, you will be telling students about how Yellowstone National Park, founded in 1872, was the first national park established in the United States and laid the foundation for the national park system as we now know it.
In the book you have read to prepare your presentation, the author (who is a big fan of the national park system) has written: “Our national parks are one of our greatest national treasures.” On the lookout for examples of language of thinking concepts, you recognize that this is a claim. Rather a strong claim, in fact. So you plant o tell your students that “some people claim that the national park system is one of our greatest treasures,” and use this as an opportunity to introduce and define the word claim. Using the dictionary to find ideas about how to define “claim,” you decide to tell students that a claim is a statement asserting that something is true. “But,” you will go on to say, “just because people claim that something is true doesn’t mean that it is true. Claims are things we must decide whether to believe. If we are to believe a claim, it must be supported by good reasons. “What reasons,” you plan to ask your students, “do you think someone might have for claiming that the national parks are one of the United States’ greatest treasures?”
Aspect: Asking Students Questions
Knowing that you want to use language of thinking terms frequently, especially when you ask students questions, you make a list of relevant language of thinking words and keep it on your desk for handy reference. You also make a conscious effort to note where in your questions you would naturally use the words think and feel.
You know it is easy to use to use these words broadly when questioning students, because they sound simple and friendly. But you also know they aren’t very powerful in terms of eliciting precise patterns of thinking. So you try to phrase questions more precisely, and you encourage students to do so as well. For example, rather than ask a student a question like: “Why do you think the national park system started?” You might ask: “For what reasons was the national park system started? Can you find reasons in your book? Can you speculate about any other reasons?” As students respond to your questions you provide feedback by recasting their speech to reflect a richer language of thinking, letting them know by your rephrasing when they could use certain language of thinking words. For example, in response to a student’s stated opinion, you ask the student how strong an opinion it is- is it a theory? a guess? an assumption?
Aspect: Conducting Class Discussion
Once you are well into the unit, you plan to conduct a class discussion about the issue of park rules. What sort of behavior should be permitted inside national parks? For example, how long should people be able to stay? Should they be allowed to camp overnight? To hike freely? Who should determine the rules? You decide to organize the discussion quite straightforwardly around language of thinking words and concepts. So you put a few questions about park rules on the blackboard. Next to them you write a list of language of thinking words you’ve decided to focus on. The words are: claim, believe, evidence, assumption, dispute, research, justify, theorize. You briefly define the words and make dictionaries available for students to consult. Then you begin the discussion by asking students to say something in response to any of the questions on the board. But their response must include at least one language of thinking word from the list. To start the discussion, you give this example. You say: “Suppose I wanted to say something about the question on the board, ‘should people be allowed to hike freely?’ I might say something like this: ‘Most people assume that they should be able to hike freely around a park, but research shows that if people don’t stick to trails, delicate vegetation can be killed- vegetation that is an important part of the ecological balance of the park. So in my opinion, the rule about staying on trails is justified.’” After you say this, you ask students if they can identify the language of thinking words you used.
You know that students my feel uncomfortable at first about using some language of thinking terminology. Partly because it may be new to them, and partly because they are afraid of embarrassing themselves by using it improperly. So you encourage risk taking by telling them that you admire verbal bravery- that you’d much rather hear them dare to use a language of thinking word they are not quite sure about, than timidly avoid using the word at all. You provide plenty of positive reinforcement for verbal bravery, and you provide further support by defining language thinking of words in the discussion, whenever it is appropriate to do so.
Meeting the Bottom Lines
The foregoing example shows how the teaching of a language of thinking can extend over several lessons, so it is no surprise that the example as a whole is able to meet all four instructional bottom lines.
Bottom Line: Model a language of thinking. yes X no
You (the imaginary teacher in this example) model a rich language of thinking when you are presenting information and take care to alert students to examples of thinking language in texts.
Bottom Line: Ensure explanations about the purpose and use of language of thinking terms and concepts. yes X no
You directly explain the use of language of thinking terms and concepts during the discussion of national park rules. You also encourage students to use the dictionary, which is an explanatory tool for language learning.
Bottom Line: Encourage interaction. yes X no
You encourage students to use a language of thinking themselves, in their questions to you and to each other, and in class discussions generally.
Bottom Line: Ensure encouraging and informative feedback. yes x no
You recast student talk using stronger language of thinking phrasing, thus providing students with contextualized information about which words to use when. Also, you keep in mind that self-consciousness and the fear of embarrassment can prevent students from experimenting with new words, so you provide plenty of positive reinforcement for verbal bravery, and try to make your classroom a safe place for students to take intellectual risks with new language and concepts.
Following Up: Integrating the Lesson Into the Classroom Culture
Because this example focuses on several aspects of instruction, it is easy to see how you the teacher can continue to encourage a language of thinking. You plan to continue to model the use of precise words for thinking, and to point them out to students in the talk and text of others. You will continue to explain language of thinking terms and concepts- both when they arise naturally in regular lessons, and when it makes sense to explicitly design a lesson around them (for example, you are already planning a lesson that explains the concepts of reasons and evidence). You will continue to encourage students to use thinking words; with you and with each other. And you will provide ongoing feedback by rephrasing student talk and by commending verbal bravery around a language of thinking. You also plan to look for and encourage students’ use of thinking words in their written work, for example by noting and commending the use of language of thinking terminology in their history essays.
Albert’s Toothache
______________________________________________________________
Educators of younger children may well be asking: Isn’t the notion of a language of thinking a bit sophisticated for first, second, and even third graders? The short answer is no. Earlier it was pointed out that even young children have the necessary conceptual apparatus to understand apparently sophisticated language of thinking concepts like prove, believe, reason, and evidence. Here is a discussion between a second-grade teacher and his students that shows what it can sound like to emphasize these and other language of thinking concepts with young students.
Mr. Singer has just finished reading a book called Albert’s Toothache (Williams, 1977) aloud to his class. The story is about a young turtle named Albert, who takes to his bed, claiming to be suffering from a severe toothache. This is very upsetting to Albert’s mother and father, and the source of some teasing from his sister and brother, because everybody knows that turtles don’t have teeth! Finally, Albert’s wise grandmother comes to visit, and helps explain Albert’s odd complaint to the family. Mr. Singer’s classroom dialogue is accompanied by occasional commentary (in italics).
Mr. Singer: Albert's mother and father were very upset when Albert took to his bed for a week. Does anyone have any ideas about why they were upset?
Kathy: They were upset because Albert was sick.
Jorge: No, they were upset because Albert was lying. Because he said he had a toothache. And turtles don't have teeth.
Kathy: You're wrong! They were upset because he was sick.
Mr. Singer: Whoa...hold on. Here we have two different opinions about why Albert's parents were upset. Let's examine both opinions, and decide which one to believe. Can anyone think of any reasons to favor of either of these views? For example, what reasons might there be to believe that Albert's parents were upset because he was sick? (Notice that Mr. Singer links the notion of opinion or view, to the idea that opinions need to be accompanied by reasons. This communicates to students that they need to look for reasons to believe things.
Kathy: Well, my parents get upset when I'm sick. Anyone's parents get upset when kids are sick.
Mr. Singer: So you are saying that a reason in favor of the view that Albert's parents were upset because Albert was sick is that all parents get upset when their children are sick. (He continues to reinforce the concept of reason....)
Kathy: Yeah.
Mr. Singer: What are other people's views? Is that a good reason? (....and encourages students to evaluate reasons, to decide whether or not they are good reasons.)
Jorge: No. Because they didn't believe he was sick. So they couldn't get upset about that.
Mr. Singer: What are other people's views? Is that a good reason? (and encourages students to evaluate reasons, to decide whether or not they are good reasons.)
Jorge: No. Because they didn't believe he was sick. So they couldn't get upset about that.
Mr. Singer: This is a very interesting discussion. At first I thought Kathy's view might be right, that Albert's parents were right, that Albert's parents were upset because they thought Albert was sick. But now that I think harder about it, I find I want to reconsider things - I'm starting to see other points of view. How can we decide? What can we do to investigate this situation further? (The class is silent...) (Here Mr. Singer models something very important for his students. He shows them that good thinking (or, in more poetic terms, the search for truth), often involves reconsidering things and changing your mind. Mr. Singer is not afraid to show his students that he doesn't know the correct answer. Rather, he is communicating to the class that everyone present - including himself - is a partner in the pursuit of well-reasoned opinions.
Mr. Singer: I have an idea. Let's look at the pictures in the book. Maybe they will give us a clue about whether Albert's parents really thought he was sick. (Mr. Singer slowly flips through the pages of the book, holding the pictures up for students to see.)
Lily: Wait, stop! There's a picture of Albert's mother putting a cloth on Albert's forehead. She wouldn't be doing that if she didn't think he was sick.
Mr. Singer: Aha! You're a good detective, Lily. You've found some evidence. Does anyone know what the word evidence means? (No one responds, so Mr. Singer goes on.) Evidence is a sign that supports an opinion. For example, I might have the opinion that Kathy had a tuna fish sandwich for lunch. But someone might disagree with me, and think that Kathy had peanut butter and jelly for lunch, instead. To show that my opinion is correct, I need to find evidence. I need to support my opinion by finding signs, or clues. Now, suppose that Kathy is not in the room. But her lunch box is. I look inside it and I find an empty sandwich wrapper in her lunch box that smells like tuna fish. Or, suppose I called Kathy's father, and he told me he had packed a tuna sandwich in Kathy's lunchbox that morning. These things are evidence to support my opinion that Kathy ate tuna fish for lunch. (Mr. Singer continues the discussion, relating it to Albert's Toothache, and students continue to look for evidence for their views by examining the pictures in the book. Mr. Singer makes sure to keep the word evidence, and other related language of thinking words, alive in the discussion.) (When Mr. Singer was planning this lesson, he had hoped to lead the discussion around to the concept of evidence. he feels more comfortable when he plans things out in detail, ahead of time. So before class, he used the dictionary to help him find a way of defining the word evidence in a way that would make sense to his students. He had even worked out in his head the example of Kathy and the tuna fish sandwich.)
Meeting the Bottom Lines
Mr. Singer’s intent was to embed the language of thinking terms and concepts in a regular class discussion. In doing so, he mainly addresses the “modeling” and “interaction” bottom lines, although he touches on the other bottom lines, too.
Bottom Line: Model a language of thinking. yes X no
Mr. Singer models a rich language of thinking throughout his discussion of Albert’s Toothache by using words like reasons, evidence, and so on.
Bottom Line: Provide explanations about the purpose and use of language of thinking terms and concepts. yes X no
Although his primary intent was to model language of thinking words and encourage their, use Mr. Singer took care to directly instruct students in the meaning of a word that might not be familiar to them- the word evidence.
Bottom Line: Encourage interaction. yes x no
This is Mr. Singer’s main purpose, and he achieves it. In the context of a regular class discussion he helps students to understand and use key language of thinking terms like reasons and evidence.
Bottom Line: Ensure encouraging and informative feedback. yes x no
Mr. Singer blends modeling with contextualized feedback by recasting what students say to reflect a richer language of thinking. For example, he commends Kathy for finding a reason to believe that Albert’s parents truly thought Albert was sick, and rephrases what Kathy said as “finding evidence.”
Following Up: Integrating the Lesson Into the Classroom Culture
There are many ways Mr. Singer can continue to encourage a language of thinking in his classroom. He plants to continue to model it, by continuing to use the terminology he has stressed in this lesson. He also plans to straightforwardly explain some further language of thinking concepts. For example, he plans to conduct a lesson around the concept of belief, in which he will talk about what it means to believe something, and what it means to have good reasons for what you believe. And of course, he plans to continue to encourage students to use language of thinking terminology in class discussions- with him and with each other.
Taking the Plunge: Guidelines for Instruction
_________________________________________________
If you find the idea of a language of thinking powerful, you may be interested in trying it out in your own classroom. Beginnings are tough: It’s almost always hard to bring a new idea or focus into the classroom, particularly a big, pervasive idea like the language of thinking. You may have a clear vision about how you personally could best get started. If so, by all means pursue it. If you’re less sure, here are two possible instructional “pluge points”- points of departure for introducing the idea of a language of thinking to your students. To begin, read over plunge points 1 and 2 below. Decide which one will work best in your own setting, then follow the steps as you would a regular lesson.
Plunge Point #1
Reread the first example in this chapter, “Ms. Peter’s Poster,” and use it as a guide for designing your own lesson.
Make a poster with several language of thinking words on it and several blank spaces for students to fill in later (like Ms. Peters’s poster). Some resources that can be helpful in selecting the words for the poster include the list of language of thinking words given earlier, a dictionary, or a thesaurus. Make sure that you are prepared to give easy-to-understand definitions for the words on the list. Don’t be afraid to challenge your students with language of thinking words that sound difficult. Research has shown that even young students typically surpass teacher expectations concerning their grasp of language of thinking terms and concepts (Olson and Astington, 1991).
Read how Ms. Peters introduced the poster to her students and plant to introduce it to your students in a similar way. Make sure to have selected sample sentences like Ms. Peters’s “cat” sentences beforehand (or use the “cat” sentences yourself.)
Return to the poster frequently throughout the weeks, in different topics and subject matters. Encourage students to add language of thinking words to the poster. When you hear candidate words yourself in the classroom, ask students whether they think they ought to be on the poster.
Reflect. Once you have followed these guidelines, you will have taken the plunge. Consolidate your new, hands-on understanding of a language of thinking by taking a few moments to reflect on your experience.
Review how your conception of a language of thinking has changed over the past week as you’ve been putting these ideas into practice. What new insights do you have? What new questions?
Reflect on your students’ understandings. What seem to be their language of thinking strengths and weaknesses?
Plunge Point #2
Reread the second example in this chapter, “Language of Thinking and Aspects of Teaching,” and use it as a guide for designing your own series of lessons. Identify three instructional occasions in the upcoming week that correspond to the three aspects: (1) and occasion in which you are presenting information, (2) one in which you are asking students questions, and (3) one in which you are conducting a class discussion.
For each occasion, reread the subsection that corresponds to it. The boxed text at the beginning of each subsection serves as a step-by-step guide to planning a lesson. For example, when presenting information (aspect one), first, identify key language of thinking terms in the subject matter. Then, plan when to introduce and define them, and so on.
Suggestions for Choosing Language of Thinking Terms and Concepts to Discuss with Students
Identify mental moves that are key to a subject matter, or key across several subject matters. For instance, looking for evidence is a key move in most subject matters. For instance, looking for evidence is a key move in most subject matters (looking for evidence for an interpretation of a poem, looking for evidence to support a scientific hypothesis, looking for evidence that a political proposal will work.) So evidence is a good concept to tackle
Use the vocabulary list given earlier as a source of ideas for interesting words and concepts.
Browse a newspaper for ideas (particularly the editorials).
Choose a few key language of thinking words (e.g, theory, belief, think, evidence) and peruse their entries in a thesaurus or dictionary.
Continuing On: Making a Language of Thinking a Permanent Part of the Classroom Culture
___________________________________________________
What comes next, after you have taken the plunge and introduced the language of thinking to your students? To continue to nurture it, simply continue to make use of the four cultural forces: models, explanation, interaction, and feedback. Here are some instructional tactics in each of these areas.
Models of the Language of Thinking
Use language of thinking terminology regularly with students. Note how often you use broad terms like think and feel and try to substitute more precise language. For instance, rather than asking students, “What do you think?” ask instead for an opinion, a theory, a speculation, a hypothesis, a conclusion.
Use language of thinking terms when you talk about your own thinking. For example, identify an inference when you make one, a belief when you express one, a conclusion when you reach one, a doubt when you have one.
Point out language of thinking terminology in texts and other written materials, and encourage students to do the same. Also, encourage students to notice the lack of thinking language, for example when an author makes a questionable statement of fact without qualifying it as a guess, hypothesis, or claim.
Make language of thinking visual models a permanent part of classroom culture. For instance, keep a poster on the wall with a list of key language of thinking vocabulary. Give students a handout of such a list, which they can add to as they discover new thinking words. Or have a spot for a language of thinking “word of the day” permanently present in a corner of the blackboard.
Explanations of the Language of Thinking
Directly explain language of thinking concepts and vocabulary. For example, conduct a discussion around the concepts of hypothesis. What does the word mean? Does a hypothesis in science differ from one in history? What kinds of hypotheses do we make in everyday life?
Weave instruction in language of thinking concepts into regular classroom lessons. Often a language of thinking term will be used naturally in the context of a regular lesson. For example, you might be teaching a lesson on the environment and discussing reasons why it is important to recycle paper products. Take the opportunity to explain briefly to students the term reasons- what different kinds there are, what makes a good one, and which reasons are particularly important in the case of recycling.
Interaction with the Language of Thinking
Make the language of thinking a part of everyday classroom discourse. Use precise words for thinking when you talk with students and encourage them to do the same when they talk with you and each other.
Design cooperative activities that encourage students to use the language of thinking as they work with each other.
Feedback on the Language of Thinking
Provide students with verbal feedback by rephrasing what they say in class to reflect a richer language of thinking. For example, if a student suggests an idea that is meant as a hypothesis, respond by saying something like: “That’s an interesting hypothesis. What evidence do you have for it?”
Note when students use language of thinking terminology and provide positive reinforcement.
Encourage students to be linguistically brave and to experiment using language of thinking words and concepts with which they may not initially feel comfortable.
Use language of thinking terms and concepts on worksheets, tests, and homework assignments, and commend students’ use them in their written work.
Checking Your Progress
One effective method of checking your progress in enculturating a language of thinking is to review your teaching activities related to language of thinking at the end of every week. A weekly chart can help you see how well you are covering the four modes of enculturation: models, explanation, interaction, and feedback. Table 3.1 on page 34 is a sample chart that records some language of thinking activities a teacher might have done during the week. Feel free to design a weekly chart that best suits your teaching objectives.
Troubleshooting: Questions and Answers About a Language of Thinking
_____________________________________________________
No enterprise is without its challenge and obstacles. This final section identifies some difficulties teachers frequently encounter in cultivating a language of thinking and offers advice about how to surmount the.
Lots of language of thinking words sound kind of... well... harsh. When you don’t take what children say at face value, and instead demand that they give “evidence,” or “proof,” or “reasons,” it sounds like you’re saying something negative. Won’t this kind of classroom talk hurt children’s feelings?
The main reason words like prove, evidence, and reasons, can sound harsh is that we generally place a premium on people answering questions fully and correctly the first time around, so it seems somehow an insult to be asked to support, or expand on, one’s thinking. This is especially true in many traditional school settings, where children are expected to open their mouths only when they have the right answer, and aren’t encouraged to show any of the thinking involved in pursuing the right answer.
To a large extent, defusing critical-sounding words involves placing explicit value in the classroom on the process of positive criticism, including self-criticism. A simple example of this would be placing a greater value on answers like: “I think such and such is the answer, but I’m not completely certain, because...,” or “I think such and such is the answer, and my reasons are...” than on an answer like: “Such and such... I guess.”
When critical discussion, and the language of thinking words associated with it, is seen in the classroom as something positive rather than something to be avoided, the risk of hurting students’ feelings (and of students hurting each others’ feelings) is greatly reduced. In short, the best way to avoid hurt feelings is to create a classroom culture that actively supports a critical, reason-giving, question-searching, evidence-seeking spirit.
I’ve looked for language of thinking words in all sorts of classroom materials- textbooks, handouts, quizzes, and supplementary materials- but it’s hard to find examples of “thinking” words to point out to students. There don’t seem to be many. Am I missing somethings?
Unfortunately, no. Most classroom materials are pretty sparse when it comes to language of thinking vocabulary because of the well-meaning but misguided motion pointed out earlier- that the language of thinking is too challenging for children. One problem with this view is it keeps children from learning the concepts they need to help them think deeply and precisely. Another problem is that it misrepresents the language-learning process: Children learn new vocabulary very easily when it’s used meaningfully in context.
However, traditional classroom materials often do provide opportunities to use a language of thinking, even if thinking words aren’t present in the text. What educators can do is look at standard classroom material and ask themselves where language of thinking terminology should be used, even if it’s not. Remember, virtually all presented information consists of claims, which rests on reasons, evidence, theories, and so on. So any time materials lend themselves to asking students questions like:
Why does the text say such and such...?
How do you know that such and such...?
What reasons are there for such and such...?
What is such and such a claim based on...?
What is your opinion... and why...?
you have an opportunity to use, and encourage, a language of thinking.
Changing how one talks in the classroom is easier said than done. How can I possibly remember to use language of thinking vocabulary, when I’m trying hard enough to remember the information I’m presenting to students?
This is a very real concern, and the remedy for it is something that will benefit students, too: Externalize language of thinking reminders. Naturally it’s hard to remember to use new words- for adults as well as children. One straightforward solution is Ms. Peters’s tactic: Put a language of thinking poster on the classroom wall. This makes language of thinking words and concepts visible to everyone. The poster can serve as a simple reminder during instruction. It also can be used as a tool to guide discussion (“look at the poster: which words describe the kind of thinking we need to do in this history lesson?”), and to help students with writing (“as you’re writing your report, take a look at the poster and see if the words suggest any ways you want to organize or present information. For example, will you need to talk about ‘evidence’? Are you making claims in your report that need to be supported by ‘reasons’?)
Another way to remember to use language of thinking terminology is to make a short list of the language of thinking words you want to cover in a lesson and keep the list of the language of thinking words you want to cover in a lesson and keep the list handy on your desk. Whatever method you choose, it is important to remember to be moderate and realistic in your goals. It is quite an accomplishment to simply introduce a few key thinking words into instruction- words, for example, like claim, reasons, and interpret- and to use them consistently.
Chapters 2 and 3 have emphasized the role of language in helping students to be better thinkers. While language is important, it is of course not all there is to teaching thinking. The goal of teaching thinking is ambitious- to help learners think and act intelligently over the long term. These chapters have argued that language plays an important role in cueing and supporting good thinking. Equally important are students’ “thinking dispositions”- their tendencies toward certain patterns of intellectual conduct. Chapters 4 and 5 take up this topic.
