D. N.

PERKINS

Thinking
Frames
Schools can help students become better thinkers by
deliberately adding to their repertoire of frames: tactics
and strategies invented by human beings to organize
their thinking.

n an age when there are too many the flood of information in the mod How can we tell whether a panic

I things to know, it almost seems

that there are too many ways to
think as well. Those concerned with
ern world. Yet, with all the available
philosophies and curriculum packages
for developing thinking, it seems that
ular approach to teaching thinking is a
good bet?

improving students' thinking face a this solution falls victim to the very Intelligence as Power, Tactics,
razzle-dazzle of very different advice problem it aims to solve. The cornuco and Content
from different quarters. We are en pia of options almost paralyzes. How Any perspective on the teaching of
couraged to boost students' IQs, teach can we make sense of the confusion? thinking must confront the problem of
learning skills, foster moral develop Are there principles that reveal some intelligence After all, most of us have
ment, enhance critical thinking, nour unity among the many current ap been taking intelligence tests, worry
ish problem-solving abilities, cultivate proaches? Are there standards by ing about our own intelligence, and
formal reasoning, inspire creativity, which we can appraise and select? wondering about the intelligence of
impart strategies for more mindful Of course, we must be wary of a others from an early age. Are those we
reading and writing, and so on. We are misguided effort to oversimplify. Hu would like to teach to think better
urged to undertake these missions in a man thinking is complex and many- already operating at their intelligence
dismaying variety of ways: escalating faceted. Instruction designed to foster ceilings? Is intelligence the son of
sequences of exercises, training for thinking and learning skills might ad thing that can be improved?
self-reflection, diagnostic testing, one- dress a number of different aspects of A good first step in confronting such
on-one or one-on-a-few tutoring, skill. Nonetheless, there is some unity questions is to avoid an overly narrow
small-group learning, stand-alone and generality that can aid teachers conception of intelligence. When
courses in thinking skills, integration and administrators in making the deci many people speak of intelligence,
of thinking skills into the subject areas, sions that have to be made if we are to they mean the sorts of abilities mea
and more. take the opportunity of developing sured by IQ tests. But there is a more
There is a great irony in all this. students' thinking. The framework commonsensical meaning of intelli
Recognition of the contemporary presented here focuses on three key gence, the meaning intended when we
problems of knowledge glut and questions: say informally that so-and-so is intelli
knowledge obsolescence has in pan What is thinking "made of" such gent. We make such remarks of people
inspired the current attention to the that it might be improved? who learn rapidly, plan ahead, speak
development of students' thinking. By what son of learning process well, make sound decisions, approach
Students need such skills to manage can people learn to think better? problems systematically and effective -
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
ly, and so on. Note that this broad and thinking in those areas. Evidence for end are very specific bits of knowl
informal sense of intelligence does this "content" perspective on intelli edge relevant to particular subject
not logically imply an exceptionally gence comes from various sources matters, such as the date Columbus
high IQ. Whether 1Q accounts for it is that have discussed how much good discovered America or the multiplica
an empirical question. Note also that problem solving in an area depends tion table. In the middle appears
intelligence in the broad and informal on a rich knowledge base (e.g. Chase knowledge of intermediate general
sense is just what we want to improve and Simon 1973; Chi, Fetovich, and ity tactics for solving mathematical
if we want to improve thinking. Glaser 1981; Glaser 1984; Schoenfeld problems specifically, for instance.
The key question becomes: What and Herrmann 1982). "Developing students' tactics" simply
psychological factors contribute to in Confronting this dilemma between means paying much more heed to the
telligence in this broad sense? Differ three very different theories of intelli middle and tactical end of the continu
ent contemporary psychologists offer gence, we have to ask the natural um than we usual K do.
three contrasting answers, which we question: Who is right? The dilemma is
might call "power," "tactical," and acute, because proponents of all three
"content" theories of intelligence. A positions have evidence that must be The Unnaturalness of Good
power theory of intelligence holds taken seriously. The only proper reso Thinking
that intelligence depends on the neu lution seems to be recognition that all Tactical intelligence is not a natural
rological efficiency of the brain as an are right: intelligence is not a simple thing. It is a bag of tricks tactics,
information processing device. Jensen thing but a compound of influences. strategies, techniques, methods, or
(1984) presents exactly this view, argu The circumstances can be summarized whatever you want to call them. I
ing that IQ measures, albeit indirectly, with this metaphorically intended prefer the term "thinking frames" to
that basal efficiency. Mast investigators equation: refer collectively to the various tricks
with a power view of intelligence hold Intelligence = that make up tactical intelligence. Now
that learning does not affect this power Power + Tactics + Content this notion that intelligence reflects
very much, although nutrition and This may clarify the nature of intelli artifice in large part, and that we can
mental stimulation over a period of gence by acknowledging its multiple enhance students' thinking by teach
many years may have some impact. By nature. But how does it help us think ing them tricks, may ring false to
and large, one's intelligence is deter about the question we started with: some.
mined by one's "original equipment." "What is thinking made of such that it Consider these reservations, for in
Another contemporary view argues might be improved?" Perhaps this stance. Fluent thinkers have no great
that intelligence is a matter of tactical analysis only makes the problem more consciousness of a repertoire of think
repertoire. Those who think better do confusing. ing frames; they simply think, as natu
so because they know more tactics On the contrary, this understanding rally as you might walk down the
about how to use their minds well of intelligence points in a clear direc street. Moreover, this notion of frame
(Baron 1978, 1985a). For example, tion: develop students' tactics. The repertoires seems suspiciously mod
people identified as somewhat retard power side of intelligence does not ern. Many people throughout human
ed or as slow learners typically display lend itself to much improvement history have done some excellent
not just poor performance but tactical through instruction. But on the plus
deficits; they do not have the strategies side, as the equation indicates, intelli
for memorizing, solving problems, gence involves a lot more than power.
and so on, that their better-performing Perhaps we can improve thinking by
peers have acquired. Teaching such teaching content. But we already try to
individuals strategies for particular teach considerable content in schools,
performances such as memorizing or with dissatisfying results. Indeed, "Intelligence is not
reading can improve their perform many educators aver that we try to a simple thing but
ance dramatically, sometimes almost teach too much content. This leaves a compound of
eliminating their shortfall (Palinscar the development of students' tactical influences. The
and Brown 1984) Such results argue repertoires as the natural window of circumstances ******
against the notion that intelligence is opportunity for the improvement of
organically determined and for the thinking. be summarized with
notion that it depends on learning. With that basic message conveyed, a this equation:
Still a third view maintains that intel clarification is in order. What is the Intelligence =
ligence depends principally on a rich difference between tactics and con
knowledge base in the domain in tent? Indeed, no hard line separates Power + Tactics +
question. General strategic knowl the two. Both are learned; both are Content."
edge, in this view, gives little real knowledge. Rather, we do best to
leverage. Rather, mastery of particular imagine a continuum. At the tactical
areas like mathematics, physics, social end are very general principles that
skills, and so on, underlies effective apply to many domains. At the content
MAY 1986
thinking. How have they managed up my own research examining the im finders, considering how to define and
to now without frames? Finally, in an pact of education on informal reason represent a problem, how it might be
ovenechnologized age, we do well to ing (Perkins 1985), I have found that represented in quite a different way,
be wary of the notion that good think conventional education at the high and even whether the problem at
ing is so artificial an undertaking. school, college, and graduate school hand is worth solving at all (Getzels
These concerns are legitimate, but level has hardly any effect on the de and Czikszentmihalyi 1976; Mansfield
they have ready answers. If fluent velopment of general reasoning abli- and Busse 1981).
thinkers are not very self-conscious ties. Underexploration of issues and Consequently, solution-minded-
about their thinking, this need not in neglect of the side of the case opposite ness, like biased thinking, has become
itself cast doubt on the importance of that of the reasoner emerged as seri a target of efforts to teach thinking
thinking frames. Tactics for thinking, ous problems in reasoners with more skills. For example, Bransford and
like any other pattern of human con education as well as those who were Stein's (1984) "IDEAL" steps for prob
duct, become automatic with practice. less educated. The problem of bias is lem solving provide a thinking frame
The expert has an internalized frame confirmed in numerous sources, for that includes explicit attention to iden
repertoire that functions spontaneous instance, the notion of egocentricity in tifying and defining problems.
ly, without much deliberate attention. human development biased process Schoenfeld's (1980) approach to the
As to how good thinkers have man ing of evidence that tends to dismiss development of mathematical prob
aged up to now without frames they counterevidence and general phe lem-solving abilities asks students to
have not. To be sure, the term nomena of functional fixedness and explore a problem in several ways
"frames" is new, but the notion of Einstellung that evidence the human before seeking solutions. The guided
tactics for accomplishing various intel tendency to stick stubbornly to a pat design approach to problem solving
lectual and other tasks is not. Indeed, tern (e.g. Adamson 1952; Luchins and decision making calls for several
people have always invented tactics to 1942; Nisbett and Ross 1980; Ross and steps of problem defining (Wales and
aid their thinking. These frames be Anderson 1982). Nardi 1984; Wales and Stager 1978).
come pan of our intellectual heritage Such evidence plainly argues that The Odyssey materials for inventive
and inform our thinking. Aristotle, for evenhanded reasoning about a situa thinking focus students on the pur
instance, formalized reasoning by de tion with more than one side does not poses of the design they are trying to
fining a range of syllogistic forms. come naturally. Appropriately enough, invent, asking them to elaborate on
Although the relevance of syllogistic therefore, a number of approaches to the purpose before proceeding to a
forms to everyday reasoning is debat the development of thinking skills of solution (Perkins and Laserna 1986).
able, these patterns can guide our fer thinking frames that urge a more Knowledge as information versus
thinking in certain formal contexts. balanced exploration of issues. For knowledge as invention. Students and
Bacon and others after him sought to example, de Bono's CoRT (1973-75; teachers alike typically treat abstract
define the patterns of thinking in 1983) program includes such opera knowledge as information. Newton's
volved in scientific inquiry. Ramifica tions as Consider All Factors (CAF) and laws or the Bill of Rights are given as
tions of what has come to be called the Other Point of View (OPV). The guid facts of the world to be learned as
philosophy of science figure today in ed design strategy for decision making such. Seemingly direct and efficient,
the thinking of sophisticated scientists. involves an evaluation phase that em this attitude unfortunately undermines
In general, a look at any particular phasizes evenhanded evaluation learners' feel for the nature of knowl
domain reveals a host of frames pro (Wales and Nardi 1984; Wales and edge and the enterprise of knowledge
vided by tradition that guides thinking Stager 1974). Likewise, the decision- building. Newton's laws were made up
in those domains. making sequence in Odyssey stresses by Newton to explain a range of natu
Now let us consider the broadest casting a wide and objective net for the ral phenomena; the Bill of Rights was
and vaguest of the concerns men factors that may figure in a decision made up to parry certain infringe
tioned: the artificiality of it all. Is it (Feehrer and Adams 1986). ments on liberty that history had
really the case that effective human Problem solving versus problem shown were likely. Both can be seen
thinking rests in large pan on artifice? finding People tend to be solution- in means-ends terms, as highly moti
Indeed, yes. In fact, natural human minded. Given a commonsense prob vated acts of invention influenced in
thinking, which follows its own course lem, they start to think of possible numerous ways by their historical con
without any strong guidance from solutions right away, without consider texts.
frames, often falls prey to human ing the nature of the problem itself. As with the pitfalls mentioned earli
weaknesses that undermine it. Good Sometimes this works out well er, there are thinking frames to fore
thinking is a highly unnatural act, and enough, but often the rush to a solu stall the human tendency to treat
the better for it. Consider these exam tion proves to be a trap. The solutions knowledge merely as information. For
ples. one thinks of reflect tacit assumptions instance, I have developed an ap
Biased versus evenbanded reason about the nature of the problem that proach to teaching and learning called
ing. People often reason about issues exclude other, better solutions. Re "knowledge as design," which treats
in egocentric ways that neglect other search on creative artists and scien all knowledge and products of mind as
points of view. What is perhaps less tists, however, reveals their savvy inventions designed to serve purposes
often recognized is the pervasiveness about this natural pitfall of human (Perkins 1984, 1986). One would ask
and persistence of this tendency. In thinking. They tend to be problem of Newton's laws, for example, (1)
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
what job are they meant to do, (2) how however, specifying how to proceed
are they structured, and (3) what argu in a stepwise fashion.
ments show that their structure serves Style frames versus organization
their purpose well? The same sorts of frames. Some thinking frames concern
means-end questions apply to the Bill "A thinking frame not the molar organization of what we
of Rights, the periodic table of ele is a representation do, but its texture or grain. For in
ments, the law of supply and demand, intended to guide the stance, in sitting down to write, we
and the Pythagorean theorem, for in may say to ourselves, "Be precise" or
stance. Conventional education com process of thought, "Be imaginative." This often succeeds
monly answers question 2 about struc supporting, organizing, in creating a mental set that leads us to
ture but neglects 1 and 3, which and catalyzing that approach the task in a certain manner.
motivate and justify the structure. process." When we say such things, we are not
In summary, examples such as these giving ourselves a step-by-step recipe
remind us that very often good think to follow. Rather, we are attepting to
ing is indeed not natural. Our tenden proceed in a certain style moment to
cies to defend our own images of the moment, always precise, always imagi
world, to get things over with, and to native in a way that pervades our
avoid complexity lead us into biased actions Indeed, style frames corre
reasoning, solution-mindedness, and tion to our compositions as we snap spond to what psychologists common
treating knowledge merely as informa photos Notice that a thinking frame ly call cognitive style, which some
tion, just to mention three natural does not define in advance the answer argue is a key aspect of intelligence
trends in human thought. Better think we will get; it is up to us to fill in the (cf. Baron 1985b). Our use of prescrip
ing is in large pan a matter of guarding content of a frame. Frames are not tions like "Be precise" shows that cog
against such trends by means of think formulas, like the algorithm for long nitive style is not merely a matter of
ing frames that redirect our thinking division. Rather they are catalysts that individual differences. We can change
into more fruitful patterns. stimulate us to invent answers cognitive styles to some extent to suit
But why speak of thinking frames the task, much as one dresses differ
Thinking Frames Defined rather than simply tactics or strategies? ently for the picnic or the ball.
So far, the notion of thinking frames Primarily to broaden our conception Analogical t<ersus literal frames.
has been used informally and more or of tactical intelligence. "Tactics" and When we think of tactics, we usually
less interchangeably with tactics or "strategies" tend to mean stepwise ac think of advice that prescribes literally
strategies Yet there is a reason for tions literally described in pursuit of a what we ought to do. However, in
introducing this new term: a broader given end: first you do this, then you many contexts, analogies provide a
conception of tactical intelligence re do this, then you do this. But we powerful guide to behavior. For in
sults, one more suited to the complex organize our thinking by many frames stance, Howard (1982) writes about
reality of human psychology that do not have this form. Here are the analogies teachers of singing use
A definition is a good place to begin: some examples. to help their students grasp subtleties
a thinking frame is a representation Product frames i>ersus process of managing their voices. You may be
intended to guide the process of frames Many thinking frames organize asked to sing through the top of your
thought, supporting, organizing, and the products we produce and only head, for example, an act impossible
catalyzing that process This represen indirectly the process by which we to do literally but an analogy that can
tation may be verbal, imagistic, even produce them Consider, for instance, help a young singer to achieve a cer
kinesthetic When well-practiced, it the topic sentence-elaboration struc tain effect
need not be conscious A thinking ture of paragraphs, a frame routinely The terms tactic or strategy, inter
frame, in order to organize our think taught in elementary school. This preted generously, encompass all this
ing, includes information not only helps us to write in an organized way, variety. But the variety is not usually
about hou> to proceed but when to but it does not tell us what to do first. thought of when we speak of tactics or
proceed in that way We may write the topic sentence first, strategies. In stressing tactical intelli
For example, all the programs dis but we can also go back and add it gence and its improvement, we have
cussed in the previous section suit the later, after the composing of the body to be careful about too narrow a con-
definition. They all offer guides in of the paragraph has sharpened our strual of tactical intelligence that ne
verbal form advising us when and how sense of what we want to say. Likewise, glects many of the powerful ways in
to conduct our thinking so as to evade essay formats like thesis-argument- which human beings organize their
certain pitfalls. The metaphorical counterarguments-rebuttal-summary thinking. Indeed, most of the pack
sense of "frame" deserves comment, give a form to essays without demand aged programs for developing stu
too. A thinking frame provides a frame ing that the parts be written in that dents' thinking focus on tactics in a
supporting our thoughts much as the order. Sonnet, ballad, haiku, sonata, fairly narrow sense. With this hazard in
frame of a building supports its walls fugue, and rondo are forms in litera mind, the term "thinking frames"
and floors Or a thinking frame orga ture and music that frame the process serves as a more emphatically inclu
nizes our thinking much as the frame of composing. They give the process sive way of speaking about tactical
of a viewfinder gives focus and direc- organization and direction without, intelligence.
MAY 1986
How Thinking Frames Are memory. For instance, those who have
Learned studied foreign languages will remem
Ideally we would only have to tell ber how, at first, one has to think
youngsters about a particular thinking about the grammar as one uses it;
frame for them to use it from then on "Since some frames later, with practice, one just functions
faithfully and artfully to empower their are quite subtle and spontaneously according to the gram
thinking. But anyone who has dealt mar. In short, practice liberates one's
with education can recognize how un difficult to discover working memory from the load of the
realistic this is. Learning is a process by oneself, a certain frame itself and permits one to ad
full of pitfalls, and the learning of amount of direct dress complex problems with it. So a
higher-order mental skills may be all frame does not come into its full pow
the more so. If the development of
instruction almost er until it is internalized (Brainerd
students' frame repertoires is the ob certainly is desirable.' 1983; Case 1984; Bloom 1986).
jective, what process of learning must The pitfall here is that many instruc
occur, where is it likely to go wrong, tional efforts to develop students'
and what can be done about that' thinking do not provide nearly
It is useful to identify three distinct enough practice to internalize frames.
aspects in learning a thinking frame: selves frames that could empower Others provide practice but escalate
acquisition, internalization, and trans them and therefore do not improve at the difficulty of the problems too
fer. Briefly described, acquisition re all (e.g. Schoenfeld 1979). It would be quickly. Remember that initially the
fers to becoming acquainted with a nice if an intellectually enriched envi frame takes up much of one's working
rrame; intematizatian to practicing it ronment would lead most students to memory. This means that practice
enough so that one becomes fluent discover and imbibe its spirit, but this problems can easily get complex
and spontaneous with it; and transfer simply does not happen. enough to overflow the remainder, so
to using the frame widely, beyond its One solution is to teach directly the the learner cannot handle the prob
immediate context of learning. Notice frames you want students to learn. lem and consequently gets no benefit
that these are called aspects rather Indeed, since some frames are quite from the practice.
than steps of learning; although the subtle and difficult to discover by one One remedy here is to provide
beginning of acquisition must of self, a certain amount of direct instruc plenty of "trivial practice," practice on
course come first, attention to inter tion almost certainly is desirable. problems that are quite easy but that
nalization and to transfer can com However, direct instruction is not the give learners the opportunity to inter
mence almost at once. The three de only recourse. Short of that, we can nalize the frame Another is to provide
serve separate examination, not directly provoke students to think stra memory support for the frame post
because they necessarily constitute tegically about their own behavior and ers on the wall, crib sheets for the
steps, but because they pose rather to try to invent frames. We can, for students and encourage students to
different pedagogical problems and instance, ask them point-blank to in use these heavily during the learning
pitfalls vestigate their own behavior, list the process so they will not have to hold
Acquisition. How might a learner strategies they implicitly use in han so much in mind at once. The caution
acquire a frame in the first place? We dling a particular task, and try to im here is that one must then "fade" these
might teach the learner the frame di prove those strategies. If we want to supports so that the frame becomes
rectly, or the learner might invent it teach frames by discovery, some sort thoroughly internalized in the long
autonomously. There are also in-be of direct provocation seems essential. term. Whatever the particular solution,
tween possibilities. Perhaps, for in Internalization. Internalization the main point is to face up to the
stance, a teacher sets a good example means practicing the application of a problem: the frame must become in
by modeling desired behaviors, and a frame until it becomes fluent and ternalized to do its job, and instruction
student invents appropriate frames spontaneous and no longer requires often does not provide ways for this to
guided by the hint of the teacher's much deliberate attention to use. It is happen.
modeling. This continuum, from di only common sense that an internal Transfer. Transfer means that the
rect instruction to autonmous inven ized frame does its job better, but learner can use, and thinks to use, the
tion, points to an important opportuni there is a deep psychological reason frame in contexts remote from the
ty. We need not always teach frames for this. We can only hold a few pieces context of learning. It would be conve
directly. Indeed, many educators re of information in our short-term or nient if people automatically carried
gard with distaste the notion of feed working memory at a time (e.g. Brain- over to other relevant contexts what
ing students a repertoire of formulas, erd 1983; Case 1984; Miller 1956). ever they learned in a particular con
and it is certainly important that peo When we initially learn a frame, the text Unfortunately, a number of find
ple learn how to discover for them frame itself takes up much of our ings in recent years have warned that
selves frames that may empower them. working memory, so we cannot apply transfer often does not occur sponta
Unfortunately, a pitfall comes with it to very complex problems because neously (eg. Belmont, Butterfield, and
the opportunity. Students faced with a we cannot hold them in mind. Fortu Ferretti 1982; Pea and Curland 1984;
task involving higher-order thinking nately, practice results in automatiza Scribner and Cole 1981). On the con
and even with models of appropriate tion of the frame, which drastically trary, learning tends to become con
behavior often do not invent for them- reduces its demands on working text bound or "contextually welded"
8 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
to the learning situation. Sometimes Nidterson, Perkins, and Smith 1985).
students do not make the most obvi Variedframes. I emphasized earli
ous transfers to closely related situa er that frames come in many kinds,
tions. Since transfer cannot be relied going well beyond stepwise strategies.
upon to happen by itself, we must "Creative artists and Does the approach include a rich
teach for transfer. scientists ... tend to range of frames process and prod
How do we do this? Many approach be problem finders, uct, organization and style, and so on?
es can help. One is to make students Effective, relei'ant frames. Of
mindful of the problem of transfer and considering how to course, not all frames are effective and
encourage them deliberately to seek define and represent a relevant, any more than all gadgets are
applications of what they have learned problem, how it might well-designed and useful. Do you have
in remote contexts. This can be done be represented in quite reasons from personal experience or
directly through assignments. Another research to believe the frames in the
related tactic urges students to pay a different way, and approach are effective? Do the frames
heed to their own mental processes even whether the implicitly or explicitly include when
and become conscious and strategic in problem at hand is information as well as bou' informa
selecting approaches to problems tion? Do they speak to significant
(Belmont et al. 1982). Also, we can worth solving at all." problems of human thinking, such as
deliberately include a great variety of the problems of bias, solution-mind-
examples in instruction, examples that sort of learning process can people edness. and knowledge as informa
range well beyond the usual, reaching learn to think better? Learning think tion?
outside the classroom or into different ing frames requires attention to acqui Just as important as content is the
subject areas. A more detailed explora sition, internalization, and transfer, all method of instruction. You can ask
tion of the problem of transfer can be three of which present pitfalls that can critical questions like these:
found in Saloman and Perkins (1984) prevent effective learning. Acquisition. Does the approach
and Perkins and Saloman (in press). As The third question turns directly to teach frames directly or directly pro
with internalization, the main point is the dilemma of the educational deci voke learners' invention of frames? If
that instruction must confront the sion maker: How can uv tell whether a not, if it merely involves an enriched
problem of transfer and deal with it particular approach to teaching think context, many learners are likely not
one way or another in order to be ing is a good bet? Of course, the to discover the frames for themselves.
effective. Regrettably, many efforts to answer to this query lies in the re Internalization. Does the ap
teach thinking do not emphasize trans sponses to the first two, converted to proach offer enough and easy enough
fer, blithely presuming that it will hap critical principles for assessing an ap practice to help students internalize
pen by itself. proach. Imagine that you are a teacher the use of the frames and avoid the
or administrator pondering how to working memory bottleneck, so that
Decisions about Teaching improve the thinking of your students. the frames come into their full power?
Thinking You are considering a number of Transfer. Does the approach at
We began with a problem: the cornu packaged programs. You also are ex tend explicitly to the problem of trans
copia of opportunities and options ploring whether and how to design fer, drawing students' attention to the
facing anyone concerned with devel your own program to infuse the teach potential breadth of application of the
oping students' thinking. Acknowledg ing of subject matters with attention to frames and encouraging them to carry
ing that many facets of thinking invite higher-order thinking. What broad their frames far beyond the context of
development, we sought an organiz critical questions can you ask yourself instruction?
ing framework that could make sense about a candidate, packaged or home- Any effon to develop thinking in
of the variety and aid in making deci grown, to appraise its chances of suc volves a host of design decisions, and
sions cess' these six principles speak only to cer
So far, answers have been offered to First of all, you can consider the tain of them Nonetheless, they have
two of the questions raised at the content of the instruction. some power. Many commercial pro
outset. What is thinking made of such Frame content. Recall that the grams and many home-grown ap
that it might be improved' I n signifi power side of intelligence does not proaches to the teaching of thinking
cant pan, good thinking is made of lend itself to improvement. "Mental blatantly violate one or more of the
thinking frames that empower us to muscle building" approaches, which principles. Besides filtering out ap
think better by organizing, supporting, stress extensive intellectual exercise proaches that have several flaws, it is
and catalyzing our course of thought. without teaching or directly provoking possible to use the principles to pre
The development of learners' frame students' invention of frames, are like scribe repairs in a generally sound
repertoires is the natural window of ly to fail Bet on frames. approach. For instance, if an approach
opportunity for teaching thinking, in Information on different frames use neglects transfer or escalates the diffi
contrast either with improving the ful for teaching thinking of various culty of practice examples too quickly,
power side of intelligence, which may sons can be found in such syntheses as you may be able to add attention to
be impossible, or the content side of Baron 1985a; Chipman, Segal, and Gla- transfer and supply practice examples
intelligence, which we already try to ser 1985; Costa 1985; Segal, Chipman, that pose a more manageable chal
do without being satisfied. By u'hat and Glaser 1985; Haves 1981; and lenge.
MAY 1986
 To apply such principles as a filter in Chess." Cognitive Psychology 4 Perkins, D. N. "Creativity by Design." Edu
or guide to repairs is, of course, to be (1973): 55-81 cational Leader&p 42 (September 1984):
tactical. Indeed, the perspective on Chi, M., P. Feltovich, and R. Glaser. "Cate 18-25.
thinking and its development present gorization and Representation of Physics Perkins, D N Knowledge as Design Hills
ed here lives up to its own philosophy. Problems by Experts and Novices." Cog dale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
nitive Science *, ( 1981): 121-152. 1986.
The formula Intelligence = Power + Chipman, S. F., J. W. Segal, and R Glaser, Perkins, D. N. "Postprimary Education has
Tactics + Content, the concept of eds. Thinking and Learning Skills Vol. Little Impact on Informal Reasoning."
thinking frames, the model of learning 2: Research and Open Questions. Hills- Journal of Educational Psychology 77, 5
a frame by way of acquisition, intemai- dale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (1985): 562-571.
ization, and transfer, and the critical 1985. Perkins, D. N., and C. Laserna. Inventive
principles just set forth are all them Costa, A. L, ed Developing Minds. A Re Thinking ( lesson sequence in Odyssey: A
selves frames thinking frames that source Book for Teaching Thinking. Al Curriculum for Thinking). Watertown,
can organize and catalyze our thinking exandria, Va.: Association for Supervi Mass.: Mastery Education, 1986.
about the teaching of thinking. For a sion and Curriculum Development, Perkins, D., and G. Salomon. 'Transfer and
very long time, the invention not only 1985 Teaching Thinking." In Thinking: Pro
de Bono, E CoRT Thinking Blandford, gress in Research and Teaching, edited
of tools but of tools to make tools has Dorset, England: Direct Education Serv by J Bishop, J. Lochhead, and D. N.
been a tactic of the human race. In ices Limited, 1973-75 Perkins. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erl
developing frames for thinking about de Bono, E. "The Cognitive Research Trust baum Associates, in press
other frames, we extend that tactic to (CoRT) Thinking Program." In Thinking: Ross, L, and C. Anderson. "Shortcomings
the domain of the mind itself.D The Expanding Frontier, edited by W. in the Attribution Process: On the Ori
Maxwell. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erl gins and Maintenance of Erroneous So
baum Associates, 1983 cial and Biases, edited by D Kahneman,
Feehrer, C. E., and M. J. Adams. Decision P Slovic, and A. Tversky. Cambridge,
Making ( lesson sequence in Odyssey A England: Cambridge University Press,
References Curriculum for Thinking) Watertown, 1982.
Mass.: Mastery Education, 1986. Salomon, G, and D. N. Perkins. "Rocky
Adamson, R E. "Functional Fixedness as Getzels, J., and M. Czikszentmihalyi. The Roads to Transfer: Rethinking Mecha
Related to Problem Solving. "Journal of Creative Vision. A Longitudinal Study of nisms of a Neglected Phenomenon." Pa
Experimental Psychology 44 (1952): Problem Finding in Art New York: John per presented at the Conference on
288-291 Wiley & Sons, 1976 Thinking, Harvard Graduate School of
Baron, J. "Intelligence and General Strate Glaser, R "Education and Thinking: The Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
gies." In Strategies in Information Proc Role of Knowledge." American Psychol August 1984.
essing, edited by G. Underwood. Lon ogist 39 (February 1984): 93-104. Schoenfeld, A. H "Explicit Heuristic Train
don: Academic Press, 1978. Haves, J R The Complete Problem Solver ing as a Variable in Problem Solving
Baron, J. Rationality and Intelligence. New Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso Performance" Journal for Research in
Yorfc Cambridge University Press, ciates, 1981. Mathematics Education 1 0, 3 (1979):
Howard, V A. Artistry: The Work of Artists. 173-187
Baron, J. "What Kinds of Intelligence Com Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Compa Schoenfeld, A. H "Teaching Problem-Solv
ponents are Fundamental?" In Thinking ny, 1982 ing Skills" American Mathematical
and Learning Skills. Vol. 2. Current Re Jensen, A. R 'Test Validity: g Versus the Monthly 87 (1980): 794-805
search and Open Questions, edited by S. Specificity Doctrine. " Journal of Social Schoenfeld, A. H and D. J Herrmann
S. Chipman, J. W. Segal, and R- Glaser and Biological Structures 7 ( 1984): 93- "Problem Perception and Knowledge
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso 118. Structure in Expert and Novice Mathe
ciates, 1985b. Luchins, A. S. "Mechanization in Problem matical Problem Solvers " Journal of
Belmont.J M., and E. C. Bunerfield, and R Solving." Psychological Monographs 54, Experimental Psychology: Learning,
P. Ferretti. 'To Secure Transfer of Train 6(1942). Memory, and Cognition 8: 484-494
ing Instruct Self-Management Skills." In Mansfield, R S and T V. Busse. The Psy Scribner, S., and M. Cole. The Psychology of
How and How Much Can Intelligence chology of Creativity and Discovery Chi Literacy. Cambridge, Mass : Harvard Uni
be Increased?, edited by D. K. Detterman cago: Nelson-Hall, 1981 versity Press, 1981
and R. J. Sternberg. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, Miller, G. A, "The Magical Number Seven, Segal, J. W, S F. Chipman, and R Glaser
1982 Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Thinking and Learning Skills. Vol 1:
Bloom, B. "Automaticity: The Hands and Capacity for Processing Information" Relating Instruction to Research Hills-
Feet of Genius .' " Educational Leader Psychological Review 63 (1956): 81-87 dale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
ship 43 (1986): 70-77 Nickerson, R, D N. Perkins, and E Smith 1985
Brainerd, C. J. "Working-Memory Systems The Teaching of Thinking Hillsdale, N.J.: Wales, C E , and A. Nardi Successful Deci
and Cognitive Development." In Recent Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1985 sion- Making Morgantown: West Virgin
Advances in Cognitive-Developmental Nisbett, R, and L. Ross Human Inference ia University, Center for Guided Design.
Theory: Progress in Cognitive Develop Strategies and Shortcomings of Social 1984
ment Research, edited by C. J Brainerd. Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren Wales, C E., and R A. Stager The Guided
New York; Springer-Verlag, 1983 tice Hall, 1980. Design Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.:
Bransford, J. D., and B. S. Stein. The IDEM Palincsar, A. S , and A. L. Brown. "Recipro Educational Technology Publications,
Problem Solver. New York; W. H. Free cal Teaching of Comprehension-Foster 1978.
man & Co , 1984. ing and Comprehension-Monitoring Ac
Case, R. "The Process of Stage Transition: A tivities ." Cognition and Instruction 1
Neo-Piagetian Viewpoint" In Mecha (1984): 117-175.
nisms of Cognitive Development, edited Pea, R D, and D M Kurland "On the David Perkins is codirector, Harvard Pro
by R. J. Stemberg. New York: W. H. Cognitive Effects of Learning Computer ject Zero, Harvard University, Graduate
Freeman and Company, 1984. Programming." New Ideas in Psychology School of Education, 315 Longfellow Hall,
Chase, W. C., and H. A. Simon "Perception 2, 2 (1984): 137-168. Appian Way, Cambridge, MA 02138
10 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Copyright © 1986 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development. All rights reserved.