Chapter 1. Learning-Centered Instruction: An ...

Chapter 1. Learning-Centered Instruction: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
Copyright © 1992 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from ASCD.
The first wave of reform has broken over the nation‘s public schools, leaving a residue of incremental changes and an outmoded educational structure still firmly in place. The second wave must produce strategic change that restructures the way our schools are organized and operate. We‘ve been tinkering at the margins of the education problem for too long. It‘s time now to get to the heart of the matter.
—David Kearns, Deputy Secretary of Education (1988, p. 565)
 
I believe that the "heart of the matter" of any educational reform or restructuring is the relationship between the teaching and learning processes. We know that effective teaching mirrors effective learning, yet as educators we have not mounted a serious effort to organize teaching around the learning process. Instead, we have viewed education as an institution or an administrative system or a set of instructional techniques (Banathy 1980). We have not examined the learning process and then built instructional systems, administrative systems, indeed, entire educational systems that support what we know about the learning process. We have not built education from the bottom up, so to speak.
We have not done so because until relatively recently we knew very little about the learning process. As late as 1960, behavioral psychologists viewed the processes underlying cognition and, consequently, the processes underlying learning as existing in a sealed "black box." John Anderson (1990) explains that from its beginnings in 1920, the behaviorist tradition all but eliminated any serious inquiry into the cognitive processes underlying learning. Behaviorism dominated psychology for over forty years. It was not until the advent of cognitive psychology in the 1960s that psychologists began to study the underlying processes in learning. Since then, researchers in cognitive psychology and the related fields of artificial intelligence and cognitive science have created an explosion of knowledge about learning. Over the last three decades, we have amassed enough research and theory about learning to devise a truly learning-based model of instruction.
The ultimate act of restructuring is to change the process of instruction and its related acts (planning, curriculum design, and assessment) so that they reflect the best of what we know about learning. This book is meant as a step in that direction. In it, I attempt to articulate a theory of learning based on the best available research on learning and then translate that theory into a model of classroom instruction that directly affects how teachers plan for instruction, design curriculum, and assess student performance. The model of instruction on which this book is based assumes that the process of learning involves the interaction of five types of thinking, what I call the five Dimensions of Learning. These five dimensions of learning are direct descendants of the Dimensions of Thinking framework (Marzano, Brandt, Hughes, Jones, Presseisen, Rankin, and Suhor 1988). The Dimensions of Thinking model was meant to influence the theory of schooling, whereas its progeny is meant to influence the practice of schooling. Indeed, some ninety practicing educators from eighteen school districts in the United States and Mexico have contributed to the development of the Dimensions of Learning model.
The five dimensions of learning are loose metaphors for how the mind works during learning. Certainly there are not five independent types of thinking that occur during learning; learning involves a complex system of interactive processes. But metaphors can open our eyes to new ways of seeing, prompting us to explore options that we might not have pursued otherwise. For example, the metaphor that the brain is a computer provides psychologists with powerful insights; so, too, does the metaphor that the brain is a muscle. One metaphor does not negate the other; both are useful. I believe that viewing learning as the product of five dimensions or types of thinking will allow educators to achieve powerful and specific results in the classroom. What are the five dimensions of learning? Let‘s take a look.
Dimension 1: Positive Attitudes and Perceptions About Learning
Attitudes and perceptions color our every experience. They are the filter through which all learning occurs. Some attitudes affect learning in a positive way and others make learning very difficult. To illustrate, let‘s consider the thinking of Jana and Carmen.
Jana‘s Thinking.
Everyone in the 3rd grade seems to be enjoying Mrs. Paynter‘s demonstration of how the earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth. Chad is the sun. He‘s standing at the front of the class with a flashlight. It‘s easy for the students to think of Chad as the sun because the flashlight is bright—just like the sun. Sarah is the earth. She‘s walking around Chad and smiling. Michelle is the moon. She‘s walking around Sarah as Sarah walks around Chad. Michelle almost has to run to get around Sarah before Sarah gets around Chad. The students enjoy the demonstration, especially the part where Michelle has to run around Sarah. The only one not enjoying the demonstration is Jana. It‘s not that she doesn‘t like science; it‘s her favorite subject. But at recess a few minutes ago, both Sarah and Michelle started teasing her again. You see, Jana has only been in Mrs. Paynter‘s class for two weeks. She transferred from a school across town and hasn‘t yet made any friends. In fact, she thinks, Sarah and Michelle seem to be her enemies. They certainly act as though they hate her. They started in on her right from the first day. Jana is so upset that she can‘t think of much else. She really doesn‘t learn from Mrs. Paynter‘s demonstration.
 
Carmen‘s Thinking.
Carmen isn‘t looking forward to Mr. Hutchins‘ science class, even though she thinks Mr. Hutchins‘ stories are kind of funny, even interesting. It‘s the way Mr. Hutchins assigns tasks that bothers her. Carmen can‘t always figure out exactly what she‘s supposed to do. And Mr. Hutchins usually doesn‘t give her any help. Last week, for example, Mr. Hutchins gave a great presentation about evaporation and told some interesting stories. When he was done, he asked the class to do Experiment #4 on page 13 of the text. There was only a short paragraph explaining the experiment. Carmen asked Mr. Hutchins to explain the experiment better, but he just told her to read the directions. Ten minutes before class ended, Carmen realized she had done the entire experiment incorrectly. This frustrated her to no end. Now she‘s worried that the same thing is about to happen again. She can already feel her stomach tightening up in a knot.
 
These scenarios have at least two elements in common: (1) the teacher was presenting content in an innovative and interesting way, and (2) a student was distracted from effective learning because of specific perceptions. Certainly Mrs. Paynter‘s demonstration of the solar system and Mr. Hutchins‘ engaging stories are sound educational practice, but in each of their classes at least one student could not learn effectively because she perceived that something was amiss. Jana felt that she was not accepted by her classmates; Carmen was worried because she was afraid that she wouldn‘t be able to figure out what Mr. Hutchins expected her to do. The stories of Jana and Carmen both show that attitudes and perceptions affect learning.
One of the major themes in the current research and theory on learning is that attitudes and perceptions play a fundamental role in the learning process. For example, in their review of research in mathematical problem solving, Silver and Marshall (1990) found that learners‘ perceptions about their ability to solve problems are a primary factor in mathematics performance. If students perceive themselves as poor problem solvers, that perception overrides most other factors, including natural ability and previous learning.
At a more general level, attitudes and perceptions have been described as part of the learner‘s "self-system," which oversees all other systems (Markus and Ruvulo 1990; Markus and Wurf 1987; McCombs 1986, 1989; McCombs and Marzano 1990). As learners, we continually filter what we are doing through our system of beliefs. Glasser (1981) asserts that learners will even try to change the "outside world" to make it more consistent with the "inside world" of their beliefs. For instance, if you perceive yourself as unacceptable to your peers, you will act in such a way as to make yourself unacceptable. Frank Smith states the case even more strongly:
What we have in our heads is a theory of what the world is like, a theory that is the basis of all our perceptions and understanding of the world, the soul of all learning, the source of all hopes and fears, motives and expectancies. And this theory is all we have. If we can make sense of the world at all, it is by interpreting our interactions with the light of our theory (Smith 1982, p. 57).
Effective teachers take into account the attitudes and perceptions of the learner and then shape lessons to foster positive attitudes and perceptions.
 
Dimension 2: Thinking Involved in Acquiring and Integrating Knowledge
Some noneducators think that learning is a process of passively receiving information. More pointedly, they view knowledge as an objective entity that learners must somehow assimilate into their minds. From this perspective, teaching is a process of dispensing information. The teacher moves from student to student, filling each mind with the facts of the lesson. When a well-taught lesson is completed, all students have the same knowledge and understanding of the content.
A radically different perspective of learning has surfaced from the research and theory in cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychologists view learning as a highly interactive process of constructing personal meaning from the information available in a learning situation and then integrating that information with what we already know to create new knowledge. To illustrate, let‘s consider Miguel‘s thinking.
Miguel‘s Thinking.
Miguel has really enjoyed this self-defense unit in phys ed because he‘s been able to learn some kung fu and karate moves. He saw the movie Karate Kid four times, so he knows what he‘d like to be able to do. Mr. Tully has just demonstrated how to do a "back kick." Miguel thinks this kick looks hard. Although he watched carefully as Mr. Tully went through the steps, he just can‘t seem to get started. He can‘t even imagine how to begin. Mr. Tully walks over to him and says, "Miguel, think of the back kick like the side kick—but you do it backwards." He demonstrates once more. All of a sudden, there is a glimmer of understanding in Miguel‘s eyes. He has a feel for what it might be like to actually do the kick. He gives it a try. His attempted back kick doesn‘t look like Mr. Tully‘s, but it‘s not bad for the first one. Mr. Tully moves on to someone else while Miguel keeps practicing the new kick. With each try, he learns a little more about the back kick. He starts to become aware of things Mr. Tully didn‘t mention. For example, he discovers that it‘s a lot easier to keep your balance if you have your feet close together when you start. Also, if you turn your head before you turn your body, you don‘t get so dizzy when you twirl around. By the end of class, Miguel feels pretty good about this new kick, even though be can‘t do it very well. He practices the kick every night for the next four days. By the time Mr. Tully‘s next class rolls around, Miguel can do the back kick as well as he can do any of the other moves he‘s learned.
 
Miguel‘s thinking illustrates a familiar pattern everyone goes through when learning a new skill. Before Miguel could even attempt the kick, he had to relate it to what he already knew how to do. A fundamental principle of learning is that acquiring knowledge involves a subjective process of interaction between what we already know and what we want to learn. We are always using what we know to interpret what we don‘t know. If we can‘t link new content to something we already know, learning is much more difficult. For example, read the following paragraph and try to understand it:
If the balloons popped the sound wouldn‘t be able to carry since everything would be too far away from the correct floor. A closed window would also prevent the sound from carrying, since most buildings tend to be well insulated. Since the whole operation depends upon a steady flow of electricity, a break in the middle of the wire would also cause problems. Of course, the fellow could shout but the human voice is not loud enough to carry that far. An additional problem is that a string could break on the instrument. Then there could be no accompaniment to the message. It is clear that the best situation would involve less distance. Then there would be fewer potential problems. With face to face contact, the least number of things could go wrong (Bransford and Johnson 1972, p. 719).
 
Even though you recognize every word in this paragraph, you probably don‘t understand it. Bransford and Johnson used this passage to demonstrate the power of schemas, the name for the way we "package" information in long-term memory. They wrote the passage using a schema that most people have not experienced or would even imagine experiencing, so when you read it you find nothing in your long-term memory that you can use to interact with the information in the passage. If you are given a schema for the passage, however, it is easy to understand. Figure 1.1 on page 8 contains a schema that can be used to interpret the paragraph above. Study it for a moment and then read the passage again. It should be easy to understand this time.
Figure 1.1 Schema for Bransford and Johnson Passage

Source: Bransford and Johnson 1972.
 
Understanding something, then, depends on our having experiences stored in packets in long-term memory that can interact with the new information presented in a learning situation. Linking our prior knowledge to what we are about to learn is always the first type of thinking we use when acquiring new knowledge. But, as Miguel‘s story illustrated, learning doesn‘t stop there. Once we have an initial conception of information, we have to shape it. Miguel had to go through the motions of the back kick many times to discover the finer points of successfully performing it. The importance of this aspect of learning is difficult to overestimate. Our initial understanding of a concept or a process is rarely complete and accurate; we must loop through it several times, trimming it here, expanding it there, finding out what works and what doesn‘t. If learners do not engage in this personal organizing and shaping process, their understanding will frequently be poor or even inaccurate.
My favorite example of this idea involves my youngest daughter, Ashley. When she was five years old, I made three trips to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, each trip a week after the previous one. During the first two trips, my wife explained to Ashley that I was in a place called Cedar Rapids. Capitalizing on the educational opportunity, my wife described some of the features of Cedar Rapids and even brought out the map to show Ashley exactly where Cedar Rapids is. During the third visit, my wife asked Ashley if she remembered anything about where I was or if she had any questions about where I was. Quite innocently and sincerely, my daughter responded, "Why does Dad keep going back to Peter Rabbit‘s?" As all learners do, she had used her prior knowledge to interpret this new information. Unfortunately, she had attached to it the wrong background information. It‘s rather interesting and more than a little humorous to imagine how she was linking her background knowledge of Peter Rabbit to the new information she was given. Of course, my wife corrected the misconception immediately and reviewed the information with her, stressing the correct interpretation, a city in another state.
My daughter‘s experience resembles most initial learning experiences. Kathleen Roth (1990) provides a wonderful example of how the lack of background knowledge affects children‘s initial understanding of science concepts. She describes Kevin, a 7th grader who, after learning that plants are like people in that they take in multiple sources of food from the environment, initially concluded the following, which he wrote on a pretest:
Food (for plants) can be sun, rain, light, bugs, oxygen, soil, and even other dead plants. Also warmth or coldness. All plants need at least three or four of these foods. Plus minerals (Roth 1990, p. 145).
 
Obviously, attaching prior knowledge to new information isn‘t enough. Effective learning requires a more in-depth analysis of the new information to organize and shape it in ways that highlight what‘s important and to weed out errors.
The final aspect of initially acquiring and integrating knowledge is internalizing information in such a way that it can be readily used. Recall that Miguel had to practice the back kick many times before it became something he could actually use. LaBerge and Samuels (1974) provide a detailed explanation of this aspect of learning. They say that for new information to be useful, it must be learned to such an extent that we do not have to think much about it when we use it. One of the best illustrations of this principle is driving a car. Driving is probably one of the more complex things you do every day: You make split-second decisions. You perform several actions in rapid succession. And you do this at fifty-five miles per hour while having an argument about a football game. You have learned the process of driving a car and the related road rules to such a point that driving has become automatic.
Acquiring and integrating knowledge, then, involves using what you already know to make sense out of new information, working out the kinks in the new information, and assimilating the information so that you can use it with relative ease.
Dimension 3: Thinking Involved in Extending and Refining Knowledge
Knowledge doesn‘t remain static, even when we learn it to the point of automaticity. If we continue the learning process, we extend and refine what we know. This dimension of learning, like the others, has some distinguishing characteristics. Let‘s explore them by considering Joleen‘s thinking.
Joleen‘s Thinking.
In Ms. Kelter‘s class, students have just completed reading a chapter about the battle at the Old North Bridge in Concord, which was a beginning point of the Revolutionary War. They have also heard a lecture and watched a film about the historic event. They seem to know it well. They know who participated in the battle, what happened, and even why it happened. At least they know the "why" of the battle as it was described in the lecture and the film. Today Ms. Kelter asks the class to do something different. She divides them into small groups and gives them the following assignment: "Explain how the battle at the Old North Bridge is like something that has happened in the last twenty years."
Joleen, who has an A going in the class, asks, "Exactly what are we supposed to compare it with?" Ms. Kelter‘s answer surprises her. "Anything you want, just show me how they are alike." Almost as a reflex, Joleen responds, "What if we pick the wrong thing?" Again, Ms. Kelter‘s answer surprises her: "You can‘t be wrong on this one, as long as you show me how they are alike."
At first, some of the students in Joleen‘s cooperative group think this is going to be the easiest assignment they have ever had. "We can‘t be wrong, we can say anything we want." Once they begin, though, they soon change their mind. Joleen says, "What should we pick?" Initially, the members of her group start throwing out wild ideas: "It‘s like a baseball game." "It‘s like a wedding." Finally, in frustration Joleen says, "Wait a minute. Stop talking all at once. Let‘s look at what really happened at the Old North Bridge. Forget about who was there and who did what. What happened in general?" Her classmates look at her with blank stares. She thinks for a while and says, "Here‘s what I mean: Wasn‘t it that there was this group of people who expected to be attacked by another bigger group? So this smaller group was just waiting for something to go wrong. Then when they saw some smoke coming from their town they assumed that the British had attacked Concord. I mean, because they were expecting to be attacked, they would probably see the slightest unusual thing as proof that what they expected to happen was actually happening." The other students start to perk up a bit. Mark says, "OK, I see what you‘re getting at. It‘s like the riots that happened in L.A. that we studied. Because the people thought the police were going to attack, they saw a really harmless thing as the beginning of the attack."
Joleen and her classmates work on the comparison for the rest of the class period. When they present their comparison the following day, Joleen, who (to no one‘s surprise) has appointed herself as spokesperson, begins the presentation by saying, "I see the whole thing really differently now; it was all kind of a big mistake."
 
We can probably safely say that Ms. Kelter‘s comparison activity changed her students‘ knowledge of the incident at the Old North Bridge. Joleen‘s view of the incident certainly changed. Psychologists describe a variety of ways we can change what we "know" even when what we know is accurate. The types of changes they describe range from small changes that occur over time to fairly dramatic changes (Piaget 1954, 1959; Rumelhart and Norman 1981; Vosniadou and Brewer 1987). It is the more dramatic changes that are the focus of Dimension 3, extending and refining knowledge.
Many strategies and activities can help bring about these changes. From my admittedly biased position, I commonly credit the "thinking skills movement" with developing and popularizing many of these techniques. Beyer (1988), de Bono (1985), Swartz (1987), Perkins (1981, 1985), and many others have given us powerful ways of stretching students‘ knowledge—helping them see things in different ways. As effective as these techniques and strategies are, they still require learners to think at a level that can be a little uncomfortable for them. In keeping, William Chase of Carnegie-Mellon University uses the cliché "no pain, no gain" to describe the energy and effort necessary to develop knowledge to the level associated with expertise (in Anderson 1990, p. 258). In short, teachers and students should never forget that extending and refining knowledge is usually hard work.
Dimension 4: Thinking Involved in Using Knowledge Meaningfully
We acquire knowledge or develop a skill so that we can use that knowledge or skill. The type of thinking required to use knowledge is related to the type of thinking necessary to extend and refine knowledge (Dimension 3). It has some unique and important characteristics, though. To illustrate, let‘s consider Christine‘s thinking.
Christine‘s Thinking.
The students in Mr. Brandt‘s class are a little shook up. They‘ve just finished reading a chapter in their textbooks on "climate" that explains how such factors as altitude, humidity, and longitude and latitude affect climate. Before that, they watched a film showing the influence of weather on the environment. Usually they would next be tested on this information and then presented with more information. Today, though, Mr. Brandt isn‘t going on to the next chapter. Instead, he announces that he wants students to use the information they‘ve just learned. He wants them to "ask some interesting questions you have about the stuff we‘ve just learned." He provides a few examples: "You might want to consider what could happen if the weather patterns changed drastically in our region. Or you might want to use the computer simulation program to test out some of your theories about the different ways weather can be influenced." Mr. Brandt gives the class a choice of five types of projects to work on over the next few weeks. He also tells students they can make up their own projects if they don‘t like the ones he‘s dreamed up.
Christine has really enjoyed the unit on weather. One thing that struck her early on is how much money and energy people spend protecting themselves against weather. "We build walls, roofs, heating systems, cooling systems, awnings, and a bunch of other things to keep the weather out. I wonder what a house would be like that tried to use weather rather than protect against it." At the end of the class, Christine approaches Mr. Brandt and tells him about her idea for a project. Mr. Brandt is enthusiastic. He provides Christine with some guidance and challenge by saying, "Why don‘t you see if you can do it within a set budget, using as many different aspects of weather as possible?"
Over the next two weeks, Christine learns more about heating systems, cooling systems, wind-driven turbines, and the like, than she ever thought she wanted to know. Quite frequently, she goes to Mr. Brandt for help. He usually sends her to a book, magazine, or person that has the information she‘s looking for. Although her final product will simply be a floor plan and a videotaped explanation of the features of her "weather-friendly" house, Christine finds that she has to continually make decisions about what to include and what to exclude in her house. It seems as though any minor change in her plans affects four other things that must also be changed.
When she finishes the project, Christine tells Mr. Brandt that it was the most difficult project she has ever done—and maybe the most rewarding. She now knows why all houses don‘t use weather more—it‘s very difficult and very expensive. "But," she adds, "it can be done."
 
Christine‘s task was similar to Joleen‘s (described in Dimension 3) in that both required thinking about content in unusual ways. Both tasks challenged the learners by making them go beyond what they normally do. Christine‘s task was much more extended than Joleen‘s, however; Joleen needed to think about and work on her task for a few days, whereas Christine thought about and worked on her task for two weeks. It is the extended engagement in complex tasks that allows for the deepest learning. Theorists such as Norman Frederiksen (1984) have pointed out the inconsistencies between "real-life work" and "school work." In school, students engage in short-term tasks that usually can be completed in one class period. In life outside the school, the tasks we perform take weeks, months, sometimes years to complete. Elliot Jaques (1985) asserts that it is only when we work on long-term projects that the full complement of skills and abilities characteristic of effective learning comes into play.
Christine‘s task was also heavily self-directed. She was free to select a topic and determine how she would report on it and what resources she would use. Student control is another factor that greatly affects the type and quality of learning. In a series of studies, Susan Harter (1980, 1982) has shown that learners who lack a perceived sense of control will naturally "hold back." Learners need to feel ownership of the task if they are to unleash all their talents and abilities. Providing students with control can be a simple matter of allowing them to choose among alternatives. For example, consider Nancy Atwell‘s (1987) description of the effects of providing for student choice in the form of sustained silent reading (SSR):
I began letting my kids read their own books one day each week, and they began driving me crazy. Daily at least one student would ask, "Ms. Atwell, are we having reading today?" I didn‘t want to hear this. We had reading every day—or at least that was my impression. I felt little pinpricks of conscience whenever someone voiced a desire for more SSR. But there were too many wonderful anthology selections to cover and too many activities to orchestrate. . . (p. 19).
 
The final characteristic of Christine‘s task is that it was realistic. Designing a house is the type of task a person might actually undertake. This is exactly the impetus of the "authentic task" movement championed by such theorists as Grant Wiggins (1989). Wiggins and others assert that what is needed in education is a shift from artificial tasks, the purpose of which is to cover content, to more authentic tasks, the purpose of which is to engage learners in complex issues that enhance the learning of content and the ability to learn.
In summary, the fourth dimension of learning, using knowledge meaningfully, demands thinking that is extended over a long period of time, directed by the student, and focused on realistic or authentic issues.
Dimension 5: Productive Habits of Mind
Our mental habits influence everything we do. Poor habits of mind usually lead to poor learning, regardless of our level of skill or ability. Even skilled learners can be ineffective if they haven‘t developed powerful habits of mind. To illustrate, let‘s consider Lorraine‘s thinking.
Lorraine‘s Thinking.
Lorraine considers herself bright, especially in mathematics. Because her dad is a mathematics professor at the university, she has a lot of help solving her homework problems. In fact, every summer her father has obtained a copy of the math text for the upcoming year and gone over the problems with her. When she has difficulty with a certain type of problem, he has given her hints that make the problem easy. By the time she encounters the problems in school, she already knows exactly what to do. But now she‘s transferred to a new school and her dad hasn‘t looked over her new math book. It‘s the first week of math class. The teacher has just handed out a set of problems. At first, Lorraine is excited. This is a chance to show what she can do. She soon finds out, however, that she‘s never seen problems like these. She doesn‘t have any experience to call on. Lorraine tries the first problem but can‘t figure it out. She moves to the second problem and can‘t figure out how to solve it either. She begins to panic and stops thinking about the problems altogether. "Dad didn‘t show me how to do any of these." Soon she gives up, thinking to herself, "These problems are just too hard."
 
Unfortunately, Lorraine‘s behavior is not unusual. Many people amass a certain amount of knowledge and skill in a subject, but don‘t know how to cope when confronted with new situations. I once observed a student teacher who performed well unless her students asked a difficult question. When this happened, she would give up; she would actually stop teaching. Lorraine and the student teacher suffer from the same malady. Their problem is not a lack of skill or ability; it is that they simply give up when answers and solutions aren‘t readily available. They haven‘t developed the mental habit of persisting even when answers and solutions are not apparent. They haven‘t developed the characteristics of true expertise. Researchers and theorists such as Ennis (1987), Paul (1990), Costa (1991), Perkins (1984), Flavell (1976), and Amabile (1983) have identified a number of mental habits that characterize expertise:
Being sensitive to feedback
Seeking accuracy and precision
Persisting even when answers and solutions are not apparent
Viewing situations in unconventional ways
Avoiding impulsivity
 
Operating from these mental habits makes learning effective and efficient. In fact, Lauren Resnick (1987) says that it is operating from these habits that renders thinking higher-order in nature. And for years Arthur Costa (1991) has been extolling the virtues of these "intelligent behaviors." His assertion is that the habits of mind should be at the core of education. What good does it do students to learn content if they do not learn to seek accuracy and precision, avoid impulsivity, work at the edge rather than the center of their competence, and so on? Some educators are rising to Costa‘s challenge. At least two schools in Denver, Colorado, have patterned their report cards after Costa‘s habits of mind.
The Relationship Among the Dimensions of Learning
It is important to recognize that the five types of thinking illustrated by the five dimensions of learning do not function in isolation or in a linear order (i.e., first one type of thinking occurs, then another). Instead, they interact in the manner depicted in Figure 1.2 on page 16. All learning occurs within a set of attitudes and perceptions that either promote or inhibit learning (Dimension 1). Learning is also affected by the extent to which a learner uses the productive habits of mind (Dimension 5). Dimensions 1 and 5, then, form the backdrop for learning; thus, they are in the background of Figure 1.2. They are always factors to consider in the learning process.
Figure 1.2. Unit Planning Guide for Dimension 1: Attitudes and Perceptions

 
Given that a learner has attitudes and perceptions conducive to learning and is using effective habits of mind, the learner‘s first job is to acquire and integrate new knowledge (Dimension 2); that is, the learner must assimilate new knowledge and skills with what she already knows. As we have seen, this is a subjective process of interaction between old and new information. Then, over time, the learner develops new knowledge through activities that help her extend and refine her current knowledge (Dimension 3). The ultimate purpose of learning, though, is to use knowledge in meaningful ways (Dimension 4). As Figure 1.2 indicates, Dimensions 2, 3, and 4 work in concert. As a learner acquires and integrates knowledge (Dimension 2), she also extends and refines it (Dimension 3). And using knowledge meaningfully (Dimension 4) involves extending and refining knowledge.
The five dimensions of learning form a framework that can be used to organize curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In the remainder of this book, I describe in more detail various applications of the Dimensions model. Remember, though, this book is meant to be an introductory companion to the Dimensions of Learning training program. The Teacher‘s Manual for the program (Marzano, Pickering, Arredondo, Blackburn, Brandt, and Moffett 1992) offers multiple strategies described in some depth, whereas this book briefly describes only a few instructional strategies within each dimension, concentrating instead on laying out the research and theory on which the program is based.
Copyright © 1992 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from ASCD.