Abstract
- Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
- Center for Gifted Education. (1998). Threads of change in 19th century American literature. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
- Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.
- Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Thinking skills and curriculum development. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed., pp. 301–324). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Hughes, C. E. (2000). A comparative study of teaching critical thinking through persuasive writing to average, gifted, and students with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
- Kral, E. A. (1997). Scientific reasoning and achievement in a high school English course. Skeptical Inquirer, 21(3), 34–39.
- Langer, J. A. (1995). Literature and learning to think. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10, 207–226.
- Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Marzano, R. J. (1991). Cultivating thinking in the English language arts. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
- National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1990). Learning to write in our nation’s schools: Instruction and achievement in 1988 at grades 4, 8, and 12. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
- National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL & Newark, DE: Authors.
- Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
- Raths, L. G., Wasserman, S., Jones, A., & Rothstein, A. (1986). Teaching for thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.
- Smith, F. (1990). To think. New York: Teachers College Press.
- Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development, theory, and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
- United States Department of Education. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: Author.
- VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 164–169.
- VanTassel-Baska, J. (Ed.). (1994). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- VanTassel-Baska, J. (1995). The development of talent through curriculum. Roeper Review, 18, 98–102.
- VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D. T., Hughes, C., & Boyce, L. N. (1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461–480.
- VanTassel-Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L., & Little, C. A. (in press). A study of curriculum effectiveness in language arts for high-ability learners.
- Volume 13
- Issue 2
- Publication Date: Winter 2002
Reasoning as a Key Component of Language Arts Curricula
Catherine Little
One of the central purposes of education is not only to provide students with the information they need to face and understand the world around them, but also to provide the skills they need in order to analyze that world and manage the various types of issues and problems they will encounter. Considerable debate exists in education as to whether and how critical thinking should be taught and encouraged in schools. Among the many existing models of thinking, Paul’s (1992) elements of reasoning stand out as a strong foundation for careful consideration of issues in and out of the classroom. The model represents a strong core of higher level thinking that can be embedded within content areas, especially language arts and social studies, so that students have the opportunity to recognize and assess their thinking processes as part of their central content, rather than as a disconnected piece unto itself. Applications of the model to specific learning activities in existing language arts curricula include questioning strategies, persuasive writing, and research.
Cart Summary
Your cart is empty.