An Interview with Stan Progrow: About Higher Order Thinking Skills in an Age of No Child Left Behind
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Michael F. Shaughnessy
Senior Columnist EducationNews.org
Eastern New Mexico University
Portales, New Mexico

Stanley Pogrow is currently Professor of Education at the San Francisco State University. He received his Ph.D.from Stanford University in 1976.

He is well known for his research on school reform, school improvement and specifically accelerating the learning of disadvantaged students. He has also done work on computer applications in education and has taught courses on managing curricular change, computer applications, developing thinking skills and school reform in the U.S. He is most well known for his H.O.T.S. (Higher Order Thinking Skills) program. In this interview, he discusses his current research, reflects on concerns in the field and addresses concerns regarding educational psychology and educational research in general. He can be reached by electronic mail at stanpogrow@att.net

In this interview he discusses his latest research and an up coming article to be published in Phi Delta Kappan this September.

MS:   You have recently had a major article accepted for publication in Phi Delta Kappan.  What was the main point of your article?
SP:    The main point of the article is to describe how we can substantially reduce the learning gap and accelerate the AYP (Annual Yearly Progress) of low-income and special education subgroups.  However, the validated approach, while practical, is very counterintuitive, particularly in times of accountability pressures. 

In explaining how to reduce the gap and accelerate the learning of at-risk subgroups, this article does two main things.  The first is to explain why appropriate types of thinking development, particularly after the third grade, is the key to reducing the gap, particularly in the era of No Child Left Behind when schools and districts are trying to raise the AYP of at-risk subgroups by increasing skill development and test prep time. 

However, while relying on increasing skill development and test prep time is a seductive and intuitive approach, it has repeatedly failed in earlier accountability periods.  The problem is that increasing time spent on skill development has rapidly diminishing returns and actually inhibits test score gains after the third grade. Indeed, the mistake has become even more extreme as some districts are spending up to 3 hours a day just for reading skill development.

The best kept secret in American education is that the way to maximize the test scores of educationally disadvantaged children after the third grade is not to increase remediation and test prep time, but rather to do a balanced approach of skills development and thinking development.   By reflexively reacting to No Child Left Behind by increasing basic skills and test prep, schools are not only inhibiting the intellectual development of low income students, they are restricting test score growth. The problem is not the tests. The problem is how we are reacting to the pressure to raise test scores.  Rather than adding time for basic skills, the key is to increase the quality of regular instruction time, and then to use the extra time for the right type of thinking development.
The second thing the article does is to describe: a) what the right type of thinking development is, and b) the conditions under which thinking development accelerates test score growth for low-income subgroups after the third grade.  The findings that are described are based on twenty-five years of large-scale research with the Higher Order thinking Skills (HOTS) program for Title I and LD students.  This research, which spans 2600 schools and half a million low-income students, has consistently shown that thinking development after the third grade produces three times the growth in reading comprehension as compared to extra remedial training.

This research has been done across a wide variety of old and new tests.  In addition to increases in reading and math scores (math increases about twice as much as with a remediation/test prep approach), measures of thinking and social development also increase.  

However, the most significant outcome of this large-scale research has been to scientifically show how to organize, balance, differentiate, and integrate thinking development in ways that substantially improve test scores. This article not only describes how much time is needed for thinking development, but also how to sequence different forms of thinking development after the third grade.   Indeed, HOTS' ability to produce basic skill gains from a thinking development approach is historically unique.  The article explains why it worked, why other thinking development efforts did not work, and the significance of the knowledge produced from research around the use of the program.

MS:   Can you tell us a little bit about the needed sequence of thinking development for at-risk students after the third grade? 

SP:    First of all, it is critical to understand why the post grade 3 period is so critical. There is forty years of research showing that even when Title I students get off to a good start in grades k-3, they level off in the fourth grade, and then fall increasingly behind thereafter.  This doesn't happen because there is a problem with the k-3 instruction.  It happens because after the third grade the curriculum becomes more sophisticated and requires more advanced information processing than before. In other words, in grades K-3 you're learning to read, and after the third grade, you're reading to learn.

What this means is that after the third grade students need to employ a whole different set of cognitive processes, such as thinking abstractly and being reflective, to succeed.  Low-income students need a new set of thinking reflexes and instincts, which cannot be developed from being taught content basic skills. The mind can be trained to make the transition from basic learning to sophisticated creative comprehension after the third grade.  However, we've never done that.

MS: Wait a minute. We have had thinking development movements in the past.  Why didn't these prepare disadvantaged students to make the post grade 3 transition?

SP:   You are right, Mike.  However, prior thinking development movements did not work because they always focused on integrating thinking into the learning of content.  Trying to develop fundamental instincts of reflection and abstraction, while also trying to learn content at the same time simply does not work.  Thinking is like a language.  Having thinking infused into math is like trying to learn math being taught in a foreign language.  For that to work you first have to learn the foreign language and then you can learn the math in that language.  As a result, when low-performing at risk students were historically moved directly into thinking in content their scores tended to decline.  Not only did they not learn to think, they were also unable to learn the math.
What we have shown with HOTS is that the equivalent to first learning the foreign language to learn the content taught in that language, is to first develop a sense of understanding to enable t he students to do thinking in content. 

Developing a sense of understanding means that students have a fundamental instinct to: a) generalize everything beyond the immediate context, b) search the context for clues for what they do not understand, c) synthesize available information, and d) reflectively look for strategies for solving problems.  Until low-income students develop a sense of understanding they cannot benefit from thinking integrated into content, and their ability to master the application of basic skills is limited. A sense of understanding is really a prerequisite to learning anything advanced after the third grade. 

The reason that disadvantaged students often come to school with no sense of understanding has nothing to do with their intellectual potential, nor does it mean that they don't have equal intellectual ability as advantaged students.  They do.  However, their minds are like a powerful engine that has not yet turned over due to a lack of fuel. 

MS:  How is this different for advantaged students?

SP:  Advantaged students generally, but not always, come to school with a basic sense of understanding due to greater access to interacting with adults about ideas.  So for them, the thinking development sequence is to move them right into thinking in content.  Low-income students, on the other hand, generally first need an additional developmental stage, to develop a sense of understanding, before they can succeed in thinking in content.  So the innovation in the HOTS project was to accept that while the primary goal was to get all students to succeed in thinking in content, you have to first differentiate the thinking development approach for low-income students to first develop a sense of understanding.

MS:  How can you tell whether students do not have a sense of understanding?

SP:    When you ask open-ended questions, or you ask questions that require extending the use of learned skills-you, largely get blank stares.  Alternatively, you get the proverbial student complaint that: "You didn't teach that to us."
The lack of understanding limits test scores because unless you have taught them to answer questions exactly as posed on the test, they do not know what to do.

MS:   Is that because of their limited vocabulary or limited concepts? 

SP:    No! It's because they don't have a sense of understanding on how to take and extend that which they have been taught and project it into a new situation.

MS:   There's no transfer learning or generalization?

SP:    Right!  And they're not truly learning.  They cannot apply the reading skills and use them to solve novel tasks, develop strategies.  They cannot see the implications of the taught content, or its relation ship to other ideas.  Whether it's learning vocabulary or a new principle of mathematics, the content and skills are viewed by the student as discrete pieces of information that they are largely only able to regurgitate in the form it was learned.  These disconnected skills and content tidbits are not literacy.  That's why for example, in Houston, centerpiece of the Texas "miracle", when 10 th graders who had passed the TAAS state test every year were given a different test, they scored at the 5 th percentile - not the 50 th - the 5 th percentile .  Because the same type of information was being asked in a different form they didn't know what to do. These "miracle" students were essentially illiterate.  It wasn't that the test was bad; it was that the instructional strategy, the sole reliance on skill drilling and test preparation provided in the absence of a sense of understanding, did not enable the students to be literate and strategic about the use of the skills and knowledge.

MS: Is this what limits the test performance of at-risk subgroups after the third grade?

SP: Yes.

MS:  So, if developing a sense of understanding is the Holy Grail that enables the students to do substantially better on tests while also developing intellectually and socially, the key question is: How do you develop a sense of understanding?

SP:  Our successful large-scale experience is that the only way to develop a sense of understanding in low-income students is through extensive Socratic conversation about ideas. In Socratic techniques the teacher is always asking questions instead of telling students what to do.  The computer is used to provide visual challenges in which students can test their ideas dynamically.  Students then are challenged to verbalize their ideas and strategies, which the teacher questions to stimulate deeper thinking.  Intellectual growth follows growth in the sophistication of students' verbalization which comes from accumulated experience in puzzling through ideas.  The teacher never tells them what to do, but always asks follow-up questions to probe students' ideas, strategies, and conclusions-all the time pressing students to verbalize their ideas.  It takes time because a sense of understanding cannot be taught, but rather it is a cultural predisposition that is developed through repeated, valued experience in doing it.  Over time, students gain sufficient experience in developing their own ideas and strategies through a reflective process that it becomes an automatic second nature process.  The sophistication of their verbalization increases dramatically.  They now have internalized a sense of understanding.

MS:  How much such conversation and time is needed to develop a sense of understanding?

SP:  Our research has worked out the science of how long it takes to develop a sense of understanding, how much time is required each day, what types of conversations, and how schools should implement it.  These details are provided in the upcoming Phi Delta Kappan article.  In addition, the HOTS program provides a specific option in terms of curriculum and teacher training for implementing the process.

All I will say in this interview is that t he amount of time required is multi-year but practical, and can be provided either during the school day or after school.  In addition, the conversations: a) have to be intense and systematic for an extended period of time, and b) are best provided between the middle of the third grade through the eighth grade. In addition, schools can implement this process at one level, say elementary or middle school, and then upgrade the thinking in content component of their regular curriculum at the next level.

MS: Must you wait till the fourth grade to have thinking development conversations?

SP: No! Such conversation is always valuable.  In addition, we have some evidence that when the conversations start earlier it does enable students to develop a sense of understanding more quickly, and perhaps a bit earlier.  It also helps with learning ear lier.  At the same time, it is not clear that one can fully develop a sense of understanding much earlier for developmental reasons.  In addition, you may want to spend a bit more time on basic skills in the K-3 period than later in order to produce a base of needed skills.

MS:  Do the Socratic conversations have to be linked to the regular classroom content or tested skills?

SP:   No! And that is the most counter-intuitive idea of all.  Keep in mind that I do believe that regular skill and content instruction should be aligned to the test.

MS:  So you are proposing two differentiated, yet parallel, instructional strategies for a period of time after grade 3.

SP: Yes.  Basic skills aligned to the test, and general thinking developed via sophisticated conversation that is not aligned. 

MS: Then how can a sense of understanding increase test scores? 

SP:  Once students develop a sense of understanding they automatically generalize and extend the skills and knowledge they are receiving during regular content instruction.  So everything is learned deeper the first time it is taught.  As a result, it increases the efficiency of learning around everything that is being taught, and students are able to retain content better as it is stored in their minds in a more fluid fashion. That is a fancy way of saying they are better able to apply what they have learned.  This assumes, of course, that they are being taught knowledge and skills that are aligned with state standards.

MS: Do you mean that transfer is occurring?  Do you have any evidence for this?

SP: It appears to be so.  Indeed, the most important finding discussed in the article is evidence that transfer has occurred, and that the single intervention is able to produce a wide variety of measurable gains.  The gains are not only across content areas as measured by GPA, but also in selective measures of problem solving and intelligence.

MS:  Is producing the gains a long-term process?

SP:  No.  You see the gains in the first year.

MS: Where can schools find the time on a daily basis to develop a sense of understanding? 

SP:    While you can do it after school, there is plenty of time to do it during the school day-if schools are willing to bite the bullet and stop spending extra time remediating the low-income students, and piling on lots of extra test prep. 

In other words, if you're spending two-three hours a day teaching reading and language arts, and reduce that to an hour, or an hour and 20 minutes, that frees up lots of time.  You can add something like HOTS and still have extra time, and your test scores will be substantially higher for low-income subgroups as a result of the substitution.  There is really no need to be spending more than an hour a day on reading skills after the third grade.  (You may want to spend more time prior to grade 3 in a balanced approach.)

MS:   You probably save time in the long run. 

SP:    And you'll have much better students and schools.  Unfortunately, schools are once again primarily reacting to accountability pressures by assuming that low-income students need lots more skill development and tutoring which is a failed self-defeating strategy.  

MS: Is HOTS the only way to develop a sense of understanding?

SP: No.  The key knowledge in the article is how much, and what types of conversation, are required.  Follow these principles and students will develop a sense of understanding.  Indeed, I hope the article will stimulate lots of different types of approaches to developing a sense of understanding. At the same time, periodic, occasional discussion of ideas is not sufficient.  Nor is talking to students about ideas where students do not verbalize in sophisticated ways effective.  Students need to be systematically prepared and stimulated to talk about their ideas in sophisticated ways.

MS:   How important is the social emotional development is your scheme of things?

SP:    That's like asking which instrument in an orchestra is the most important.  I think if you ask which outcome, test scores, social development, or intellectual development is the most important, you are starting down the wrong path. The history of education over the last hundred years is that people argue which is more important, with each group capturing the attention of the profession for a period and going off the deep end.  My work shows that rather than debating which is most important, if you properly balance and sequence thinking development, and properly integrate it with skills development, you can simultaneously produce high levels of all the desired outcomes.  In other words, you produce a win-win-win situation.

MS: What is the big challenge for you now?

SP: There are two.  The first is to rebuild the HOTS program in the face of the recent past where individuals opted for one size fits all comprehensive school reform models such as Success for All, Accelerated Schools, etc., and are now opting for dramatic increases in skill development and test prep time.

The second challenge is to get districts with significant numbers of low-income students to phase in thinking development on a more systematic way on a feeder pattern basis.  That means that all schools in a feeder pattern work on developing a sense of understanding in those students who lack it at either the elementary or middle school levels, and then the receiving school at the next level can upgrade the quality of its regular content courses.  The receiving school will now have a critical mass of students able to learn at a more sophisticated and reflective level.  The entering students will be socially, emotionally, and cognitively far more advanced.  Now, instead of trying to cope with failure, the receiving school has the challenge of how to best take advantage of its students' new capabilities.  The low-income students are now able to perform in thinking in content as well as anyone.  Unfortunately, despite having worked with 2600 schools, we have never had a situation where HOTS had been used strategically on a feeder pattern basis.

MS: Are you optimistic?

SP:  I am always optimistic and hopeful.  HOTS was borne in the last accountability movement in the 80's, and quietly and unexpectedly became the most successful intervention for accelerating the growth of Title I and LD students after the third grade.  The knowledge generated from this work is unique and has stood the test of time.  I can only hope that once again significant numbers of administrators will step back from adopting the seductive drill and kill approach and opt for a more balanced and sophisticated approach.

MS:  If readers want to learn more about HOTS, where can they get that information?

SP:   They can go to:  http://web.archive.org/web/20061004000736/http://www.hots.org/or contact me by e mail.

MS:  In summary the main point of your article that will appear if Phi Delta Kappa in the fall is.?

SP:    That if you combine the right sequence of thinking development with the right amount of skills developments you will get beyond AYP and achieve SYP, Superior Yearly Progress, for the most disadvantaged subgroups.  We have only scratched the surface of the type of growth we are capable of generating, but we have to avoid the temptation of providing evermore tutoring and remediation.  Sophisticated learning outcomes require the use of sophisticated thinking development interventions taught by good teachers in accordance with the principles outlined in the Phi Delta Kappan article.  I hope that readers will enjoy the article.