egies for dealing with such situations were limited, even simplistic: “Get more
sleep; take a break; think about something fun.” They often passed the re-
sponsibility on to another: “Ask the teacher for help; have the coach check in
with you; ask someone who has already done it.”
Though this data is informal and one should not make too much of it, the
contrast with the same students’ understanding of issues of fairness and truth
was striking. Both spotting occasions and suggesting remedies, even in the re-
flective sense probed through discussion, seemed impoverished when it came
to self-direction. This is understandable. The concept of self-direction does
not receive as much natural play in students’ social interactions as does truth
or fairness. Furthermore, the metacognitive demands of self-direction make
it more complex. Students do not encounter such situations in the same kind
of direct way they do issues of fairness and truth. Therefore, the conse-
quences of poor self-direction and the sense that one could do better may be
less acutely felt than matters of fairness and truth.
HOW SETTINGS CAN DEVELOP GOOD THINKERS
The notion that thinking can be taught is as old as the Greek rhetoriticians,
who systematically cultivated the art of argument albeit not always for noble
ends. Today a number of approaches to teaching thinking of various sorts
thrive, with diverse philosophies, frameworks, and track records. Although
the prospects of teaching thinking have been challenged from several quar-
ters, there is clear evidence that at least some interventions are effective—see
for example the reviews in Grotzer and Perkins (2000), Nickerson (1989),
Nickerson, Perkins, and Smith (1985), Perkins (1995), and Perkins and Grot-
zer (1997).
That said, most programs do not attend directly and systematically to
dispositional aspects of thinking, although they may foster dispositions as a
side-effect. In the context of the present discussion, it becomes important to
ask: What might instruction designed to cultivate the dispositional side of
thinking look like?
One view of this argues that culture is the best teacher of dispositions (cf.
Dewey, 1922, 1933; Tishman et al., 1993, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). Plainly peo-
ple pick up much of their general alertness and attitudes from the culture
around them, as part of becoming streetwise about whatever streets one
walks. A culture in the classroom, the family, or the workplace that fore-
ground values of thinking and encouraged attention to thinking would likely
instill street wisdom about thinking. Moreover, an enculturative approach
helps to avoid a dilemma inherent in the concept of dispositions: They cannot
be taught as directly as skills because dispositions are not procedural. Stu-
dents cannot straightforwardly practice up values and commitments that mo-
374 PERKINS AND RITCHHART