Talk:Higher-order thinking: Difference between revisions

Education Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Higher order thinking skills was copied or moved into Higher-order thinking with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Merger Proposal Higher order thinking skills and Higher-order thinking. Enough said, right? It might even be advisable to merge both pages back to Bloom's Taxonomy, maybe under a subsection practical concerns. In any case, it's been quite some time since I last logged on, and would appreciate it if someone else could process the merger. Thanks, samwaltz (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that Higher order thinking skills and Higher-order thinking should be merged. Not sure if merging back to Bloom's Taxonomy is necessary, however I can see why that might be appropriate. Thedeepestblue (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging is not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.118.33 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They either need to be merged or made different....as they stand, the content is practically the same. I vote to merge. DNApop (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain the exact relationship to "higher order learning"? 193.140.194.148 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a step forward if the range of higher cognitive thinking and learning skills expanded.

They should also included the awareness of the non-cognitive design in our natural world. That involves the recognition of "natural systems" and their "complex relationships", as we deal so much with in cultural, ecological, economic and personal behavioral contexts. They're all forms of complex organization that emerge by development as a complex environmental process. They're normally learned about holistically, using both a kind of whole system empathy and careful pattern recognition, like good moms get amazingly good at, as well as good politicians and scientists too.

Some advanced new methods of research on natural complex systems and relationships exist, like mine, for recognizing organization in nature from its continuities of change. ^{[1] [2]}JLHenshaw 17:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)