open only this page or (why?) put into right-frame

discover (and recognize & improve) the

process you intuitively use while you're

Designing Solutions to Solve Problems:

What is problem solving?  With a broad definition of problem – it's any opportunity to make something better, in any area of life – you are problem solving whenever you are trying to make things better by designing a solution for a problem.  This includes almost everything in life, because your problem-solving purpose – for what you want to make better – can be an improved product, activity, relationship, or strategy (in General Design, aka Design) and/or (in Science-Design, aka Science) a better theory about “how things work in the world.”

learning by discovering:  When you explore the main diagrams in my model for problem solving, you will discover.  You will understand the Problem-Solving Actions that people (you, me, and others) typically use when we are “making things better” by solving problems.  These productive Actions are logically organized — so they're easier to understand, and are more effective for helping people (teachers & students, and others) improve their problem-solving skills — in my model for Design Process, i.e. for Problem-Solving Process.

your process of exploring:  In each diagram, observe (and think about) the words & colors and spatial relationships, always asking “what does this mean?  what action is being described?”   Then use what you learn from each diagram, to help you understand the other diagrams.

your process of recognizing:  While you're exploring the diagrams, think about the actions you use (naturally & intuitively) while you are solving problems, and you will recognize that Your Actions are the Problem-Solving Actions you see in the diagrams of Design Process.  In this way, your Discovery Learning will become Recognition Learning.

learning in easy steps:  Using this page will make your process of learning easier than you would expect IF you began by seeing Diagram 3, so you justifiably were thinking “this is too much, it's too complex, and understanding it will be difficult, maybe impossible.”  Why will it be easier?  Three reasons are because...  • instead of the "IF" (with the complex Diagram 3) you will begin with the simpler Diagrams 1 & 2 so you will learn the Actions of Design Process in easy-to-do steps;   • and the Actions of Design Process are comfortably familiar because they are Your Actions, they are “familiar old Actions” you will Recognize, instead of “strange new Actions” you must Learn;   and the Actions of Design Process are logically organized.     { more - why these reasons will make your learning easier and better }

an option:  You can skip what's below and begin exploring the verbal-and-visual diagrams.

two wide scopes:  Design Process has wide scopes for Problem-Solving Activities that include almost everything people do, and for the Problem-Solving Process that is similar (but not identical) for almost everything we do.     { more - why the wide scopes occur  and  how they're useful for education }

two ways to view:  This page belongs in a right-side frame (if necessary, put it there) because most of its links open in the left-side frame, and the two-frame format lets you simultaneously see the ideas in both frames.   /   But if you're viewing on a small-screen tablet or laptop, you can open only this page in the full-width window, so it will be larger.     { more tips for viewing }

my bio:  I'm an enthusiastic educator who earned a PhD in C & I (during life on a road less traveled) by constructing a model for “scientific method” and using this model to analyze “the opportunities for scientific inquiry” in an award-winning biology classroom.  Since then I've generalized this model (for Science Process) to form a model for problem-solving Design Process.   I enjoy writing about education and discussing ideas with other teachers.     { also:  improvising conversation & improvising music }   { contact-email:  craigru57-att-yahoo-daut-caum }

 
 Your process of discovering begins with  
 Diagram 1  -  Define and Solve: 
   
This iterative Cycle (Generate-and-Evaluate)
is the essential foundation of Design Process.
It's used after you
Learn about the Problem-Situation(s),
Define your Objective (for what to make better),
Define your Goals (for an Optimal Problem-Solution).
 
While you're studying this diagram,
think about a Mystery Question by asking
“why is there an arrow on the right side 
 of the Cycle to Generate-and-Evaluate?”
and maybe asking two related questions.
 
 

---

 
Diagram 2  -  Evaluate an Option:
  
Here is my broad definition for an important term:
an Experiment is any activity (Mental or Physical)
that produces Experiences and
lets you make Predictions or make Observations.
 For many years this was my favorite diagram because it 
blends art with logic, integrates Design and Science.
 

  
 
It will be easier to understand Diagram 3 after you
first see all three diagrams simultaneously, so you can get
a “big picture overview” that shows you how they all fit together.
 Below is most of Diagram 1 (its bottom part has been removed) 
and all of Diagram 2
and most of Diagram 3 (the same bottom part has been removed).
 Where is Diagram 2 in Diagram 1 ? 
 Where is Diagram 1 in Diagram 3 ? 
Where is Diagram 2 in Diagram 3 ?
 
How do the “extra parts” of Diagram 3 (its left & right sides) answer
the Mystery Question?   (by explaining why 1 has a right-side arrow)
 

re: the questions "Where is Diagram X in Diagram Y ?",  most of Diagram 2 is inside “the gray box” of Diagram 1  (you see the result of "1-plus-2" on the left side below),  and 3 is basically a combination of 1-plus-2   (below, you can compare Diagram 1+ 2 with 3) or in the language of mathematics, 1 + 2 = 3.   But it's only "basically" (not exactly) because 3 contains many new ideas.  You can search for them (and use hints for finding 22 new ideas) in another page that lets you simultaneously see  the 3 full-diagrams, including “bottoms” for 1 & 3.

 
Diagram 3  -  a model for Design Process:  
In Diagrams 1 & 3, the word "Cycle" shows that
you can choose the option of using an iterative Cycle
to let you improve an Option with Guided Generation when
 critical Evaluation  motivates-and-guides  creative Generation
  by revising the Old Option so it's a closer match with GOALS.
   { using a Cycle is optional, as explained in Action-Sequences } 
 
 

open only this page or (why?) put into right frame

the flexibility of Design Process

options for actions:  The next section describes Action Sequences that people often use while we are solving a problem.  These sequences – that are possible because we have Options for Actions – illustrate how people use a problem-solving process that is similar for almost everything we do, but is not identical, because our Problem-Solving Actions can be combined in many different ways by different people to solve different problems.    /    analogies for flexibility include roadmaps & flowcharts, music theory, a carpenter's tool belt, Lego bricks, and figure skaters:

two kinds of skaters:  When you coordinate your Problem-Solving Process by making Action-Decisions about “what to do next” your flexible improvising IS analogous to the flexible goal-directed improvising of a hockey skater, but IS NOT like the rigid choreography of a figure skater.  When people are solving problems, we often use...

three common Action-Sequences

These occur because they're functionally useful.  You know that they help you make progress toward solving a problem, so when you're deciding “what to do next” the Sequences naturally occur, and you already are using them.  Therefore you don't need to learn the sequences;  instead you can just recognize that "Your Actions [in the Sequences] are the Problem-Solving Actions you see in the diagrams for Design Process."

one kind of Quality Check:  Below, first look at only the left-side diagram.  It shows the central part of Diagram 3 (without the text at top & bottom) so the Actions begin with GENERATE Options.  In the unshaded region, follow the downward flow of action-verbs  —  Generate,  Choose,  Evaluate,  DO by imagining to make,  compare  —  and you're seeing a common Action Sequence.  Why is it commonly used?  Think about each pair of actions, and you'll see the logical motivation:  when you're making Coordination Decisions, Generate logically leads to Choose (i.e. Generate ➞ Choose), then Choose ➞ Evaluate, and so on.  Notice how each Action leads to the next Action.  Why?  Because when a person does one Action, they often think “I can make progress (toward Solving the Problem) if I use the results of this Action to do my next Action.”    /    Then in the region that is lightly shaded (to show that it's optional) follow the left-side arrow upward  —  compare ➞ use ➞ revise ➞ Generate (to complete a Design Cycle with Guided Generation)  —  in a continuation that is done often, but not always.

another kind of Quality Check:  Now study the right-side diagram.  It shows another possibility when you reach a branch point.  Your decision to Evaluate This Option is followed by another decision;  you can choose to Evaluate with either kind of Quality Check, with Predictions (as in left-side diagram) or with Observations (in right-side diagram).  These two Quality Checks are analogous.  In both you do similar verb-Actions in similar Action Sequences (Generate ➞ Choose ➞ make ➞ compare) because you have similar logical answers when asking “how can I make progress?  what should I do next?”

This is a Design Cycle that uses a Predictions-Based Quality Check.	This is a Science Cycle that uses a Reality Check.	This is a Design Cycle that uses an Observations-Based Quality Check.

a different kind of Check:  The middle diagram shows how you “use Science-Design during General Design” when you are surprised because Predictions are not matched by Observations.  When this happens, an Evaluative Comparison (of Predictions & Observations) can help you decide how closely your personal Theory about “how the world works” (and thus “what will happen”) matches “how the world really works” (and “what really does happen”) in a Reality Check.  After this Sequence (make-and-make ➞ compare) you can decide whether to continue (use ➞ revise) and Generate a Revised Theory.

What is (and isn't) shown in the diagrams of Design Process, e.g. in Diagram 3?  Based on your experiences with these Action Sequences, you should be able to answer this question:  Why is an Actions-Diagram like a “superimposed time-lapse photo” but not a snapshot photo?

other options:  Of course, you also can do other kinds of Action-Sequences.  For example, instead of deciding to Evaluate An Option, as in these three Check-Sequences, you might want to Generate Multiple Options (as in a creativity-stimulating strategy of Brainstorm-then-Edit) and delay Evaluation until later.  This would involve a simple decision to “continue Generating Many Options” instead of “Evaluating One Option.”   /    Many other kinds of Action Sequences also are possible – by making different decisions at branch points – and each of these can be useful in some problem-solving situations.  But these three Action Sequences are the most common.

using a roadmap-for-process:  These three Action-Sequences (and others, like Brainstorm-then-Edit) illustrate how people use creative-and-critical thinking in many different ways while we are trying to solve problems and make things better.  When you use these diagrams for problem solving it's analogous to using a map for traveling (by driving, biking, walking, or riding a bus) when you move to a new city.  An external map gives you an accurate “big picture overview” of the city's physical geography and your options for traveling;  this helps you form your own internal map (your mental map that's a mental model, is a mental representation) for the physical geography.  A physical map helps you learn your options when you're moving from one place to another.  Similarly, using Diagram 3 as a “flowchart map” will help you understand your options-for-Actions at the branch points where you can choose the paths you will travel in your problem-solving journey;  and it helps you develop your internal mental maps of cognitive geography.   /   And with both maps, usually your map-using is temporary.  After awhile, with experience – especially when you use metacognition consistently & effectively – you'll KNOW the physical geography of the city (and your options-for-traveling), and with practice you'll KNOW the cognitive geography of problem solving (and your Options-for-Actions).  In another metaphor, you can view your Actions as problem-solving tools — analogous to those in the toolbelt of a carpenter (or mechanic, electrician, plumber,...) — and metacognition helps you improve your tool-choosing wisdom and tool-using effectiveness.

Because you already have done a lot of problem-solving practice in your past, instead of learning new strategies-for-process you can — by doing metacognitive reflections on your “process of thinking” — be recognizing your old strategies-for-process and connecting your process-experiences (old & new) with the process-principles in Design Process.

Whether you're using a roadmap or process-map, the map is useful only if it's accurate, and Design Process is accurate. 

a basic roadmap:  In a very simple model for problem solving, you choose an Objective (for what you want to improve) and understand “what is” in the NOW-State, and imagine “how it could be better” in a future GOAL-State.  Then you do “problem solving” to convert The Now-State into a Desired Goal-State.    /    I found this Old Model – it's “public domain” (is not part of Design Process) – by searching our collective memory.  Its simplicity gives it practical cognitive utility and educational value.     { terms:  a Current Situation & Future Situation also can be called Now-State & Goal-State.   And other terms are possible. }

When you develop your own mental model for problem-solving process, you are improving your ability to...

skillfully coordinate your process:  You coordinate your Problem-Solving Process when you ask “what is the best way to make progress in my process?” and decide “what to do next” and do this Action.  How?  To make skillfully effective Action-Decisions you combine cognitive-and-metacognitive awareness of your process (of “where you are” and “where you want to go” in your process, and when you're at a branch point) with conditional know ledge about your Options-for-Action (by knowing what the Options are, and what each Action can do, and the conditions when a particular Action can be useful).

In two of the three common Action Sequences, if you choose to use a Quality Check and you "revise Option" to complete a Design Cycle, you are using...

Guided Generation:  You are motivated to ask "revise Option?" (in Diagram 3) because you want to Generate a New Option that has a closer match between its Actual Properties (in your Predictions or Observations) and the Desired Properties (that are your GOALS for an Optimal Solution).  During this process of critical-and-creative Guided Generation you are using critical Evaluation to motivate-and-guide your creative Generation.  How?  Your Quality Check provides guiding when you notice the differences between Actual Properties (of This Option) and Desired Properties (in your GOALS) so you ask “what is unsatisfactory, and how can these deficiencies be improved?”  Your answers will help guide your critical-and-creative thinking when (for example) you use a creative strategy of “trying out” multiple New Options in quick iterative Cycles of Generation-and-Evaluation in which you “Generate-Evaluate-Generate-Evaluate...”.*  During these repeating Cycles of Design you typically Evaluate by using Mental Experiments — because they're quick-and-easy, compared with Physical Experiments — and this is why Predictions-Based Quality Checks are the most common kind of Action Sequence.     { although Mental Experiments are more common, Physical Experiments can be more important. }    {* five kinds of strategies for creatively Generating Options }    /    Do you see how this paragraph answers the mystery-questions by explaining why-and-how we use Guided Generation?

The Design Question:  When you compare an Option's Actual Properties (either Predicted or Observed) with the Desired Properties that you have defined as Your Goals for an Optimal Solution, why is this comparison called a Quality Check?  Because you're asking “how high is the Quality?” (with Quality defined by your GOALS) when you ask “how close is the match?”  You can think of either question — “how high...” or “how close...” or both — as The Design Question (aka The Engineering Question) that you ask for Evaluation during General Design (aka Design).

The Science Question:  You can be motivated to compare Predictions with Observations – in a Reality Check – in two ways.  Maybe your Main Objective is to intentionally test a Theory, so you're doing a project for Science-Design.  Or maybe you unintentionally notice the comparison during a project for General Design, and you notice a mis-match between Predictions & Observations, so you answer “yes” when asking “am I surprised?” with The Science Question. 

three common Action Sequences – Part 2 This section is in a gray box to show that it's optional, is a "Part 2" that duplicates much of the information from Part 1.  But it can provide “added value” if you're in the mood for learning the sequences in a new way.  Or you may want to explore the educational benefits produced by the two wide scopes of Design Process with my answers for asking “what?  why?  so what?”   Here are three Action-Sequences (⊡ ⊡ ...) that people often use:   ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡   As described above {and shown in the highlighted parts of left-side diagram below}, in one kind of Action-Sequence (⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡) after you   ⊡ Generate Options you   ⊡ Choose an Option {in a second ⊡-Action};   to Evaluate this Option you can {in a set of ⊡-Actions} DO a Mental Experiment to make Predictions, and {in a fourth ⊡} you compare these Predictions with Goals in a Predictions-Based Quality Check;   and maybe {it's an optional fifth ⊡} you "use QC" by asking "revise Option?" in a Design Cycle. ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡   In another Design Cycle that has analogous ⊡-Actions,* you Generate & Choose, then to "Evaluate this Option" you USE a Physical Experiment {as in right-side diagram} to make Observations that you compare with Goals in an Observations-Based Quality Check;  and maybe you use QC and ask "revise Option?"    {* both Design Cycles have the Actions of...   ⊡ Generate,  ⊡ Choose,  ⊡ DO/USE to make,  ⊡ compare,  ⊡ use revise. } ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡ ⊡   People can do Science-Design in different contexts.  Here I'll describe {and you can see in the center diagram} how you Test Your Theory during a project for General Design:   first, you  ⊡ Generate Options, and   ⊡ Choose an Option that you Evaluate in two ways, when you   ⊡ DO a Mental Experiment to make Predictions, and   ⊡ USE a Physical Experiment to make Observations;   then you  ⊡ compare the Predictions and Observations in a Reality Check and ask “am I surprised?” with The Science Question;   if you answer “yes” (because Predictions are not matched by Observations), maybe you will  ⊡ use RC by asking "revise Theory?" and if you decide Yes you will complete a Science Cycle by using Guided Generation to revise the Old Theory and Generate a New Theory;  but you may decide No because you checked the Reality Check and found errors in its Predictions or Observations, or due to the influence of Cultural-Personal Factors in your Goals for a satisfactory Theory.   In a complete Design Cycle with a Predictions-Based Quality Check the Action-Sequence is... Generate and Choose, DO-make, compare, use. In a complete Science Cycle with a Reality Check your Action-Sequence is to Generate & Choose, USE-make, compare, use. In a complete Design Cycle with an Observations-Based Quality Check your Action-Sequence is to Choose, DO-make+USE-make, compare, use.   These three common Action-Sequences — when you Evaluate in a Predictions-Based Quality Check,  Evaluate in a Reality Check,  Evaluate in an Observations-Based Quality Check — are highlighted (in areas that are unshaded & lightly shaded) in the three isolation diagrams.     { a reminder:  instead of Learning you are Recognizing. } Why are these Action-Sequences commonly used?  Because in each sequence “the next step” is functionally useful in helping you solve the problem.  How is it useful?  Because in Action-Sequences, including these & others, typically the sequence occurs when the result of one Action is used in the next Action.  For example, after you   ⊡ Generate one or more Options,   ⊡ you Choose an Option that you want to Evaluate;   ⊡ then with an Experiment you make Information (you DO a Mental Experiment to make Predictions, or USE a Physical Experiment to make Observations, or you do both), and   ⊡ you compare the Information you've made (it's the Predictions or Observations) with Goals (in two kinds of Quality Check) or with each other (in a Reality Check);   ⊡ then maybe you use this Evaluative Check to "revise" and Generate a New Option.   /   Then you can – as one alternative – decide to begin a new Action Sequence, when "first [after Generating Options] you Choose an Option to Evaluate."

open only this page or (why?) put into right frame

This is the beginning of
Part 3 in the web-page.

the Two Wide Scopes of Problem-Solving Process:

what?   With a broad definition of problem – it's an opportunity to make something better, in any area of life – you are problem solving whenever you are trying to make things better, and this includes almost everything you do in life.

what?   My model for Design Process (that is Problem-Solving Process) has a wide scope for Activities because Problem Solving Activities include almost everything we do.  It also has a wide scope for Process because most people use a Problem-Solving Process that is similar (but not identical) for almost everything we do, AND this intuitively-natural process is accurately described by my model for Design Process.

so what?   The two wide scopes (for PS-Activities & PS-Process) are educationally useful because they help us build "transfer bridges" from School into Life, to motivate students when they believe that improving their School-Learning will improve their Life-Living.

the wide scope of the Problem-Solving Activities

that are described by my model for Design Process:

This wide scope occurs for three main reasons.  One reason is my broad definition for problem – it's any opportunity to make something better, in any area of life – so problem solving includes almost everything you do in life, because you are problem solving (verb) whenever you are trying to make something better, and you are a problem solver (noun) whenever you do make something better.

People can make something better in two ways:

     with reactive Problem Solving we "make something better" by improving it (to fix it) after the thing already exists.

     with proactive Problem Solving we “do it better” the first time, so there is no need to "fix it" with reactive improving.

And in three ways, we can solve problems when we make things better, or avoid actions that make things worse, or avoid passive inaction that lets things get worse;  i.e. we can make things better by increasing quality or maintaining quality, by either promoting a helpful change or (in two ways) preventing a harmful change. 

To understand why this wide scope is "described by my model for Design Process" (i.e. for Problem-Solving Process), it's useful to begin by supplementing my model with a generic “public domain” model that is very simple:  You Define a Problem by understanding “what is” in the NOW-State, and imagining “how it could be better” in a GOAL-State.  Then with Problem Solving you use a creative-and-critical process (described by Design Process, or another Model-for-Process) to convert the actual current situation (the NOW-State) into a better future situation (a GOAL-State you want to achieve).

We can translate this process of "Now-State " Goal-State" into the language of Design Process,...

To begin a Problem-Solving Activity you ask “What do I want to achieve?  i.e. What do I want to make better? what problem do I want to solve?”   When you make this decision, you Define Your Problem-Solving Goal — it's what you want to achieve, it's Your Purpose for doing Your Process of Problem-Solving (for doing Your Process of Solution-Designing)* — by choosing to design (to invent or modify or find, or find-and-modify) a better product, activity, relationship, and/or strategy (in General Design, aka Design) and/or (in Science-Design, aka Science) a better explanatory theory about “how things work in the world.”  These Problem-Solving Goals – extending far beyond traditional “design fields” – include almost everything we do in life.   /   * basically, Your Problem-Solving Goal is motivated-and-guided by Your Purpose for What You Want to Achieve.

The main reason that it's "almost everything we do" is because we design-and-use strategies many times every day, in many ways.  In fact, you do this every time you make a decision.  You can design...  • Action-Strategies for "doing it better" with proactive Problem Solving;   • Thinking Strategies (using cognition-and-metacognition) that include Self-Regulated Learning, and   • Time-Strategies by asking “what is the best use of my time now? and later?” so you can wisely use your time, and – because “time is the stuff life is made of” (Ben Franklin) – you will wisely use your life.

the wide scope of human Problem-Solving Process  and

the descriptive accuracy of my model for Design Process:

The introduction for Two Wide Scopes makes a bold claim:  "Most people use a Problem-Solving Process that is similar (but not identical) for almost everything we do, AND this intuitively-natural process is accurately described by my model for Design Process (for Problem-Solving Process)."

To see the similar process and descriptive accuracy, compare The Actions of Design Process — first in Diagrams 1-3 and then in three Action Sequences — with Your Actions in your memories of how you solve problems.  Probably you will think “These Problem-Solving Actions (in Design Process) are My Problem-Solving Actions (in My Life)” so your Discovery Learning becomes Recognition Learning.  This recognition will happen for you and for others, due to the similarity-of-process in general human problem solving, AND because...

Design Process accurately describes Our Process:  A model for problem solving should accurately describe the basic process that people actually do use (intuitively & naturally, and also with conscious intention) while we are solving problems.

Design Process describes "the basic process" — the essential Problem-Solving Actions that we always do — but not the complete process.  These basic actions are necessary, but are not always sufficient, and it's often useful to supplement the principles & strategies of Design Process with the principles & strategies of other Models-for-Process, as explained in Combining My Model with Other Models.

[ iou #1 – Here are some ideas that I will develop before mid-February:  A general principle is that two factors contribute to a model's scope:  whether it's an accurate description, and whether it's describing a simple basic problem-solving action, analogous to a Lego Brick.  For example, below I describe the common model (in public domain) of "Now-State being converted (by problem-solving process) into Goal-State" and this simple-and-accurate model has very wide scope;   in another public-domain model, two of my Diagrams (1 & 2) use an iterative Design Cycle of "Generate Options and Evaluate Options" that is simple-and-accurate, and it has very wide scope.  A feature that is my own invention (afaik) — with "3 Elements (Predictions, Observations, Goals) used in 3 Comparisons (Reality Check, Quality Check, Quality Check)" — is less-simple, but I think it's an accurate description of how people solve problems AND it describes basic processes (like a Lego Brick) so it also has wide scope.  Most other models-for-process describe processes (and sub-processes) that either are more complex (like a Lego Structure, not a Lego Brick) or they are less universally-accurate;  thus they are missing one of the factors (or both) and they have a narrower scope, when compared with each of the two main features of Design Process, its iterative Design Cycles [it's accurate & basic, has wide scope] and 3 Comparisons of 3 Elements [it's accurate & basic, has wide scope]. ]

[ iou #2 – These two sections (about the wide scopes of Problem-Solving Activities & Problem-Solving Process) need to be improved, and I will revise my explanations during February 4-5.  Maybe the revisions will include the following idea:

[ To understand why this wide scope is "described by my model for Design Process" (i.e. for Problem-Solving Process), it can be useful to begin by supplementing my model with a generic “public domain” model that is very simple:  You Define a Problem by understanding “what is” in the NOW-State, and imagining “how it could be better” in a GOAL-State.  Then with Problem Solving you use a creative-and-critical process (described by Design Process, or another Model-for-Process) to convert the actual current situation (the NOW-State) into a better future situation (a GOAL-State you want to achieve).

[ We can translate this process of "Now-State ➞ Goal-State" into the language of Design Process,...

[ To begin a Problem-Solving Activity you define.... ]

some educational benefits of descriptive accuracy:

When students get Problem-Solving Experiences and then Reflect on their Experiences, they will observe themselves doing the Actions of Design Process, and this recognition helps them use a Process-of-Inquiry to discover Principles-of-Inquiry, with Experiences + Reflections ➞ Principles.  This is one way to help students learn more from their problem-solving experiences by developing-and-using Strategies for Thinking.  They will gain many kinds of benefits, because Design Process can be used for cognition-and-metacognition that will improve the problem solving & self-regulating they use in school and in other areas of life.

some educational benefits of the two wide scopes:

The two wide scopes (for PS-Activities & PS-Process) are educationally useful because these — along with the logical organization of Design Process (including its logical integrating of General Design with Science-Design) — let us show students how Design Process promotes transfers-of-learning (across areas & through time), and this can motivate students so they will want to pursue their own personal education when they build bridges from school into life so they get direct benefits by improving their abilities (to learn & perform) plus indirect benefits by improving important attitudes, in their motivations (for wanting to learn) and their confidence (in being able to learn, with a growth mindset).  The wide scope of PS-Activities gives teachers the option of choosing to use Design Process (or not use it) for most of what they do in the classroom, with options ranging from improving basic skills-for-learning to creatively designing a wide variety of fun-and-useful activities.

We can use Design Process to help students

develop-and-apply Thinking Strategies for

metacognitive Self-Regulated Learning:

This is one of the most educationally beneficial ways we can use Design Process.

why?  Based on abundant research, we know that metacognition is highly effective for helping students improve their academic skills (in many ways, including scores on standardized exams) and social-emotional skills.

what?  Two effective strategies are metacognitive self-questioning and (especially) metacognitive Self-Regulated Learning;  combining these is much more effective than either by itself.     { You can see an overview of research results° in a report from Perplexity AI. }

how?  { iou – in mid-February, I'll write an explanation for "how".  Before then you can see the basic ideas in Slides 62-65 of my Idea-Summary in PowerPoint. }

combining models-for-process:   [ iou – during early February, here I'll briefly describe how Design Process can be combined with other models-for-process, in direct applications (like using DP during POE) and indirect applications like supplementing the concepts of Design Process with the concepts of d.school (emphasizing the values of empathy and of developing & using "mindsets" that make your PS-Actions more effective).  I'll write this section by condensing ideas from an overview of Combining My Model with Other Models. ]

learning Design Process

will be easier than you expect:

Initially you could justifiably think “Diagram 3 is complex and will be difficult to understand,” but learning will be easier-and-better than you think because...

you will learn the model in easy-to-do steps:  Learning is easier because you begin by understanding the simpler Diagrams 1 & 2,* then seeing how these “logically fit together” to form Diagram 3.  

the problem-solving process is logically organized:  Learning is better because, reinforcing our intuitive common sense, scientific research shows the benefits of organizing knowledge.    /    The apparent “initial complexity” of Design Process becomes actual “eventual simplicity” when students understand how the actions combine to form a logically organized problem-solving process.  And when they recognize their own problem-solving process in Design Process.  Both of these factors – organization and familiarity – help their model-understanding and their model-using become psychologically intuitive for them.

three questions will help you

answer the Mystery Question:

What?  In the 1st Diagram ("Define and Solve"), why does The Cycle have arrows on both sides?  It's easy to understand its left-side arrow (from Generate to Evaluate) — stop reading and “think about why” if you want to self-discover the reasons — because you must Generate An Option before you can Evaluate This Option, and you should Evaluate an Option before you actualize it with Actions.  But there is...

    • a mystery question:  Why does the cycle have a right-side arrow, from Evaluate to Generate?  Think about this, and then ask...

    • a similar question:  While you're exploring Diagram 2 ("Evaluate An Option"), ask yourself “after I Compare Predictions with Goals in a Quality Check and decide that the quality-of-matching isn't fully satisfactory, what is a useful next action?”   And continue by asking...

    • a related question:  The right side-side arrow points from Evaluate to Generate.  Therefore, ask “after I critically EVALUATE an Old Option, how can this help me creatively GENERATE a New Option?”

All of these are basically the same question.  You can answer it with your own thinking, then confirm what you have discovered in the 3rd Diagram that is followed by my brief explanation.  And a detailed explanation is in a detailed explanation.

a strategy for instruction:  A teacher can use these three questions to “guide the discoveries” of their students, to produce an optimal level of challenge that lets them have more fun and get more satisfaction during their process of learning-by-discovering.

my favorite verbal-and-visual representation...

was Diagram 2 (to "Evaluate An Option")* due to its combination of art-and-logic, with spatial relationships & elegant symmetries in the 3 Comparisons of 3 Elements (Predictions, Observations, Goals - P O G) for two Quality Checks and a Reality Check;  the color-codings for Elements (yellow, green, gold) and Comparisons (yellow-green, blue), plus blue & black text.  This diagram was my favorite – 🙂 – and I hope you also will like it, will appreciate its logical beauty and the principles it summarizes.     { * I say "was" because now it's in second place behind Diagram 1+ 2 (at left) that is my new favorite because it shows The Cycle of Design (in #1) and also The 3 Comparisons (in #2) so it summarizes the essential features of Design Process. }

When the 3 Elements (P & O, G) are used in 3 Comparisons (in 2 Quality Checks for Design, and 1 Reality Check for Science) this leads naturally to the Evaluations that we intuitively use for Design & for Science, including Science-during-Design.  This logical integrating of Design-with-Science in the diagram* will help students understand how they can improve the logical integrating of Design-with-Science in their thinking when they internalize this logic with experience in problem solving.  They will get this problem-solving experience when they practice using the diagram's comparative Evaluations for General Design (aka Design) and for Science-Design (aka Science) by using comparative Quality Checks (to ask The Design Question) and using a comparative Reality Check (to ask The Science Question).     { * Design and Science are logically integrated in Design Process;  by contrast, most other models-for-process describe either Design or Science, but not both. }     { more about connections between Design and Science }