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

This is a Models-Page that will help you

discover (and recognize & improve) the

process you intuitively use while you're

designing solutions to solve problems:

learning by discovering:  When you explore the main diagrams in my model for problem solving, you will discover.  You will understand the creative-and-critical 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.

an option:  I think you will enjoy first using a new PowerPoint section — with 7 slides (23-29) that will help you learn from Your Discoveries & My Explanations — and then returning to Diagram 1 in this page.

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 Problem-Solving Actions in Your Everyday Life are the Problem-Solving Actions in 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 }

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 }

a short bio:  I'm an enthusiastic educator (with a PhD in C & I ) who wants to share ideas with co-enthusiasts.   { a longer bio }     /    contact-email:  craigru57-att-yahoo-daut-caum

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, with a new kind of description with ⊡'s.  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 your Action-Sequence is Generate, Choose, DO-make, compare, use.	In a complete Science Cycle with a Reality Check you Generate { Theory-Options}, Choose, DO-make + USE-make, compare, use.	In a complete Design Cycle with an Observations-Based Quality Check your Action-Sequence is Generate, Choose, DO-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."

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.

iou – during March 10-15, I'll write an introduction to explain how Design Process integrates the methods people use for General Design and for Science-Design, by cotrast with most models-for-process that – as you see in the diagrams – describe the process for only-Design (top) or only-Science (middle) but not for both Science-AND-Design (bottom) as in Design Process.

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.   [ iou – during March 9-10, I'll be revising this section. ]    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, the Top Part) and also The 3 Comparisons (in 2, the Bottom Part) so 1+ 2 summarizes two 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 }

iou – March 17-21, I'll condense-and-revise the sections below, which explain how we make Predictions and make Observations, how we use Old-and-New) during Design Process.  These sections are in a "brown box" to show that they need to be revised.

Predictions and Observations

how we make Predictions:

inductive reasoning:  The most common way for a person to predict — it happens every time you “imagine what will happen” so Diagram 3 explains that “by imagining a Situation” you "make Predictions" — is by using logical experience-based induction.  You do this by assuming that “what happened before (in similar situations) will happen again.”  Asking “what is similar (in previous Situations & the current Situation) and what is different?” will help you do better Predicting, and have a level of confidence that is more appropriate.

deductive reasoning:  But in some Situations a person uses logical theory-based deduction.  How?  Based on a Personal Theory (that often agrees with a Scientific Theory, but not always)* you use if-then logic by thinking “if My Theory (about how the world works, and what will happen) accurately corresponds to reality and what I expect to occur does occur, then       will happen” and you fill the blank with your Prediction.    {more about deductions}

deductive-plus-inductive:  People usually combine these two kinds of logic (inductive & deductive) when we make Predictions, with the balance differing from one Prediction-Situation to another.  This also happens in computer simulations — in forecasts for weather or climate;  for football (in predictions about games, pre-game analysis of videos & data,...);  with GPS (in suggestions for routes, predictions of ETA's);  and in other simulations — that use a combination induction-and-deduction, with the balance differing from one kind of simulation to another.

things we predict :  Obviously people predict “what will happen” or (more accurately) “what probably will happen” and you use these Predictions in Reality Checks.  But in "what will happen" the "what" often predicts the characteristics of an Option that is being Evaluated (in a Quality Check) as a possible Problem-Solution.  And when your objective is to design a Strategy – especially when it's a Strategy to improve a Relationship – you may predict the behaviors of people, of yourself or others, or both.  Or during Experimental Design you can predict “what might happen” and “what could be learned” if you do an Experiment.  And there are other possibilities, like those described in a research report about these four paragraphs that I will format – by writing a Table of Contents and making links (in that page and in this section) – during September 23-25.

how you make Observations:

When you DO a Mental Experiment "by imagining" you always "make Predictions."  By contrast, a Physical Experiment just "lets you make Observations" because sometimes you USE the Experiment to make Observations, but you don't have to do this, so you don't always do it.

How and What?  In some Experimental Situations you can make Observations directly with your internal human senses (to see, hear, touch, taste, smell) and/or indirectly with external measuring-instruments (a ruler, weighing scale, watch, thermometer,...).  These two source-types let you get information that is qualitative or quantitative, can be represented verbally (with words,...) or visually (in graphs, photos or videos,...) or mathematically (with numbers, equations,...) or in other ways.

simultaneously Observing-and-Predicting:

This occurs continuously in your everyday life because your Actions can be mainly (but not only) Mental, or mainly (but not only) Physical, or plenty of both with Physical-plus-Mental.

It will be easier to understand the what-how-why by thinking about examples from “ball sports” like basketball, football, and soccer.  A basketball player who has the ball is making Observations (about where all players are now) AND is making Predictions (about where they will be soon) that are being compared with Goals (in Quality Checks) so they can make an Action-Decision about where to pass the ball, or to dribble it or shoot it.  A skilled player can do the Problem-Solving Actions in Diagram 3 very quickly (in their system of subconscious-plus-conscious) so they can make a quick Action-Decision that is likely to be productive.  At the same time, all other players (offensive & defensive) are Observing-Predicting-Comparing so they also can make productive Action-Decisions about where they will move and what they will do.

In your everyday Actions, you do similar “simultaneous Observing-and-Predicting” in a wide variety of different ways.

Defining Goals

Defining Goals is special kind of "Prediction" (actually it's "Predicting" because it isn't true Predicting but has many similarities along with a key difference), not Predn for probab of happening, but for imagining the desirability of future Goal-State state IF it happens. / true Predn --> WHAT might happen + PROBAB (HOW LIKELY)

into #eae

With a broad definition of Experiment most of your everyday Experiences involve Mental Experimenting and/or Physical Experimenting.  The "and/or" includes "and" because people often do both kinds of Experimenting simultaneously. / pure Mental (common) but pure Physical (uncommon, usually is Physical-plus-Mental, P-and-M, @ws#dpmo-Intro for Actions, M P M-and-P)

using Old and New:

Diagram 3 says "GENERATE Options (Old or New) for a Solution" because you can Invent a New Option, or maybe – instead of “reinventing the wheel” – you will Find an Old Option and “use a wheel” (as-is or modified) if this will be an effective Problem-Solution.  Both of these Actions, by Inventing or Finding, are ways to Generate an Option.

More generally, Old Knowledge (that already exists) can include Options (for a Solution or Theory) and also Problem-Situations & associated Solution-Goals;  plus Experimental Systems (Mental or Physical) & associated Predictions or Observations.

You get Knowledge from Experiences, and your Total Experiences — in your First-Hand Experiences (happening to you) and Second-Hand Experiences (happening to others, but known by you) — include Knowledge that is Old (it's remembered in your personal memory or is found in our collective memory that is “culturally remembered” with books, web-pages, audio & video, etc;  or it's learned directly from another person) so it's Old, but also is New (is being experienced now in your sensory perceptions & your thinking-and-feeling, is both conscious and subconscious).     { finding-and-using Old Knowledge is Mode 2A in the 10 Modes of Action }

Your total experiences include your first-hand experiences with events you personally Observe (that you remember in your Personal Memory, from your own experience in the distant past or recent past) plus the second-hand experiences (found in our Collective Memory) that were Observed by someone else, then later (in a report or recording) you hear it and/or see it, or (in a web-page, tweet, book,...) you read about it.

combining Old and New:  You want the best of both, for productive thinking that effectively combines relevant knowledge with creative thinking and critical thinking.  You want a solid foundation of knowledge about what has been & now is (the Old & Present) plus flexible thinking that lets you freely imagine what could be (the New & Future).  During your Process of Problem Solving when you're trying to Design a Satisfactory Solution, this combination lets you consider the full range of Old Options AND expand this range by creatively inventing New Options.   /   How?  By using five Thinking Strategies Thinking Strategies for creatively using cognition-and-metacognition to Generate New Options. Thinking Strategies to Generate New Ideas.

extra idea:  choose to design (to invent or modify or find, or find-and-modify) a

two ways to learn:

iou – I'll revise this section during February 25-28, by revising the ideas below and supplementing them with ideas from other sections:

You can improve your understanding by learning from your discoveries – as in a Discovery Page — and also from my explanations.

Students are learning in both ways when you ask them to carefully study three diagrams  —  (Define and Solve),  (3 Comparisons of 3 Elements),  (Guided Generation in Design Cycles)  —  by examining each diagram and...

    • asking “what is the meaning?” for every word & phrase, and (in the diagrams and their explanations-with-text) for the colors;
    • asking “how are these two things connected?” for every arrow;
    • thinking about “why the spatial relationships are logically meaningful” ...

and also (during each • ) thinking about how all of this describes the actions you use while you are solving problems.  When you reflect on your own experiences, your Process of Discovery will become a Process of Recognition because you will recognize that Design Process accurately describes the Problem-Solving Actions that you use when you are solving problems.   /   also:  Because problem solving has two wide scopes, people use a similar Problem-Solving Process for most Problem-Solving Activities, and these include almost everything we do in life.

applications for education:  A classroom teacher can help students learn Principles for Problem Solving in both ways — from their discoveries (recognitions) and from explanations — during classroom activities that have been designed to guide students in a process of Experience + Reflection ➞ Principles that uses a process-of-inquiry to help them understand principles-for-inquiry, i.e. to understand principles for problem solving.

Because of this focus on their own actions, Discovery Learning (that actually is Recognition Learning) can work much better for learning procedural knowledge (i.e. Problem-Solving Process) than it does for learning declarative knowledge (aka factual knowledge);  e.g. I know chemistry well, and almost everything I know is due to Learning from Explanations – by hearing and (especially) reading others – not Learning by Discovery.

[[ also -- link to ws#cmei or home#cmei -- and to #is0 early? ]]

EDU -- Your studying may stimulate you to think about the process of “doing Evaluations while you are Solving Problems” in new ways, or maybe it will show what you already have been thinking.   /   two ways to learn:  I think you'll enjoy your discoveries, and also my explanations.

iou – during March 13-15, I will begin writing sections about Essential Actions  —  Learn,  Define Goal & Define Goal-Criteria,  Choose an Option (to be your Problem-Solution) and Actualize this Option  —  in the two text-boxes (at Top & Bottom) of Diagrams 1 and 3.

iou – March 17-21, I'll condense-and-revise the sections below, which explain how we make Predictions and make Observations, how we use Old-and-New) during Design Process.  These sections are in a "dark brown box" to show that they need to be revised.

Levels of Design Process

what an Actions Diagram IS and ISN'T:  In my model for Design Process, an Actions Diagram shows the multiple Actions that can occur at different times – not simultaneously – during a process of problem solving.  Therefore a diagram IS NOT a snapshot photo of what is happening at any specific time.  Instead each multi-action diagram IS like a photo that shows the superimposing of all Actions that have occurred in a time-lapse video of “the Action being done now” (at many different now-times) during an entire process of problem solving, so all of the separate Actions are visible in a single photo.

what an Actions Diagram IS and ISN'T :  When we ask “is there a Method?” for Scientific Method {or “is there a Process?” for Design Process}, why is the best answer No and Yes?   It's NO because there is not a rigid long-term sequence of steps for a Method {or Process} that is used in the same way by all people, in all areas, at all times.   But it's YES because – with a less restrictive definition of method {or process} – people do tend to be more effective when we use strategic goal-directed Actions, and these Actions are shown in the Action Diagrams for Design Process.  Although it's YES you use a flexible process that is analogous to the goal-directed improvising of a hockey player, but not the rigid choreography of a figure skater.  Therefore an Actions Diagram ISN'T a single fixed sequence – although you often use common Action Sequences – but it IS like a roadmap showing many branch-points where you can decide “what to do next” to coordinate your Process of Problem Solving.     { Design Process includes Science Process }

Design Process is a family of models:  The process of solving problems can be described in many different ways.  One option is to use the many sub-models within my model for Design Process.*  Each sub-model has an Actions-Diagram that is accurate in different ways — because each model selects different Actions to include & exclude — and is educationally useful in different ways.  All models are similar because each describes the same overall Design Process;  but each is different (so they are semi-similar) because each model includes – and thus encourages a student to think about – different aspects of the overall process.   /   * Another option is to use the usefully-detailed descriptions in 10 Modes of Action.

using multiple models for instruction:  Having a variety of sub-models gives teachers flexibility in designing their instruction, so they can use a progression – beginning with simplicity and gradually building complexity – to help students understand the sub-models and the overall model.  And it's practical for students, encouraging them to “think in different ways” for different problems, because their problem-solving process varies from one life-situation to another.   /   When using Design Process the three main sub-models are all that's necssary, but SRL-with-DP also is valuable because metacognitive Thinking Strategies are valuable.   /   I've developed many other models, e.g. these 19 that include a Clicker Map. d in a research report° – gen

using a simpler model:  You can see a progression from simplicity to complexity when Diagrams 1 & 2 are combined to form Diagram 3, with “1+2 = 3”.  Or a teacher can begin with a model that is simpler:  first you choose an Objective (for what you want to improve) and understand “what is” in the NOW-State, and imagine “what it could be” in a future GOAL-State, and how this would be better;  then you do “problem solving” to convert The Now-State into a Desired Goal-State.    /    I found this Old Model – it's “public domain” (it isn't part of the model I've constructed for Design Process) – by searching our collective memory.  Its simplicity gives it practical cognitive utility and educational value.    { although this model is simple, it has been developed in sophisticated ways in cognitive science, ====.     { terms:  a Now-State & Goal-State also can be called Current Situation & Future Situation;  and other terms are possible. }

my overall model for Design Process is a family of individual models (e.g. with Diagrams 1,2,3, plus the “isolation diagram” and DP-for-SRL diagram.   why?  I'll describe the benefits-for-instruction of having “a family of models” in Design Process;  e.g. in another page you can see 19 diagrams (the 5 in this page plus 14 others), including a Clicker Map but I think the only one that will be commonly used in classrooms is the SRL-for-DP that is designed for teaching SRL-with-DP.

[ iou – This section will be written February 18-20, to describe how we can use different levels of my model.

[  My model for Design Process is a Family of Models, e.g. Diagram 1 by itself (for awhile), Diagram 1+2 (or Diagram 2) by itself for awhile

[ return to parts -- e.g. using D-1 with just Cycles of G-and-E for Metacognitive Checklist, then use D-2 as needed

[ or supplement Top-of-D1 with Now-to-Goal, to emphasize Understanding and Define Goal and Define Goal-Criteria, arrow for PS is GE-Cycles

[ tips:  (old-and-new firsthand-and-secondhand)  (dpmo-2D-2E, making Predictions & Observations)  (check dpha for other bonus-tips)

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 for problem solving, but are not always sufficient for optimally-effective problem solving.  Therefore, sometimes it can be 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 or with Different Levels of Design Process.

 put this section into right-side frame

combining different

Models-for-Process

I'm not thinking “my model versus other models” because we don't have to make either-or choices between models.  Instead we can invent creative strategies to effectively combine models, so it's “my model plus other models.”  We can design instruction to include different models so our models will interact in ways that are synergistically supportive — that make the combination of models better than any single model by itself — because Design Process (DP)...

    • is similar to other models — with basic agreement about the productive thinking & actions we use during a creative-and-critical process of problem solving — so DP is educationally compatible with other models and it “plays well” with them.  DP can be smoothly blended into most systems of instruction, using common methods for teaching inquiry, whether the instruction currently does or doesn't use another model.  This offers practical benefits, because we don't have to design DP-specific activities, instead we can just add DP to already-available activities that have been using other models, or using no models.

    • is distinctive in important ways;  DP has special features that produce added value so DP can be especially valuable in a well-designed combination of models, contributing to a synergism that provides added benefits for students.

Together it's “yes and” with “yes” due to similarities for educational compatibility, with “and” due to distinctive added value.

Structures and Strategies:  The main reason that we can "effectively combine models" is because each model-for-process is educationally useful in two ways, by providing structures (for instruction) and strategies (for thinking).  Each model has its own structures & strategies, so each offers its own benefits for students.  If our instruction is designed effectively, when we combine the structures & strategies from two (or more) models, we combine their benefits.

iou – during late-October, I'll write an introduction to briefly describe the benefits of combining general metacognitive strategies (e.g. SRL) with specific metacognitive strategies (using the framework of Design Process), and principles for doing this effectively.  And also for combining POE (to introduce the Science Process that's used in Science-Design) with DP (to integrate Science-Design with General Design).

[[ I recommend SRL and POE with any program -- and if you're already using another model-for-process, it will be compatible with DP ]]

Design Process and POE (Predict, Observe, Explain)

I think SRL-with-DP is more important, but describing POE-within-DP is easier so I'll do this first.   /   iou – during July 22-onward, I'll write this paragraph.---- activities designed for POE give many opportunities for The Design Question (am I surprised?) because one purpose is to grab attention by "shaking up" and to revise misconceptions -- Reality Checks are Empirical Factor, is usually main factor, but also Cultural-Personal and --- in ISM during PhD

Design Process and SRL (Self-Regulated Learning)

iou – This important section is basically OK now, but it "needs fixing" in some ways, so I'll revise it during July 7-9.

Why?   When we show students how to use SRL-with-DP, this is helpful because...  • DP is an easy way to deeply understand the process of using SRL Cycles;   • scientific research has shown that using SRL is an effective method for helping students develop-and-use metacognition that improves their academic skills and social-emotional skills;   • we can view SRL-with-DP as "SRL Plus" because DP offers "added value" that includes improving two kinds of transfer (Across Areas and Through Time) due to the two wide scopes of DP (for Activities & Process), and

Design Process and SRL Cycles:  This diagram-for-DP accurately shows the process used in a Cycle of SRL, with important details about the two stages of SRL when you mentally PLAN, then physically-and-mentally DO-and-Monitor.  First, to "mentally PLAN" you "use [multiple] Mental Experiments to Generate-and-Evaluate Options [these are quick-and-easy compared with Physical Experiments, because you just “imagine what will happen” to make PREDICTIONS] and Choose an Option to USE."  Second, to "physically DO and mentally MONITOR" you "USE this Option in [one] Physical Experiment [to physically DO] and [to mentally MONITOR, you] OBSERVE the Situation, your Actions, the Results."  You complete the SRL Cycle by connecting the two stages (first PLAN, then DO-and-MONITOR), you "EVALUATE, asking ‘revise Option?’ in Design Cycle during re-PLAN."   /   the color-coding shows a common way to define the stages of SRL as PLAN-MONITOR-EVALUATE, that sometimes is aka PLAN-DO-EVALUATE.   /   iou – I also will briefly describe SELf-Questioning methods, like those in The Metacognitive Student (by Cohen, et al) that is related to SRL but may offer strategies that appeal to some teachers,  and I'll link to places where their methods (and principles) are explained with more detail.

iou – I also will write a brief paragraph about relationships between Design Thinking (as in d.school of Stanford) to explain why they're compatible, and Design Process is a good way to learn-and-use Design Thinking;  and I'll link to "details" in my big page about DP and Other Models.

We can combine Design Process with other models-for-process because there is “yes and” with “yes” due to similarities, with “and” for distinctive added value.  Here are three distinctive “added value” features of Design Process (DP).     { You can quickly learn DP – and these features – with your discoveries plus my explanations. }

DP logically integrates Design and Science, because the core of its evaluation-logic (when 3 Elements are used in 3 Comparisons) leads naturally to it being used for both General Design (aka Design, the usual term) and Science-Design (aka Science, usually).  By contrast, most other models are for a process of either Design or Science, but not both.  When students understand the smooth integrating of design-with-science in my model this will help them develop a smooth integrating of design-with-science in their thinking while they're solving problems.     {more about the differences when we're comparing my model for Design-AND-Science with other models that are Design-OR-Science}

DP is a family of models:  One reason for the educational utility of DP is because it's a Model (capitalized) that is a logically organized family of models.  This logical “family structure” lets a teacher use different models in a 4-Stage progression of learning so students can begin with simplicity and gradually learn the complexities in an intuitive progression.  The progression is intuitive and it works well, because each model is a different version of the same Model.  Each model is "a different version" of the Model, with a different description of the same process;  each model features different aspects of the Model.    { Due to these differences, each model accurately describes in different ways, and each model is educationally useful in different ways. }   /   When principles for process (it's procedural knowledge) are verbally-and-visually organized – as in my Model for Design Process – this produces many kinds of educational benefits.

DP is modular:  Another distinctive of Design Process (DP) is how its modularity encourages a flexibly customized coordinating of problem-solving process.*  DP describes our problem-solving process with short-term Actions (that can be functionally connected to form short-term Sequences) but other models typically describe longer-term Phases that contain the shorter-term Actions & Sequences of DP;  using DP can help students understand how their creative-and-critical productive thinking happens during the short-term Actions & Sequences of DP.  And because our Models (my DP and another Model) operate at different “levels” (with short-term in DP, long-term in other Models) it's less likely that our Models will compete with each other to perform the same teaching-functions during instruction.  Instead we can use the different Models for different functions, so they will be supportive instead of competitive, with each contributing to the instruction.  For thinking about DP's modularity, a useful analogy is using LEGO Bricks (the short-term Actions & Sequences of DP) to make LEGO Objects (the longer-term Phases of other Models),  or using small atoms & molecules (the Actions & Sequences of DP) to form larger objects (the Phases of other Models).     {* Wikipedia says "modularity is the degree to which a system's components may be separated and recombined, often with the benefit [thus produced] of flexibility and variety in use." }

The full-length section ends by describing possibilities for combining DP with other Models, especially with POE (Predict-Observe-Explain) and CER (Claim-Evidence-Reasoning) but also with others.  And these ideas are examined with more depth in another page.

This section describes (and links to) places in the Detailed Overview where each Action in Design Process is described at a deeper level, with many useful details that will be useful for helping students learn, for improving valuable problem-solving skills.

This diagram shows connections between the diagrams for Design Process and the 10 Modes of Action in Design Process.  Below it are links to descriptions (in the Details Page) for each of the 10 Modes of Action, to explain WHAT is being done and HOW to do it better.  The 10 Main Actions are functionally organized to form the diagrams in my model for Design Process.  The 10 Modes are a different perspective;  they're an educationally-useful way to develop a deeper understanding for the individual Actions in my family of models for problem-solving Design Process.

Here are 10 Modes of Action – organized into 4 categories with colorizing – that people use during their Design Process, during their Problem-Solving Process:

1. DEFINITION  (at top of Diagram 1`):

1A. Define an Objective (what you want to design) for a Design Project,

1B. Define Goals (for the desired properties of a problem-Solution),

2. GENERATION  (to get information, both old & new) (in Diagrams 1, 2a, 3b, 4a/4b)

2A. Learn (find old information about Options & Predictions/Observations, Models),

2B. Generate Options (by modifying old Options, or innovating with new kinds of Options),

2-CDE. Experiments (to MAKE Information that we USE) play key roles in Design Process:

      2C. Design Experiments (for Mental Experimenting, Physical Experimenting, or both),

      2D. Predict (imagine in a Mental Experiment, to MAKE Predictions for USE in 3A & 3B),

      2E. Observe (actualize in Physical Experiment, MAKE Observations to USE in 3A & 3B),

3. EVALUATION  (in Design Cycles and Science Cycle of Diagram 3b):

3A. Evaluate Solution-Options by using Quality Checks

3A. (by COMPARING Goals with Predictions or Observations),

3B. Evaluate Model-Options by using Reality Checks

3B. (by COMPARING Predictions with Observations),

4. COORDINATION  (often including Communication & Collaboration)

4A. Evaluate the Process and Make Action-Decisions (for what to do and when)

4A. as an individual or (in a group project) using Communication for Collaboration.

These 10 modes are not 10 steps, because Design Process is not a rigid sequence of steps.  Instead we see interactions between thinking in different modes, in productive thinking that skillfully blends a knowledge of ideas with creativity and critical thinking.

For each mode, the section below describes WHAT is being done and HOW to do it better.