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

Education for Problem Solving

This is the Home Page for a website of Craig Rusbult, an enthusiastic educator with a PhD in C & I.*  I'm optimistically excited when thinking about activities and strategies that we — using your ideas (for your schools) and my ideas, cooperatively working together — can develop and use, to help students improve their problem-solving skills in all areas of life, by helping them get more experiences (with problem solving) and learn more from their experiences.     {also: improvising conversation & improvising music}

my favorite page:  In July 2025, I made a Discovery Page for “discovery learning” to help you understand my model for problem-solving Design Process that includes this diagram.

* During life on a road less traveled my PhD project at U of Wisconsin (top-ranked) was constructing a model for “scientific method” — to describe how science uses logical Reality Checks plus other factors — and using this model to help us analyze & improve our education.  Since then I've generalized this model (for Science Process) to form a model for Design Process (for Problem-Solving Process).     { contact-email:  craigru57-att-yahoo-daut-caum }

my philosophy of writing:  As you know, education is complex;  in order to understand it more thoroughly-and-accurately, we must combine many ideas.  Therefore, in my website I don't want to “keep things simple” if this makes it oversimplistic by ignoring useful ideas.  Instead I'm trying to help you learn more time-efficiently (so you learn a lot in a little time, with a high ratio of “your learning / your time”) because your time is valuable,* and I want to help you use your time more effectively.     { * In the wise words of Benjamin Franklin, "Do not squander time, for it's the stuff life is made of." }    /    In this HomePage the ideas are only slightly oversimplified, but they are very incomplete on purpose to make each section shorter, to help you get a “big-picture overview” more quickly & easily.     { But during August, I want to make a much shorter Summary Page so you can construct your overview more quickly, using less of your valuable time. }

This new short-HomePage contains key ideas from the original long-HomePage of my large website about Education for Problem Solving.  I want to show you how Design Process (it's my model for Problem-Solving Process) might be very useful in education, so its possibilities are worth exploring and developing, because (although not proved with certainty) this is “a good way to bet.”

iou – Because in my philosophy of writing an essential goal is to explain clearly – and doing that usually is easier with more words – this “short” HomePage has become longer than I originally intended.  Therefore, soon (hopefully mid-to-late August 2025) I'll make a Summary Page that is much shorter.

This HomePage has two parts:

Part 1 describes educational goals that are generally accepted, that you (as an experienced educator) already know and probably accept, so while reading you'll be thinking “yes”.  But I also explain how using Design Process can help us achieve our goals, and for these claims you might think “yes!” or “yes and...” (yes! plus adding your own ideas) or “yes but...” (with questions) or “maybe” or “no because...” (with reasons to reject), and all of these responses can be useful when we're working to co-create better education.

Part 2 is about my model for Design Process (for Problem-Solving Process) that is descriptively accurate and educationally beneficial, that – especially when it's effectively combined with other models – can help us achieve the worthy educational goals in Part 1.

How?  The best way to understand Design Process is to learn by discovery when you study – by observing the words & colors, and spatial relationships – three verbal-and-visual representations in a special Discovery Page.

What?  When educators choose to use broad definitions, a problem is an opportunity (in any area of life) to make things better, and problem solving happens when we do make something better.

Why?  People solve problems because we want to make things better.

What?  For a design project (i.e. for a problem-solving project) the objective can be to design (to invent, modify, find, or find-and-modify) a better product, activity, relationship, and/or strategy (in General Design) and/or (in Science-Design) a better explanatory theory.  These objectives – extending far beyond traditional “design fields” – include almost everything we do in life.  The main reason I confidently claim "almost everything" is due to our using of strategies MANY times every day, most often when asking “what is the best use of my time right now?  and later?”   /   People can solve a problem by “making things better” when we increase quality for any aspect of life, or maintain quality by minimizing a potential decrease of quality.

This diagram shows what people do when we Define and Solve.  To make this diagram more concrete, you can imagine that your design objective is to design a better product by improving an old product.     { a usefully-detailed description of this model ends with A Checklist for Problem Solving } 

When you study this overview-diagram and think about the actions, you'll understand the cycles of creative-and-critical thinking by Generating-and-Evaluating-and-Generating-and-Evaluating-and-...   /   But here is a mystery question:  Why does the cycle have arrows on both sides?  It's easy to understand the left-side arrow (from Generate to Evaluate) — STOP READING and “think about why” if you want to self-discover the reasons for this arrow — because you must Generate An Option before you can Evaluate This Option.  But why does the cycle have a right-side arrow, from Evaluate to Generate?  {a clue-question}   {another question:  What are the benefits when you "Learn... before-and-after you Define your Objective and Define your Goals"? }    [[ iou – July 19, I'll explain why it will be useful to read my description of this model – e.g. why you "Learn... before-during-after you" Define and Define, and why it's useful to use Design Process as a metacognitive checklist. ]]

While you're thinking about this mystery question, you may find it useful to study the left-side diagram below.  It shows the logic when – after "Choosing an Option" to evaluate – you Evaluate This Option.

learning by discovery:  Thoroughly explore this diagram, by observing (and thinking about) the words, colors, and spatial relationships.  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.     { btw, I'm fascinated by verbal-and-visual representations.  For showing the process of problem solving in General Design & Science-Design, this diagram is my favorite – 🙂 – and I hope you also will like it, will appreciate its logical beauty and what can be learned from it. }  

a clue:  While you're thinking about the mystery question, a related question is...  “When you critically EVALUATE an Old Option, how can this help you creatively GENERATE a New Option?”

Quality Checks (during Design) and Reality Checks (for Science):  This diagram shows how people typically Evaluate An Option by imagining The Option {in a Mental Experiment} or actualizing The Option {in a Physical Experiment} so you can make {PREDICTIONS} or {OBSERVATIONS} about The Actual Properties of This Option.  By contrast, your GOALS define the Desired Properties you want in a New Product that will be your Problem-Solution.  Why is each of these comparisons a QUALITY CHECK?     { You also can think about why a comparison of PREDICTIONS with OBSERVATIONS is a REALITY CHECK that helps you test the adequacy of an explanatory Theory. }

The diagram also shows how my model smoothly-and-logically integrates Design with Science because the core of its evaluation logic (when we use 3 Elements in 3 Comparisons) leads naturally to the logically-related evaluations that we use for General Design (aka Design, the usual term) and for Science-Design (aka Science, usually);  people intuitively use Quality Checks for Design, and Reality Checks for Science, by asking the Design Question and Science Question.*  When students understand the logical integrating of design-with-science in my model this will help them develop a logical integrating of design-with-science in their thinking while they are solving problems, are designing solutions.     { more about Design & Science that use Quality Checks & Reality Checks to help you ask-and-answer Design Questions & Science Questions and why most people use Reality Checks more often in Design than in Science }

* the questions:  In a Design Question you ask “how high is the Quality?” with Quality defined by your Goals.  In a Science Question you ask “am I surprised?” when comparing Predictions with Observations.

Both diagrams (Define-and-Solve, 3 Comparisons) are combined in the right-side diagram that answers the mystery question by showing why the cycle has a right-side arrow.  As you did with 3 Comparisons, observe the words, colors, and spatial relationships in this diagram.   /   what, why, and how:

What?  You do Guided Generation by using critical Evaluation to motivate-and-guide your creative Generation.  This critical-and-creative process becomes part of a "Design Cycle" when you ask "revise Option? [do you want to revise the Old Option]" to GENERATE a New Option.

Why?  You do Guided Generation when you think a New Option might have higher Quality because there will be a closer match between its Actual Properties (in your Predictions or Observations) and the Desired Properties (that you're defining as GOALS for a satisfactory Solution).

How?  During your critical Evaluation in a Quality Check, when you notice differences between Actual Properties (of This Option) and Desired Properties (in your GOALS), this produces motivation that will motivate you to GENERATE, and will guide you to ask “what is unsatisfactory about This Option, and how can these deficiencies be improved?” so you can creatively Generate a New Option (or multiple New Options) whose Actual Properties come closer to your GOALS, thus coming closer to being a satisfactory Problem-Solution.

How?  During "revise option" you creatively Generate New Options with Retroductive Logic by “trying out” multiple Options while you're Evaluating each Option with Quality Checks.

What?  In your creative-and-critical Design Cycles (when you Generate-Evaluate-Generate-Evaluate-...) there are productive interactions between your critical thinking and creative thinking when with Guided Generation you use critical Evaluation to stimulate-and-guide your creative Generation.     { more about Guided Generation }

use Old Information:  This diagram says "GENERATE Options (old or new,...)" because you can Invent a New Option, or maybe – instead of “reinventing the wheel” – you can Find an Old Option and “use a wheel” (as-is or modified) if this will be an effective Problem-Solution.  In similar ways, you also can use Old Information when you "Learn" or to get "Predictions" or "Observations" or in other ways.  You can get Information that is old (already existing) by remembering it in your personal memory, or by locating it in our collective memory that is recorded (culturally remembered) in books, journals, web-pages, audio & video recordings, or is learned from another person.     { finding-and-using old Information is Mode 2A in 10 Modes of Action }

Experiments produce Experiences & Information:  In the context of Design Process, an Experiment includes "scientific experiments" and "everyday experiments" because I broadly define an Experiment as any situation that produces Experience, that provides an opportunity to generate Experimental Information when you make Predictions (by imagining in a Mental Experiment) or you make Observations (during the actualizing in a Physical Experiment);  i.e., any Prediction-Situation is a Mental Experiment, and any Observation-Situation is a Physical Experiment.  Therefore, your daily Experiences include many Mental Experiments and Physical Experiments.

more:  If you want to do optional explorations — of how your total experiences include your first-hand experiences (happening to you) and second-hand experiences (happening to others, but known by you), and include what is old (is being remembered in your personal memory or found in our collective memory, in what is “culturally remembered” with books, web-pages, audio & video, etc) and is new (is being experienced now in your sensory perceptions & your thinking-and-feeling), and the causal relationships between experiments & experiences;  plus logically designing Experiments (everyday or scientific) so they will provide usefully-relevant information — these topics (and others) are examined in Mode 2A and Mode 2C.

timings and flexibility:  Each of my models is an Actions Diagram showing the multiple Actions that 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 you can imagine how 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.   /   For each process-of-solving the sequence of actions can be different, because making Action-Decisions about “what to do next” is analogous to the goal-directed flexible improvising of a hockey player, but not the rigid choreography of a figure skater.  But some common sequences-of-Actions do occur, ----- [[ iou – I'll complete this during July 22-25. ]]

common sequences of actions:  iou – Later, here I'll expand a basic description in the Discovery Page.

We see similarities while people are Evaluating Ideas because 9 Functional Problem-Solving Actions (they're the central core of Problem-Solving Process) are used while solving almost all problems.  In a brief description of the 9 Actions, we design-and-do “experiments” (that produce experiences) so we can get Information (by making Predictions or making Observations) that we use (along with Goals for a Solution) to Evaluate a Solution-Option, and then we use our Evaluation to Generate a better Solution-Option.     { a detailed description of The 9 Actions }    { Action-Sequences in Design Process }

The process of solving problems – of “making things better” – can be described in many different ways.*  One way is to use...

a family of models:  My “overall model” for Design Process is a Model containing many semi-similar models.  Each 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 way is with the usefully-detailed descriptions in 10 Modes of Action.

using the models for instruction:  Having a variety of semi-similar 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 models and the 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.   You can see a progression from simplicity to complexity above (or in a Discovery Page), in three models with increasing complexity.

two ways to learn:

You can improve your understanding by learning from your discoveries – as when you're studying the four diagrams above — and also from my explanations.

Students are learning in both ways when you ask them to carefully study the 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.

iou – I'll fix this subsection soon, July 7-9, by using a couple of these ideas:

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 procedural 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. } @ws#cmei or home#cmei ?

When students are using activities for "Experience + Reflection ➞ Principles" to observe (and learn from) their own problem-solving actions, so in addition to discovering they also are recognizing. 

iou – and July 27-31, I'll fix these parts of the page:  the beginning of "3 models" above, and ending with Family of Models ---- #dpmo4a merge now -->goal ---- #is0 into early.

My goals for Parts 1 & 2 are different yet related, with overlaps.  I want to work with other educators, and I'm hoping you will see our “common ground” in Part 1, so you will be thinking “Craig understands education, is with us and for us, wants what we want, is similar to us.”  And in Part 2 “he is a little different, with an innovative model — to describe (verbally & visually) human problem-solving actions, to help students understand these actions and improve their own actions — that will contribute useful ‘added value’ to education, so working with him will help us improve education.”  I'm hoping you will want to discuss possibilities, and maybe (or maybe not, because of course it's optional) do actions for...

co-creating better education:

I'm an enthusiastic educator who enjoys talking with other educators in informal discussions, just to share ideas and learn from each other.  But as explained in Working Together,

"Maybe we will want to consider the possibility of collaborating on projects of mutual interest – and doing this unofficially as a free volunteer will be fine with me – with us working cooperatively to develop our ideas for helping students improve their creative-and-critical thinking skills and their effective using of problem-solving process in all areas of life."  Why?  Because we think "strategies for improving our problem-solving education are worth developing and (by converting our strategy-ideas into classroom-actions) actualizing.  To do this developing-and-actualizing, collaboration is necessary because I need help from educators who understand the perspectives of classroom teachers – and students' attitudes & behaviors, motivations & confidences – more accurately and thoroughly;  who know the educational culture created by people (students, teachers, administrators, parents, community) who feel & think & do, individually and together, to produce the systems ecology and learning atmosphere in their schools;  who are skilled activity developers, and have other kinds of useful experience & expertise.  Therefore I'm looking forward to learning from teachers & administrators who – in a variety of important ways – know more than me.  ...  By working together with coordinated cooperation, creatively combining your understandings-and-skills with mine, maybe we can design curriculum & instruction that is a better match for how students like to learn (and are able to learn), and how teachers like to teach. ..... I want to see my ideas actualized in practical ways, by combining them with your ideas, working together to achieve your goals."

this new page:  In late 2024 the original long-HomePage was condensed into this short-HomePage that now is the “read me first” page, so it's linked-to in my personal HomePage.  When you want to learn more, links with blue shading keep you inside this page, and green-shaded links go to sections in the long-HomePage (in its Longer Overview or Part 2) plus “even more” with yellow-shaded links in a Detailed Overview-Page;  and links to “more” in other pages.

You can get different kinds of understanding...

in the community of educators:  [[ iou – This will be written soon, during August 2-4. ]]

in this website:  Compared with printed material – in articles, magazines, books,... – in all web-pages a major benefit is the flexibility of clicking links that let you explore topics to gain different kinds of understanding (e.g. with different depths of examining, or different perspectives on a topic, or with other differences) by clicking a link when you want understanding that is deeper-and-wider, or is just different.  In my website, for example, you can gain different kinds of understanding for all important topics, including these:   [[ iou – I'll continue writing this section during July 25-27. ]]   [[ @#phil, this page is intentionally incomplete to make it shorter so you can get a "big picture overview" more quickly & easily. ]] [[color-coding explained above - maybe not needed?]]

• Building Bridges in this short-HomePage & the long-HomePage & Details-Page & another page/eTalk/eTalk-Page/eltalk-Page. (e is elevator not electronic - its usual modern meaning)

• Transfers of Learning in this page & long HomePage & Details-Page & other pages.

• Metacognition & Thinking Strategies in

• Learning More from Experiences in

• my Model-for-Process in

  and other models in

• Designing C & I in

• and many other topics.  [[ iou – I'll link to a page with some topics that aren't covered in this short-HomePage. ]]

[[ iou – and I'll describe/link-to an "appendix page" with selected sections from the Detailed Overview-Page. ]]

[[ using Artificial Intelligence —— iou – during August 2-4, I'll describe how some external links – those ending with ° (e.g. SRL Benefits + Implementation Barriers°) I'm using Perplexity AI (beginning in June 2025) to make "research reports" with the AI gathering lots of information, then organizing & summarizing it. ]]

 put this section into left-side frame

Above the focus is WHY, with Reasons for Using Design Process because this can Increase Transfers (due to Two Wide Scopes) and Build Bridges that improve Confidences & Motivations).

Below the focus shifts to WHAT-and-HOW, beginning with three related ways to use metacognitive Thinking Strategies:  by using a Growth Mindset and with Learning that Improves Performing and Learning More From Experiences.  One useful Strategy for Learning & Thinking is the productive attitude of...

developing-and-using a Growth Mindset: 

An excellent way to learn more effectively is by developing-and-using a better growth mindset so — when a student asks themself “how well am I doing in this area of life?”* and honestly answers “not well enough” — they are thinking “not yet” (instead of “not ever”) because they are confident that in this area they can “grow” by improving their skills, when they invest intelligent effort.  With this attitude they're supplementing current self-perception (based on what they've done in the past) with optimism (about what they can do now & in their future) to build a more useful self-perception.  This optimistic view-of-self will help students develop a justifiable confidence in their ability to improve now so they can “do things better” in their future, because they are improving their functional intelligence.  With two kinds of Objectives – connecting their present and future – they will try to improve their present-time Learning so they can improve their future-time Performing.  This long-term perspective will motivate them because they have a confident belief – with a growth mindset – that their efforts to self-improve (as in personal education for life) will be rewarded.

* A reason to ask “how well am I doing?” is to learn from experience, for self-education.  When I make a mistake, I want to learn from the experience so I can “do it better” the next time.  Therefore I ask myself “why?” and often the answer is “my process wasn't effective,” so (in an effort to do better) I've found it beneficial to develop-and-use a Checklist for Problem-Solving Process.

[[ iou – during July 22-27, maybe I'll briefly describe the physical changing of neuronal connectivities that is allowed by neuroplasticity. ]]

Are there two kinds transfer?  Although present-to-future learning typically isn't considered to be transfer, there are connections between “two kinds of transfer” because Transfers Through Time are necessary to produce Transfers Across Areas, and for inspiring self-motivated Personal Education.  Instead of trying to “challenge the definition” I'll just explain how it can be educationally useful to think about transfers-thru-time as being transfers-of-learning, e.g. when you are...

 put section into left frame  

trying to improve in your

Present and/or Future with

time-related Objectives for

Performing and/or Learning:

When you want your best possible performing now, you have a Performance Objective.  When you want your best possible learning now, so you can improve your best possible performance later, you have a Learning Objective.   For example, compare a basketball team's early-season practice (with a Learning Objective, wanting to learn NOW so they can perform better LATER) and late-season tournament game (with a Performance Objective, wanting to play their best NOW).   /   The title is "and/or" because your highest priority can be to maximize your learning now, or your performing now, or both, by placing different values on the present and future.  And by adding an important aspect of life, it's Performing and/or Learning, plus Enjoying.

In your future, your better performing can happen in two ways.  First, you will know better because you have learned from experience, so your potential performing has improved, and you can do better.  Second, this potential must be actualized by converting “can do better” into “are doing better” with high-quality actual performing.   /   a summary:  After your past learning has improved your present potential performing, this potential (in principle, as a possibility) to “do it better” will be actualized (in reality) when you do present actual performing with high quality, so you're combining past learning (wanted in previous Learning Objectives) with present performing (wanted in your current Performance Objective).     { more about performing better now in these two ways – by using your past-to-present Learning, and present Performing – as in the “know better, do better” of Angela Mayou. }    { Mahatma Gandhi, "Live as if you were to die tomorrow.  Learn as if you were to live forever." }    { a friend became – by learning in his presents – a better-performing welder in his futures }   [[ iou – in mid-July, I'll add the concept of using past learning to improve present learning of procedural knowledge-skills, and also – as when connecting current learning to previous learning – for learning conceptual knowledge. ]]

[[ iou – here are ideas I'll add that... a Learning Objective assumes – and depends on, requires – the possibility of Transfers (Across Areas, thru Time), link to ws#tr-#trmc-etc ]] -- [[ link to welder-etc ]]

 put section into left frame  

design instruction that helps students

get more problem-solving experiences,

and learn more from their experiences

      when they use Design Process for

      metacognitive Thinking Strategies:

get more and learn more:  A useful definition of education is learning from experience.  Students will learn more when they get more experiences (of the kinds that are educationally useful) and learn more from their experiences.  Well-designed uses of Design Process can help students learn more from their problem-solving experiences.  How ?  By motivating & guiding them to...

develop-and-use effective metacognition: 

What?  One definition of metacognition is “observing your thinking,” but observing can be modified into thinking about and usually evaluating that can be used for regulating.  When you “regulate your thinking” to produce metacognitive regulation – to make it action-oriented with a goal – usually (but not always) this helps you improve your thinking-and-doing.  Many educators recommend “observing your thinking-and-feeling” or “regulating your thinking-and-feeling” because this can make your life better in many important ways by improving your academic skills AND social-emotional skills.    [[ iou – during late-July, I'll revise the following paragraph and those below it. ]]

Why?  Two main goals of Thinking Strategies are to help you become an expert thinker (e.g. by coordinating your thinking-and-actions by expertly making decisions about “what to do next” during a process of design) and expert learner (for academic learning & social-emotional learning).  You also can have develop expert performing & learning, to pursue your performance objectives & learning objectives.

iou – during August 2-7, I'll develop these ideas:  beginning with the benefits of Design Process (because DP is cognitive-AND-metacognitive);  then explaining why I focus on teaching SRL-with-DP (due to the special benefits of this combination),  and how SRL-with-DP forms a useful meta-framework for integrating a variety of specific metacognitive strategies (especially self-questioning, plus "exam wrappers" and using digital flashcards, and other activities).

Design Process can be used

for cognition-and-metacognition

in probem solving & self-regulating:

iou – I'll develop & refine this subsection during August 2-7.   Here is the main idea:  Design Process is basically a model for cognition, as you can see in its verbs – learn, define & define, generate, evaluate, design, use (many times), imagine & make [to predict], make [to predict], compare, revise – that are the cognitive thinking-Actions you do while solving a problem.  But these verbs include the observing you do while you are actualizing a problem-solving process, plus the optional evaluating (and maybe regulating) you can do during the problem-solving process or afterward, with cognitive Actions that are considered to be metacognitive Actions.

regulating your metacognition to make it more effective:

How?  An essential Thinking Strategy is deciding when & how to use metacognition of various kinds for various purposes.*  Sometimes you will decide to stimulate higher-quality Performing and/or Learning by using metacognition of a particular type, in a particular way (re: its amount, timing,...).  But at other times you will “go with the flow” by just thinking-and-doing (instead of thinking about thinking) to allow higher-quality Performing and/or Learning by avoiding metacognition.   We can view this as “stop-and-go metacognition” because in different situations your metacognition will stop (it's “turned off” so you just do thinking) or go (when you “turn it on” and think about thinking), by using Executive Control to regulate your using or not-using of metacognition.     {* and how to optimize your system of conscious thinking & subconscious processing for whole-brain problem solving }

What?  This is a regulation OF metacognition.  By contrast, regulation BY metacognition occurs during metacognitive regulation when you use metacognition to observe-and-regulate your cognition.

Why?  The ability to regulate your metacognition is useful because in some situations – especially when you have a Performance Objective – your quality will improve if you avoid “thinking about thinking,” if instead you just “let yourself do it” with fully focused attention.   /   One perspective is The Inner Game of Tennis and its concept of Performance = Potential – Interference.   How?  To decrease Interference (and thus increase Performance) a useful Thinking Strategy is to self-define your metacognition as simply “observing” or “being aware,” and when you sense that you're fully focused (with a “flow” of high current quality) you just continue what you're doing, without conscious metacognition.

How?  A valuable long-term Learning Objective is to improve your Metacognitive Knowledge so you can make better regulation decisions – about when & how to use metacognition, about the timings & types/amounts of cognition-plus-metacognition you want – by increasing your general Metacognitive Knowledge — about persons (how we think, learn, perform) and tasks (situations, requirements, outcomes) and strategies (for performing more effectively) — plus personal Metacognitive Knowledge by “knowing yourself” based on observations of yourself (as the person) in the context of various tasks using different strategies.  By combining these two kinds of Metacognitive Knowledge (general & personal) you can improve your developing-and-using of individually customized personal Conditional Knowledge about each Thinking Strategy by knowing its functional capabilities (WHAT it lets you do, and thus WHY it can be useful) and its conditions-of-application (for WHEN it will be useful for you).

also:  a Strategy for Teaching that is important – because it's useful – is deciding when & how you do (or don't) want to ask metacognitive reflection questions.

[[ iou – in early August, I'll continue this section (about Regulation of Metacognition) by writing a highly condensed version of ideas from the big section about regulating metacognition and will add an explanation of strategies for optimizing your effective using of your wonderful whole-brain system that combines conscious cognition with subconscious processing;  Design Process is a useful foundation for doing this because whether a person's “thinking” is conscious and/or subconscious in a particular situation, we use a similar process of Observe & Learn, Generate, Predict & Evaluate, Decide & Do and how "you can use executive control to optimize your thinking system (so your conscious & subconscious each can do what it does best) if you develop-and-use a [thinking strategy] for effectively regulating your subconscious processing by deciding when-and-how to reduce it or increase it." with cognitive-and-metacognitive plus subconscious. }   {even though "turning metacognition on and off" oversimplifies the complex blending of cognition-and-metacognition (plus sub-conscious processing & feedback) you want, these binary concepts (“on and off”, “use it or avoid it”) can be useful if they're not interpreted literally. }   { for this section, I will link to pages - short & long - that I'll make with Perplexity.AI } ---- EG's for subconsc use of DP, sports QB/PGuard, even running back making simple decision to go L or R, speed up or slow down, etc ]]

[[ iou – in early August, somewhere in this section I'll describe how a Knowledge-and-Skills Curriculum includes the essential goal to improve learning and/or performing with productive thinking that combines relevant knowledge with creative-and-critical thinking.   /   and Whole-Person Education improves academic abilities AND social-emotional abilities -- so the monitoring in SRL includes observing-and-regulating thoughts and also emotions ---- maybe I'll summarize-and-cite The Metacognitive Student by Cohen et al. ]]

Skillfully Coordinating your Process of Problem Solving

Design Process can help you (and your students) improve your strategies for coordinating 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?  During skillful coordinating-of-process, to make effective Action-Decisions you combine cognitive-and-metacognitive awareness of your situation (of “where you are” and “where you want to go” in your process...)* with conditional knowledge of your Action-Options (by knowing what each Action can do... and the conditions when this Action can be useful).     { more about coordination-of-process with cognitive-and-metacognitive awareness and conditional knowledge }     [[ Actions = cognitive tools, MC is used to optimize (maximize, improve) tool-choosing wisdom and tool-using effectiveness ]]

* In a 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. }

INSTRUCTION — skillfully design

Problem-Solving Activities that

are Fun and Personally Useful:

A holistically integrated strategy for designing effective Instruction – by trying to do everything that will help achieve the goals for effective Curriculum – will include Problem-Solving Activities that motivate students because what they're doing is FUN for them, and is personally USEFUL for them, is...

     FUN intrinsically when a student enjoys the experience because they think the problem-topic is interesting, and their own actions are interesting.  This will stimulate their curiosity, can inspire a love of learning.
     FUN due to personal satisfaction when a student anticipates success, and does succeed.  We want to help them develop confidence with a growth mindset.  One way is to design activities with a “just right” level of optimal challenge as in a good mystery story, so students won't be bored (if it's too easy) or discouraged (if too difficult), so they will be challenged but will succeed and will enjoy the satisfactions of success.
     USEFUL as perceived by a student who thinks it will be personally useful, will help them achieve their personal goals, short-term and long-term, including intrinsic fun and satisfaction.  We can try to understand students (with empathy), and then consider their goals when defining our goals, to guide our goal-directed designing of their activities.  We want them to think “this school-activity will be a useful part of my personal education, will help me achieve my personal goals for life.”

 put this section into left-side frame

What kind of Knowledge-and-Skills Curriculum

will produce optimal Whole-Person Education?

practical limitations for me:  This part of the page – in the long “blue box” – is where I feel least expert, but it's important so I'm writing it.

practical limitations for schools:  Above I describe a common strategy for Goal-Directed Designing of Curriculum & Instruction, as in designing a Coordinated Wide-Spiral Curriculum using Instruction with Activities that are Fun and Personally Useful.  When educators are doing their goal-directed designing, they want their overall Whole-Person Education to achieve multiple goals – by helping students improve in a variety of ways, in many areas of life – but they have limited educational resources (of time, people, money,...) so they must make tough choices about goals by asking “what resources should be invested in each kind of goal?”

knowledge and skills:  It can be useful to view education as a Knowledge-and-Skills Curriculum with the goal of helping students improve their knowledge and their skills that include skills-with-knowledge.

mutual support:  The beginning of my verbal-and-visual model for Design Process (i.e. for Problem-Solving Process) is to "Learn so you understand more accurately-and-thoroughly" because productive problem solving occurs when we effectively combine creative-and-critical thinking with relevant knowledge in the problem-solving area.  Thus, one benefit of better subject-area knowledge is better problem-solving skills.  We also see the reverse, with research showing that using metacognitive problem-solving skills – in metacognitive Self-Regulated Learning – does solve problems (i.e. it does make things better) by improving students' learning of knowledge and skills.

supplementing, not replacing:  Due to this mutual support, our instruction for skills-with-knowledge (including higher-level thinking skills) should supplement – not replace – basic skills (for reading, math, science,...)* and knowledge (in sciences, social studies, history, literature,...).     { * but “basic skills” can involve “higher-level skills” }

trying to optimize:  Educators generally agree that we should try to help students improve their skills (basic & higher-level) and knowledge;  and that we should aim for an optimal combination of knowledge and skills & skills-with-knowledge.  But when we ask “what is optimal?” there are disagreements.  Some educators, including me, think the balance should shift toward more emphasis on skills and skills-with-knowledge, by using a Curriculum for Problem Solving that improves the problem-solving skills of students and also their motivations to “make things better” – for themselves & for others – with problem solving.     { It can be useful to view this kind of curriculum as Whole-Person Education for Problem Solving;  or as Education for Whole-Person Problem Solving with the objective of Making Things Better for Whole Persons. }

But doing this effectively will depend on actualizing two IF-factors:  Instruction with stronger emphasis on problem-solving skills will produce large-scale improvements only IF the instruction is educationally effective and IF it is widely adopted by teachers and their schools & districts.  When making a decision (Yes or No) whether to use more resources for instruction in skills-with-knowledge, educators consider many factors, and these provide reasons to say Yes and to say No.  The reasons-for-No can make it difficult to convert potentially-beneficial instruction (that IF DONE would help students get more experiences & learn more from experiences) into actually-beneficial instruction (that IS DONE and is experienced by students, so it can improve the problem-solving abilities that include their skills and motivations).

perceptions and realities:  One “reason for No” is a belief that if more instruction time is invested to improve cognitive-and-metacognitive thinking skills, the change will cause a decrease in scores on standardized exams.  But this concern is not justified by the evidence, as described in a research report° – generated by Perplexity AI – that begins with an...

Executive Summary:  When K-12 schools implement classroom instruction focused on metacognition through Cycles of Self-Regulated Learning (SRL), research demonstrates consistently positive effects on standardized test performance across all academic areas.  Meta-analyses reveal moderate to large effect sizes, with students showing improved academic achievement, enhanced learning strategies, and better self-regulation skills that translate to measurable gains on standardized assessments.

And when I asked “since metacognitive SRL is beneficial for improving exam scores (and in other ways), why isn't it used by all schools?” the response° begins,

Despite compelling research demonstrating that metacognitive Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) cycles significantly improve standardized test scores, many K-12 schools struggle to implement these practices effectively.  This comprehensive analysis examines the multifaceted barriers that prevent widespread SRL adoption, and explores the underlying motives behind institutional and teacher resistance.

two strategies for implementation:

This research report describes a mystery, due to a surprising combination, because research shows that SRL is educationally effective (for improving scores on standardized exams & improving other outcomes), but SRL has a low amount of adoption.  If “effectiveness” was the only factor being considered (but it isn't), and if all educators knew about the research (but some don't), then their decisions to avoid SRL would be illogical.  But instead they do have rational reasons to say No.  We should “ask why” and understand the reasons-for-No when we're designing strategies to increase the adoption of SRL.  This understanding will help us design effective ways to combine two strategies, by  A) explaining the value of SRL in producing instruction that will be educationally effective and  B) explaining why it will be easy to implement.  When doing this we can think about how to effectively use each strategy, and then how to combine them, beginning with...

Strategy A – by saying “let's go for it” and making a bold claim:   Many educators, including me, think one of our goals — helping students improve their Problem-Solving Skills (so they are able to solve problems more effectively) and Problem-Solving Motivations (so they want to solve problems, to make things better) — is currently under-emphasized in most schools, and we will increase the quality of our overall Whole-Person Education if we increase our emphasis on Problem-Solving Education in which metacognitive Self-Regulation (by using SRL) is one of the foundations.  I claim that this shift-of-emphasis “would make things better” by producing better Overall Education — because what we gain (in the shift) will be more valuable than what we lose, with the overall result bringing us closer to an optimal balance — so improving our Education for Problem Solving is a worthy Educational Goal.  Doing this would increase the instruction that will be educationally effective.   /   But making progress toward achieving this goal will be faster if we also explain why it will be easy to implement with...

Strategy B – by saying “it will be easier than you think”:   why?  I'll describe how a school might be able to overcome (at least partially) some of "the multifaceted barriers that prevent widespread SRL adoption" by using Design Process (maybe) and (probably) by starting with gifted students.

But first I'll describe...

Strategy B (continued from above) – Maybe implementation barriers could be reduced by...

using Design Process:

When we view a problem as “any opportunity to make things better,” we solve problems whenever we “make something better” in any area of life.  Students can use my model for problem-solving Design Process (DP) to help them improve almost everything they do in the classroom, and in life.  They want to learn more effectively, and metacognitive Self-Regulated Learning can help them develop-and-use Strategies for Learning that work better, and the Cycle of DP is an effective way to deeply understand and effectively use the Cycle of SRL.

In this way the benefits of SRL (to improve learning and performing) become benefits of DP.  Basically, Design Process is “SRL Plus” – it's SRL plus “added value” – because DP can be used for “doing SRL” (it's SRL-with-DP) and also for doing a much wider range of “making things better” in school-life and whole-life.  DP Activities include Design Inquiry (these have wide variety° and you can design others° by using DesignThinking-with-DP) and Science Inquiry (using POE - Predict, Observe, Explain), Argumentation (in all subject areas), and Strategizing (as with Strategies for Learning).  And in its other wide scope, DP accurately describes the process-of-thinking that people use for all problem solving, in General Design and Science-Design during all problem solving (in the wide variety of ways they make things better) when they're mainly using cognition and also for metacognition.     { transfers of learning Across Areas & Through Time are increased by using the two wide scopes of Design Process }

Design Process has two wide scopes –  for Problem-Solving Activities and Problem-Solving Process – so teachers can use DP for almost everything that happens in their classroom.  Teachers have options.  They can blend DP into the typical activities that would happen anyway (e.g. by using SRL-with-DP to develop-and-use Strategies for Learning) and there won't be major changes.  But most of the time they can just ignore DP and let its ongoing beneficial effects operate “in the background” without conscious attention.  And they can sometimes get “added value” by using DP for special activities, for Design-Inquiry & Science-Inquiry, for Argumentation and a wide range of applications for Strategizing.

starting with gifted students:

Although teachers (and their school & district) have reasons to USE activities that are especially valuable for promoting a knowledge-and-skills curriculum (to teach knowledge & skills, and skills-with-knowledge), they also have reasons to NOT USE these activities.  But some reasons to not-use will be weaker in programs for gifted students.

why & how?  Some reasons & strategies are outlined in AI-reports about implementation barriers despite research results° and in gifted programs°.

One finding is that "gifted education often emphasizes thinking processes alongside content knowledge, supporting integration of metacognitive strategies" and "explicitly aims to develop self-directed learning capabilities, creating natural alignment with SRL objectives."  Therefore,

in this section I'm not assuming...

     that your gifted program is “starting from zero” because "gifted education often emphasizes thinking processes," and probably you already are promoting metacognition in some ways.  Instead I'm proposing that adding another way – by using Design Process – might be useful for promoting effective metacognition.

     or that the ideas are “new knowledge” for you, because here (as in other parts of the page) you will be thinking “yes” or “yes and” or “yes but” or “maybe” or “no because”.

Also, despite my enthusiastic optimism about Design Process throughout the page, I realize that “claims for effectiveness” should be made cautiously due to my reasons for humility.

Although I'll focus on the benefits of "starting with gifted students," many principles are relevant for all students.

And eventually (maybe quickly) we should try to optimize our knowledge-and-skills instruction for all students.   /   Here is a personal context :  I want to co-create better education with others, and this seems more likely to happen with educators in gifted programs and homeschools.  Therefore these will be my focus during 2025.  So even though I want to improve education for all students, currently I'm more excited about gifted programs.  Another factor is my submission of a talk-proposal (in April) and its acceptance (in May) for the Annual Conference of OAGC (Ohio Association for Gifted Children) in October;  preparing for this talk is part of my recent motivations for enthusiastic learning-thinking-writing-networking.

Below I'll comment on only a few facets in "the multifaceted barriers that prevent widespread SRL adoption."

a perceived competition:  In K-12 education a common goal – for students & teachers, districts & schools, parents & community & politicians – is wanting to do well on standardized exams that emphasize “exam abilities” in subject-area knowledge plus basic skills (that usually are not higher-level thinking skills) in reading, math, and science.  Often there is a perception of “competition” with exam abilities decreasing when teachers increase their instruction to promote higher-level abilities, as in using SRL to improve metacognition.  Although a perception of competition isn't supported by research evidence — which instead shows cooperation because when metacognitive self-regulation increases, exam scores also increase — by itself the perception provides a reason to not increase instruction for metacognition.  These concerns are especially important when, as often occurs, the perceived “quality of teaching” for a teacher (and their school & district) is heavily influenced by students’ performance on standardized exams.

a reluctance to gamble:  A school may not want to “gamble” with instructional change that seems risky, because teachers & administrators are thinking that “although it might be beneficial (for Exam Scores and in other ways), it might be detrimental.”  It seems safer to continue using a direct approach (by “teaching to the exam”), instead of changing to a hybrid approach that combines their familiar direct approach and an unfamiliar indirect approach (with some instruction time invested in metacognitive self-regulation) that they don't fully believe or trust.  They are worried about the risk of a large-scale loss if they make a major change for the entire school or district.  But they might be more willing to gamble on a small scale with changes only in their program for gifted students.*  Then if this small-scale experiment works well with good results, they may be more willing to try it on a larger scale, with more students or all students.     { * In another reason to say Yes, they may think “the gifted students will do well anyway.” }

 put this section into left-side frame

teaching with metacognition plus teaching for metacognition:

Most teachers are skilled in using metacognition, but some are not yet confident in teaching metacognition, by skillfully modeling it and explaining it and encouraging it.  In other words, most are skilled in teaching with metacognition (how?),* but some feel less confident about teaching for metacognition.  But this is "not yet" and with a growth mindset every teacher can work to improve both kinds of skill (for using & teaching) during professional development, plus their own independent learning, and learning-by-doing in the classroom.  One step-by-step framework° claims that basic “teaching for metacognition” can be done effectively in only 12 weeks, with just 20-45 minutes/week of extra preparation time, with students experiencing success in every step.  And this is for the first time through the progression.  Then in the future their teaching will be easier, and better.

One way it becomes better is by knowing strategies for skillfully regulating metacognition by deciding when to use it in a particular way (re: its type & amount) and when to avoid it and “go with the flow” by just thinking.  Because of this, optimal using of metacognition – so it's more effective for learning and/or performing – is more complicated than just “thinking about thinking” in all situations.

Recognizing this actual complexity is a reason for teachers (and their school & district) to “say no” for promoting metacognition, so it will be an implementation barrier that needs to be overcome.   Maybe we can do this with a two-stage process:  First explain why it's fairly easy to teach for basic metacognition, and this will help most students most of the time, so it's a worthy objective.  Then explain how teachers can – with reasonable effort & time – learn more about regulating metacognition and how to teach it, so they become better at helping their students.   /   Another challenge is the perceived complexity of Design Process, if a teacher first sees the complex Diagram 3.  But I think teachers will self-overcome this when they understand why learning will be easy, because it will happen in steps (by first understanding the simpler Diagrams 1 & 2, then how these combine to form 3) and because Design Process is logically organized.

* Teachers often USE metacognition (internal & external) because this helps them teach more skillfully, and that's what they want.  They gain some pedagogical value by using internal metacognition (self-empathy, i.e. metacognition) to understand their own thoughts-and-feelings;  and they gain much more value by using external metacognition (other-empathy, i.e. empathy) to understand the thinking-and-feeling of their students.  With experience they develop skillful adaptive expertise for long-term modifications of planned instruction, and for making improvised real-time adjustments in the classroom.

motivations of teachers and students:

Most teachers are overworked, and all teachers have limited time in two ways, with their classroom time, and in the personal preparation time they are willing to invest, and should be expected to invest.  When confronted with a request (or command) to do another activity that will require an investment of their time,  in the classroom and for preparation,  a natural response is to think “oh no, not another task to do.”  Teachers want to be wisely time-protective when asking “what are the best uses of my limited time?” so they can make wise decisions about effectively using their time and – because “time is the stuff life is made of” (Ben Franklin) – using their life.

By contrast, most gifted students will be excited about using more of their time-and-life for adventures of the mind,* for exploring the many exciting possibilities of learning and thinking.  With an adventurous attitude motivated by curiosity, they respond by thinking “oh yes, this will be fun” when they are invited to study their thinking and improve it.

* Although teachers also enjoy “mental adventures” their enthusiasm can be reduced by the pressures of “too much to do in too little time,” in the classroom and in life.  But students are thinking “while I'm in school, I would rather use the time for doing things that are fun, and will be productive in making my life better.”  It seems to me, although I could be wrong, that the general tendencies are for teachers to be in a time-protective filtering mode (asking “what can I not-do, to save time?”) and for students to be in a curiosity-driven exploring mode (asking “what can I do to have fun and be productive?”).     { motivations – of teachers and gifted students – for doing metacognition° }

Will gifted students be highly motivated – so they're thinking “this will be fun and productive” – when teachers ask them to use metacognitive self-regulation?

Generally I think “yes” because they enjoy thinking, and expect it to be a valuable part of their life so doing it well (helped by metacognition) will improve their life.  It's like asking “who is most motivated to watch films of offense-vs-defense in football (or basketball, soccer,...)?” and answering “players and coaches” because they are gifted in playing or coaching.  They are using their abilities, and are confident that their efforts will be rewarded.

Specifically, I think many gifted students will be fascinated when they study the logic-and-art in diagrams for Design Process.  To make their exploring easier, I've made a Discovery Page with three diagrams – my favorite and two others – that promotes Discovery Learning when they "observe the words & colors, and spatial relationships."  While doing this, if they ask “are these Problem-Solving Actions the same Actions that I use while I'm solving problems?” I think they will say Yes, and their Discovery Learning will become Recognition Learning.

But these claims are only that "I think... students will be fascinated" and "I think they will say Yes" because I don't know since I haven't observed how students actually do respond.  Therefore, during August I'm hoping for opportunities to observe, to “watch what happens” when Design Process is studied by students (plus parents & teachers) in K-12 homeschools & public schools.   /   At this time in early August, although I don't know – I only think, with predictions – it does seem probable (as “a good way to bet”) that many students will be fascinated by Design Process, and will be enthusiastic about metacognition.  And that the enthusiasm of students will make life better for their teachers, with students & teachers both having more fun, getting more satisfaction.

motivating all students:

Basically, all students (not just gifted students) will be motivated to invest metacognitive effort IF they think "their efforts will be rewarded" in ways they want, will make their life better in ways they want.  This is the basis for my claim that a student will be motivated to pursue their own personal education when they think their skills-in-school will “transfer” to become skills-in-life that "make their life better in ways they want."

We can enhance the natural motivations of all students with motivational metaphors° by inviting them to “drive your brain” — and “use your growth mindset to imagine how exciting it will be when you see increases in your brain-driving skills and your brain's performance” — and “be CEO of your brain” by using executive control.  Most students are excited by these metaphors and they will be fascinated when you ask them “in what ways can you drive your brain?  and improve its performance (as with a car's horsepower & torque, and handling characteristics)?  and in what ways can you use executive control?” and “when you improve your driving & CEOing,* what will be the benefits for learning (to increase your capabilities) and (by using your capabilities) for performing?”     {* to be the noun, do the verb }

using time in the classroom:  In the classroom of a gifted program, teachers can offer a variety of fun-and-useful “enrichment” activities* – that can include studying Design Process – as a reward for mastering “the basic lesson” early, as bonus-options for extra learning so they don't become bored with school.  Similarly, in a regular classroom – with or without a cluster of gifted students – early finishers can do enrichment activities, including Design Process and metacognitive thinking strategies.    {* a variety of activities that include problem-solving activities – broadly defined, so they can be small or large – can be used as “extras” for students;  students could learn Design Process independently by just using the Discovery Page with the teacher saying “you observe-and think, and you'll figure it out.” }

two contexts for enrichment:

     If a teacher (or school) has decided that all students will learn Design Process, at the time when everyone begins learning it those who previously learned it during a "bonus activity" can function as tutors to help other students learn it.  And if they enjoyed learning it and think using it's personally productive, they can “tell the class what they think, and why” so others will be encouraged to believe they can learn Design Process, and will be motivated so they want to learn it and use it.  But...

     If a teacher has not made this decision, things could get complicated when some students know Design Process and some don't know it, because..... [to be continued]    [[ iou – I'm still thinking about the complex ideas in this section, and soon (during August 8-11) I'll revise all of it, especially this currently-incomplete ending. ]]

iou – during August 8-11 the topic in this "brown box" will be developed & revised, and then moved upward out of the box.

 improving education for all students:

We want to design C & I that will help more students succeed, so more will experience the benefits (in school and life) of success.

student diversity:  All students are similar in the most important ways, but each has a personal history that makes them unique.  Each has their own complex blend of abilities they inherit, plus attitudes (like motivations & confidences - with a growth mindset) and skills (using multiple “intelligences” in many areas of life) they develop, with personal growth (mental, emotional, social, physical) affected by characteristics (gender, race,...) and situations (produced by family, friends, community, school) in their whole-life experiences (in school and outside).

activity diversity:  There are logical reasons to conclude that "we should try to design eclectic instruction by creatively combining the best features of different approaches into a synergistic blend that produces an optimal overall result (a greater good for a greater number) in helping students achieve worthy educational goals."  One reason is that, due to many kinds of diversity, some students will experience more success in problem-solving activities than in other activities, and they will enjoy the emotional & motivational rewards of success.*  But some won't.  We want to minimize those who "won't" so we should be trying to...

try to design eclectic instruction that is optimally effective:  We can use our observations  —  that students differ,  and whole-person education has many kinds of goals,  and different goals are better taught with different teaching approaches,  and each approach has (as in 80-20) diminishing “marginal returns”  —  plus logic, to conclude that "we should try to design eclectic instruction by creatively combining the best features of different approaches into a synergistic blend that produces an optimal overall result (with greater good for a greater number) in helping students achieve worthy educational goals."   /   * Enjoying "more success" often co-occurs with “more intrinsic enjoying” when students have two kinds of fun.

designing instruction for diversity, equity, and inclusion:  We want to design activities that provide opportunities for all students to succeed, and help more students succeed, so more will experience the benefits (in school & life) of success.  We want to design curriculum-and-instruction (including activities) that actually does help more students, with wider diversity, more fully actualize their whole-person potentials.  We should try to “open up the options” for all students, so each will say “yes, I can do this” for a wider variety of subject-options in school and career-options in life.  We want to help students choose wisely by asking “among my many options — with career choices (for “what I want to DO”) and life choices (for “who I want to BE”) — what are the goals I want to pursue (and the roads I want to travel, in school & outside, now and later) so I can build a better life?”     { more – an overview and 5-step progression }    { more about stories of students }

learning by young students:  iou – August 2-4, I'll revise these three paragraphs, beginning with my "all ages" claim for a Wide Spiral Curriculum, agreeing with the famous claim of Jerome Bruner (contradicting Jean Piaget) that "any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development," plus his ideas – for spiral repetitions, scaffolding, social supports,... – about how to "teach effectively" for students of all ages, but especially those who are young.  And I'll briefly summarize ideas from two reports made by Perplexity AI (including the pro-Bruner views of Next Generation Science Standards),  and will link to a longer section in the Long-HomePage.benefits for older and younger:  Because we want to “keep options open” for all students, we should try to improve education for older students (now in high school & college) so – before they leave school – they can improve valuable cognitive-and-metacognitive skills and then use these skills for lifelong learning-and-performing after the end of their formal schooling.  And we want to help younger students develop personally-useful skills (for problem solving & in other areas) and attitudes (motivations & confidence) at an early age, so they can continue improving their skills during more of their schooling – during an important stage-of-life when their neurological development is especially fast & effective – so they will be able to more fully develop their whole-person potentials.two options for timings:  To grow fruit, “the best time to plant a fruit tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is now.”  To grow whole-person abilities in students, the “now” can begin ASAP so each student is the youngest they ever will be.  When asking if we should focus our now-responses on secondary & college (to get benefits for more students) or on elementary & middle school (so these students will get benefits for a longer time, during a crucial developmental period of their lives)?   Each option has reasons (logical & ethical) to prefer it, with differing payoffs and time scales, so “do both” is the best response.

 to “see what is available” use the Table of Contents

 put this section into left-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 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.

iou – during mid-July, 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." }

* Structures and Strategies:  Typically a 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.  When we effectively combine the structures & strategies from two (or more) models, we combine their benefits.

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.