Site-Using Tips  –   open only this page   –   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.     {one of my favorite pages will help you “learn by discovery” when you study verbal-and-visual diagrams for my model of Design Process}    {my talk at a conference in October 2025}    {improvising conversation & improvising music}

* During life on a road less traveled my PhD project (at U of Wisconsin) 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 page the ideas are not oversimplified, but they are incomplete on purpose, to help you get a “big-picture overview” more quickly & easily.

 open only this page   –   put page into left frame 

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 (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.”

This short-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 – four verbal-and-visual representations.

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.

In another way to view the problem-solving process, the right-side diagram – it's an overview with more details than “Now-Situation ➞ Goal-Situation” in the simple diagram above – 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.  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 7-9, 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?     { an option:  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.

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 }

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 superimposition 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.

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.

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, 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 5-6, 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.

 open only this page   –   put page into left frame 

A Short Overview of PART 1,

describing Ideas for Education:

The original long-HomePage has Part 1 (with a Short Overview of Part 1 and Long Overview of Part 1) and Part 2.  This new short-HomePage contains a highly-condensed Part 2 (above) and (in everything below) a Short Overview of Part 1, made by revising the original Short Overview of Part 1.

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 (of course it's optional) do actions, for...

co-creating better education:

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

"I also want to collaborate 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 good 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."

[[ iou – Soon, probably the evening of July 7, here I'll describe... why I'm hoping to have discussions about metacognition-in-education with a possibility (but not expectation) of supplementing what you already are doing with metacognition. ]]

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, May 5-10. ]]

in this website:  Compared with printed material – in articles, magazines, books,... – in my web-pages (and other 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, but maybe not until mid-July. ]]   [[ @#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. ]]

[[ iou – July 17-18, 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. ]]

Table of Contents

You can read the rest of this page in any order, by going to any part that looks interesting:

Design Process has Two Wide Scopes that increase Transfers of Learning  -  Two Wide Scopes (for Activities and Process)  -  Scientific Knowledge about Increasing Transfer  —  when students expect Transfers (because we Build Educational Bridges from School into Life and into Their Future) this will improve their Motivations and Confidences.

Develop-and-Use a Growth Mindset  –  Improve in the Present and/or Future with Objectives for Performing and/or Learning  –  Help Students Learn More from their Problem-Solving Experiences by combining Design Process with Metacognitive Thinking Strategies.

Goal-Directed Designing of Curriculum & Instruction  –  designing a coordinated Wide-Spiral Curriculum with Wide Scope and Spiral Repetitions  –  designing Instruction Activities that are Fun (in two ways) and Personally Useful  —  connections between Problem-Solving Education and Overall Education  —  Improving Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

combining different Models-for-Process.

 open only this page   –   put page into left frame 

Above the focus is WHY, with Reasons for Using Design Process because this can Increase Transfers (because of Two Wide Scopes) and Build Bridges that improve Confidences & Motivations).   [[ iou - before July 16, I'll revise these two intro-paragraphs. ]]

Below the focus shifts to WHAT-and-HOW, beginning with three related ways to use metacognitive Thinking Strategies:  by using a Growth Mindset and 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 – July 17-18, 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...

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 ]]

helping students learn more from

their problem-solving experiences

by combining Design Process and

metacognitive Thinking Strategies:

getting more and learning 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 be especially useful for helping students learn more from their problem-solving experiences.  How ?  By motivating & guiding their process of...

developing-and-using effective metacognition: 

What?  One definition of metacognition is “observing your thinking,” but observing can be modified into thinking about and maybe evaluating that can be used for regulating.  When you “regulate your thinking” to produce metacognitive regulation – it's 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 – Later, during mid-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.

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 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 Performing and/or Learning by avoiding metacognition.   We can view this as “stop-and-go metacognition” because in different situations your metacognition will stop (so you just do thinking) or go (when you think about thinking), when using Executive Control to self-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 – soon, July 17-18, 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 }  

[[ iou – July 17-18, 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 }

* 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. }

education that improves metacognition:

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 students, 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 like a good mystery story, so students won't be bored (if 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.”

two humilities:  In this section, many claims are only “maybe” for “what might happen” (e.g. how "a school might be able to overcome... multifaceted barriers") because the claims are based on “what I think” and there are reasons for me to have appropriate humility — with appropriate confidence that is not too little and not too much — in two ways:

• As explained in co-creating better education, “I need help from other educators who more accurately-and-thoroughly understand the perspectives of teachers & students, and 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 schools.”  These understandings are important – especially for this section – but my experiential knowledge is limited, so I have justifiable reasons for personal humility.  So if you read “what I think” and you don't agree, I'll want to learn from you, to improve my knowledge.  If my theories about “how the world works and what will happen” fail in Reality Checks because my Predictions don't match your Observations, I will revise my theories.  Then, in a paraphrasing of Maya Angelou, “when I know better, I'll do better” by adjusting my claims to make them more plausible & practical, more likely to be achievable because they're based on a better understanding of realities in K-12.   /   I have plenty of experience with teaching science – chemistry & physics – to college students (mostly freshmen) and a little experience with teaching skills – tennis & juggling – to younger people (mostly middle-school age).  But this is not very useful for understanding K-12 classrooms and school ecologies.  From second-hand experience (in web-pages & videos) I have gained some knowledge about K-12 education, but do not have your levels of understanding.

• Although I'm confident that my model for Design Process (DP) could be useful for education that improves problem-solving skills & motivations, I'm cautious in making claims because DP hasn't been used in classrooms so there is no empirical evidence for the claims or against them.  But there are logical evidence-based reasons for some of my claims, e.g. for expecting that using DP will promote transfers Across Areas & Through Time.  And in claiming that we should logically expect a student's problem-solving education to improve when they get more problem-solving experiences and they learn more from their experiences;  and we should logically expect students to learn more from their experiences when DP (or SRL-with-DP) helps them develop & use metacognitive thinking strategies.

iou — Today, July 14, I'll continue adding content by revising the ideas in this brown box.

for DP to avoid giving up because it "looks overwhelming" should focus on learning one step at a time (in PD & later) and each step makes sense [use juggling staircase metaphor-simile-analogy] -- DPH.htm for steps to learn by discovery -- I think students will

SRL Plus -- for metacognitive-plus-cognitive (due to wide scope of PS Process, all actions in DP are cognitive) -- #dpmo4a, decisions about "what to do next" for metacognitive coordinating process, to plan Actions

CURRICULUM — skillfully design a

Knowledge-and-Skills Curriculum:

This is another way to think about a Problem-Solving Curriculum.

a perceived competition:  In K-12 education a common goal – for districts & schools, teachers & students, 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 mutually supportive cooperation because when metacognitive self-regulation increases, exam scores also increase — this 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 students' 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 with 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.” }

teaching with metacognition plus teaching for metacognition:

Most teachers are skilled in using metacognition, but some are not yet confident in teaching metacognition, by talking about it and promoting it.  In other words, most are skilled in teaching with metacognition,* 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 effective “teaching for metacognition” in only 12 weeks, with just 30-45 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” so it's more effective for learning and/or performing.  Because of this, optimal using of metacognition is more complicated than just "thinking about thinking" in all situations.   /   goals for levels:  Basic “teaching for metacognition” is fairly easy, and this will help most students most of the time, so it's a worthy basic goal.  After this beginning, teachers can learn more about regulating metacognition, and they will become better at helping their students.

* 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) to understand their own thoughts-and-feelings, and gain much more value by using external metacognition (other-empathy, aka 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, in how they use 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 times?” 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, I think this will be fun” when they are invited to study their thinking and improve it.

* Although teachers also enjoy "mental adventures" their enthusiasm often is 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 school-time for doing things that are fun, and will be productive in making my life better.”  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.  By analogy, 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 page with three diagrams – my favorite and two others – so they can "observe the words & colors, and spatial relationships" to do Learning by Discovery.  While they are studying the diagrams and are thinking about the Problem-Solving Actions, if they also think about how these Actions accurately describe their own Actions while they are solving problems, their Discovery Learning will become Recognition Learning. [[ == these self-reflections will convert your Discovery Learning into Recognition Learning.

motivating all students: -- improve motivations & thinking skills for all students -- @earlier, quote from second gray box.

Basically, all students (not just gifted students) will be motivated to invest metacognitive effort IF they believe that "their effort will be rewarded" in ways they want, will make their life better in ways they want. 

We can enhance the natural motivations of all students by using metaphors like “driving your brain” (and with growth mindset expecting to increase its functional capabilities) and also “being CEO of your brain” by doing executive control.  Most students are excited by these two metaphors, and they will be fascinated when you ask them “in what ways can you drive your brain?  and do executive control?” and “what will be the benefits for learning (to increase your capabilities) and (by effectively using your capabilities) for performing?”  You can see “some ways” later but first you may enjoy creatively generating ideas about multiple ways to drive & control your brain, to improve your learning-and-thinking.

[[ i'm excited by these, think students also will be ]]

@ personal education, IF and IF #tr0 -- wanting to use my intelligence-and-energy in adventurous ways that are interesting & enjoyable, are productive.]

LATER -- “driving your brain” growing their brain into becoming a high-performance race car (or maybe a motorcycle or ___ , letting students imagine the kinds of performance-goals they want to set for themselves) — and them “being the CEO of your brain,” with similar opportunities for letting students elaborate the metaphor. Donna Wilson and Marcus Conyers,"drive your brain" (Wilson & Conyers, 2016) and "be CEO of your brain" (Cohen et al, 2021) -- connect with growth mindset / “driving your brain” ---- ask students how they can "soup it up" to improve a car's engine performance & handling capabilities, and how they can "soup it up" to improve the learning-and-performing of their brain.

NEW NEW

due to mcreg0, optimally-effective MC is more complex than always "just think about your thinking," making it more difficult for teachers, re: implementation and training + indep learning (alone & in classroom & in break room or lunch room with other teachers)

also:  For "gifted enrichment" we can use a variety of fun-and-useful activities – that include studying Design Process – as a reward for mastering "the usual things" early, as bonus-options for extra learning. -- treat DP as bonus treat [e.g. Tom Sawyer fence]

then if they enjoy this, teacher asks them to "tell the class about why" and thus encourage fascination by all

enrichment opportunities for all students -- often GCs are ahead, so are looking for "extra to do", but other students (not officially labeled "gifted") also can learn fast and "finish" early.

And a variety of problem-solving projects (broadly defined, so these can be small or large) can be “extras” for students who master “the usual things” more quickly, to provide extra challenges so they don't become bored with school.  This will be especially useful if the focus of their gifted program is Enrichment°, but maybe even with Acceleration.

treat MC-w-DP as a "bonus treat" And a variety of problem-solving projects (broadly defined, so these can be small or large) can be “extras” for students who master “the usual things” more quickly, to provide extra challenges so they don't become bored with school.

NEW NEW

difficult assessment of MC skills [but "who cares" if goal is improving OTHER learning/skills, w grade improving for teacher/school/distr]  [but tuf to give grade for stu's, if that matters, or is required]  [for both can use Perkins, "most will learn if opport + motivn"]

for students -- figure out this LOGIC, explain it simply & clearly ---- tell them "even though we grade your MC skills indirectly (not directly)," because your MC Skills do indirectly grade them because your metacognitive skills will help you improve your learning-and-thinking, therefore will get better grades on things we directly grade -- even though we won't directly grade your metacognitive skills, but these skills will

for school -- Perkins "opp + motivn" we're giving opps, and here is why a rational student will be motivated

NEW NEW

The summary of Strategy A describes ----Strategy B ??

In this way, using Strategy B (for easier adoption, thus wider adoption) helps a teacher also begin implementing Strategy A (to produce effective education).

Because of its two wide scopes, Design Process can be used for a wide variety of activities that also include normal classroom actions that usually aren't considered to be "activities," but are just the typical process-of-learning to improve basic skills (e.g. reading & math) and gain subject-area knowledge. 

developing-and-using better Strategies for Learning

How?  One strategy for easier implementing begins with a common objective;  teachers and students want to improve the learning-and-remembering of knowledge by students.

How?  A teacher can first recommend some evidence-based Strategies for Learning, or encourage students to find these.  Then they tell students “if you want to learn more effectively, these strategies will help you achieve your goals for learning.”  The teacher then says “you can be more effective in developing-and-using these Strategies for Learning when you use the metacognitive strategy of Self-Regulated Learning, with SRL Cycles.”  Then they show students how using Design Process (DP) will help them effectively develop (and consistently use) Strategies for Learning, because the Cycle of DP is an easy way to understand the Cycle of SRL.  Basically, Design Process is “SRL Plus” (it's SRL plus “added value”) because, compared with a process-of-SRL, the process-of-DP then can be used for a much wider range of problem solving, for “almost everything students do.”  In this way, using Strategy B (for easier adoption, thus wider adoption) helps a teacher also begin implementing Strategy A (to produce effective education).

Although "I think..." I don't really know because I haven't asked students to 

Although I don't know, it does seem probable – as "a good way to bet" – that many students will be enthusiastic about Design Process and metacognition;  and this will make life better for their teachers, with more fun and satisfaction.

use FLASH CARDS for dph.htm -- zb, you do a Quality Check by comparing _ with _ [down a line] or comparing _ and _ . with Quality _ by _ [iou] --> Guided Gen revise? ---- use "9 Actions" for this, for common short-term sequences

They also can reflect on their knowledge (of problem-solving actions in the diagrams) and their own experiences while they're solving problems;  e.g. using Design Process as a checklist is a metacognitive thinking strategy that can help students learn more from experience.

JIGSAW-ETC -- One way is to have students study metacognition by using jigsaw instruction° to improve their understandings & skills, plus (by “feeling ownership” and in other ways) their internal motivations for doing metacognitive self-regulation.     { iou – I like this approach, and in early July I'll read-hear-think-write about it, re: why it could be useful and how to do it well. }

By analogy, a distance runner isn't directly rewarded for interval training (e.g. by running fast for a minute and resting for awhile, then doing it again, and again,...) but they get indirect rewards because this will help get the direct reward of improving their performance in races (like 5k or 10k) that is their goal.

these ideas are a "transition" connecting what's above (for teachers) and below (for students), by comparing overly-busy teachers who are trying to survive so they often are

• Most teachers are overworked, and all teachers have their time limited in two ways:  in how they use the school's classroom time, and also what they are willing to invest (and should be expected to invest) in their own preparation time.  Each of these time-constraints is a factor in decisions (by a school & by its teachers) about using activities that involve general metacognitive strategies and/or (as with Design Process) specific metacognitive strategies.

MIXED EXPECTATIONS about "wanting to learn Design Process" for teachers & students -- earlier (in initial Strategy B) i describe a potential benefit (but certainly not a guaranteed benefit, because I don't have much experience in observing responses by teachers) ---- My model for Design Process is very flexible so it can be used for a wide variety of "activities" that – in addition to Science & Design and Strategizing – also include normal classroom actions that usually aren't considered to be "activities," instead are just the typical process-of-learning to improve basic skills (e.g. reading & math) and gain subject-area knowledge.  Because teachers can use Design Process in combination with "doing what they usually do," some "reasons to not use metacognition" can be less powerful than is usually assumed (and observed) when school-and-teachers are deciding how to use the limited time that's available in the classroom and for preparations by teachers.   /   BUT learning DP probably will be "oh no, not another task to do" for some teachers.

[cite research about MC leading to improved learning-and-performing]] ---- But these benefits are not obvious or certain, --perception/belief-- and if they think (even though it isn't necessarily the reality) is a competition of "knowledge versus skills" with knowledge decreasing when "skill activities" increase, this is a rational reason to reject Activities [+ Metacognition] for Thinking Skills. 

lack of support by admin/institn, e.g. no systemic school-wide implmntn [e.g. WideSpiral] [less whole-school gamble, more freedom

This is a challenge for educators when we are trying to design C&I that is educationally effective AND will be widely adopted by teachers & schools.

But despite these reasons for wanting knowledge-and-skills, often the perspective is knowledge-versus-skills, and this produces...

IF we see knowledge-versus-skills, it's rational to see reasons for not adopting curriculum & instructiom that emphasizes knowledge-and-skills. ---- When making decisions about Problem-Solving Activities,

low und-and-conf by teachers? (doing vs talking-promoting)

for GS's or "extra enrichments" (for all) maybe just give DP-diagrams & questions, say "you observe-study-reflect & figure it out", then discuss w them & they will help teach the teacher --> PD w no cost, no prep-time] + JIGSAW -- give students "ownsership" of their metacognitive --- (self-motivated, not just obeying top-down orders from teacher)

for JigSaw, maybe have students "bid" on topic (ranked choice, 123) and try to optimize "who does what"

questions to supplement mc-with-SRL

use SRL for academic and for social-emotional (@ Cohen, The MC Student)

but productive thinking happens when knowledge is combined with creative-and-critical thinking

These time-constraints are factors in decisions by teachers (and their schools) about using activities that involve general metacognitive strategies.

GIFTED STUDENTS ---- /    ----- But some "reasons to not-use" might be weaker when designing programs for gifted students.  I'll describe some reasons to not-use, and why these reasons might be weaker for gifted students. ----- But some "reasons to not-use" might be weaker when designing programs for gifted students.  I'll describe some reasons to not-use, and why these reasons might be weaker for gifted students.

using Problem-Solving Activities and
metacognitive Thinking Strategies
in Education for Gifted Students

for learning more -- some sources are 5 Rational Reasons for Teachers to Not Teach Thinking Skills} from 2014, but a lot more-and-better in a current AI report that used information from 65 sources, so a LOT of knowledge-about-this is available.  -----  plus experiences (getting more & learning more) with 4 Levels of Problem-Solving Activities that promote Experiences + Reflections ➞ Principles  ---- extra anchors.

The following comments build on the foundation of sections about "rational reasons to avoid Problem-Solving Activities," examined briefly here & here and with more depth.

use JIGSAW

Because teachers can use Design Process in combination with "doing what they usually do," some time-based reasons to not use metacognition can be less powerful than is usually assumed (and observed) when school-and-teachers are deciding how to use the limited time that's available in the classroom and for preparations.

How does using SRL-with-DP differ from using SRL-alone, re: ease of implementing & benefits? — and ignores the challenges of overcoming the "multifacted barriers that prevent widespread SRL adoption."

The teacher then tells them “you can be more effective in developing-and-using these Strategies for Learning when you use the metacognitive strategy of Self-Regulated Learning, with SRL Cycles.”  Then they show students how using Design Process (DP) will help them effectively develop (and consistently use) Strategies for Learning, because the Cycle of DP is an easy way to understand-and-use the Cycle of SRL.  Basically, Design Process is “SRL Plus” (it's SRL plus “added value”) because, compared with a process-of-SRL, the process-of-DP then can be used for a much wider range of problem solving, for “almost everything students do.” 

In this way, using Strategy B (for easier adoption, thus wider adoption) helps a teacher also begin implementing Strategy A (to produce effective education).

Conceptual Evaluation of Instruction:

Although "accurate [quantitative] assessment of higher-level thinking skills is difficult," maybe we should supplement quantitative assessments of knowledge with qualitative assessments of problem-solving skills by using Conceptual Evaluation of Instruction.  This kind of evaluation is given more credibility if we accept a claim — made by David Perkins (a highly respected educator, a Professor at Harvard) in a 1992 book, Smart Schools: From Training Memories to Educating Minds — that "people learn much of what they have a reasonable opportunity and motivation to learn."

If we want students to learn problem-solving skills, we must give them opportunities to learn these skills, and motivations to learn.  When we examine the C&I of a school, we can evaluate the quantity & quality of opportunities for experiences with problem solving & metacognition.  If students have plenty of opportunities to learn skills, and motivations to learn, it's highly probable (in “a good way to bet”) that there will be more learning-of-skills.   /   Conceptual Evaluation of Instruction will promote better education if it encourages teachers & administrators to ask “how can we design curriculum-guided instruction that will be more beneficial for more students?” instead of a focus on just “how can we get more points on the standardized exams?”  With a creative designing of C&I, we can get "more beneficial" and also "more points."     [ iou – this is useful of evaluation of C&I, but doesn't help with another level, where a school wants its teachers to evaluate the quality (and assign a grade) for the performance of individual students. ]

When we're doing conceptual evaluation, one useful tool is the integrative analysis of instruction — it's a systematic way to find opportunities for students to practice & improve their problem-solving skills — that helps us understand the structure of instruction more accurately & thoroughly, so we can improve the instruction to make it more effective in achieving our educational goals.

NEW NEW

iou – These two related sections (especially the first, about knowledge-and-skills) will be revised, and they will have an introduction – describing ideals & realities – and will be moved out of this green box and probably to another location in the page. optimizing “knowledge + skills” combination: 

CURRICULUM — skillfully design a

Knowledge-and-Skills Curriculum:

This is another way to think about a Problem-Solving Curriculum.

Knowledge and Basic Skills plus Problem-Solving Skills:  The beginning of Problem Solving is to "Learn so you understand more accurately-and-thoroughly," because productive problem solving is the result of effectively combining creative-and-critical thinking with relevant knowledge.  One benefit of better subject-area knowledge is better problem-solving skills.   In this way & others, knowledge-and-skills are mutually supportive in a student's personal education.   /   In our whole-person goals for education, problem-solving skills should supplement – not replace – basic skills of reading & math, and knowledge in sciences, history, social studies, literature.  We should try to help students improve in multiple ways, in their skills (with reading, math, problem solving) and knowledge (in many areas of life).    { and we can help students use Design Process to develop-and-use thinking strategies for how to learn basic skills & knowledge more effectively, as in strategies for Self-Regulated Learning. }    { more about Unfortunately-Rational Reasons to Avoid Problem-Solving Activities in Schools plus experiences (getting more & learning more) with 4 Levels of Problem-Solving Activities that promote Experiences + Reflections ➞ Principles }

Knowledge and Basic Skills plus Problem-Solving Skills:  The beginning of Problem Solving is to "Learn so you understand more accurately-and-thoroughly," because productive problem solving is the result of effectively combining creative-and-critical thinking with relevant knowledge.  Therefore, one benefit of better subject-area knowledge is better problem-solving skills.  We also see the reverse, when problem-solving skills improve the learning of subject-area knowledge, – by using Design Process for Self-Regulated

In this way & others, knowledge-and-skills are mutually supportive in a student's personal education.   /   In our whole-person goals for education, problem-solving skills should supplement – not replace – basic skills of reading & math, and knowledge in sciences, history, social studies, literature.  We should try to help students improve in multiple ways, in their skills (with reading, math, problem solving) and knowledge (in many areas of life).    { and we can help students use Design Process to develop-and-use thinking strategies for how to learn basic skills & knowledge more effectively, as in strategies for Self-Regulated Learning. }    { more about Unfortunately-Rational Reasons to Avoid Problem-Solving Activities in Schools plus experiences (getting more & learning more) with 4 Levels of Problem-Solving Activities that promote Experiences + Reflections ➞ Principles }

for A, @ B ---- { and we can help students use Design Process to develop-and-use thinking strategies for how to learn basic skills & knowledge more effectively, as in strategies for Self-Regulated Learning. } [change links to h.htm versions]  

A ---- The beginning of my simplest model for Design Process is to "learn so you understand more accurately-and-thoroughly," because productive problem solving is the result of effectively combining relevant knowledge with creative-and-critical thinking.  Thus, one benefit of better subject-area knowledge is better problem-solving skills, because knowledge provides the “raw materials” you can use for creative-and-critical thinking, for productive problem solving.  In this way & others, knowledge-and-skills are mutually supportive in a student's personal education.  Therefore our Goals for C&I should be a knowledge-AND-skills curriculum with knowledge-AND-skills instruction, so students will improve their ideas & skills & skills-with-ideas.   details-website.htm#cmex

A ---- A Knowledge-and-Skills Curriculum, to effectively teach

Knowledge and Basic Skills plus Problem-Solving Skills

optimizing “knowledge + skills” combination:  Ideally, we could teach in ways that maximize knowledge AND maximize skills.  But in reality this doesn't seem possible.  Instead we can aim for an optimal combination of knowledge and skills.  But what is optimal?  Many educators, including me, think the balance should shift toward more emphasis on skills and skills-with-knowledge.  This change can be justified if we decide – based on our system of values – that the importance of increases in procedural-knowledge outweighs the importance of decreases in conceptual-knowledge. 

A ----especially for lifelong learning when we educate for life [use ws version] to help students cope with a wide range of challenges in their futures — the long-term total benefits can increase when we increase the value we place on skills, and choose better goals for knowledge-plus-skills. 

A ---- supplementing (not replacing) knowledge with skills:  In our whole-person goals for education, problem-solving skills should supplement – not replace – basic skills of reading & math, and knowledge in sciences, social studies, history, literature.  We should try to help students improve in multiple ways, in their skills (with reading, math, science, problem solving) and knowledge (in many areas of life).  

This is possible because “knowledge versus skills” is not a zero-sum situation where increasing one must decrease the other by an equal amount, and —  

the need to actualize two IF-factors:  Knowledge-and-Skills Instruction that leads to improving of problem-solving abilities – by improving knowledge & skills and skills-with-knowledge, plus motivations – will produce large-scale improvements only IF the instruction is educationally effective and IF the instruction are widely adopted by teachers and their schools & districts.  When making a decision (Yes or No) whether to use more resources for knowledge-and-skills instruction, educators consider many factors, with rational 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, therefore can improve their problem-solving abilities, including their knowledge-and-skills plus their motivations to “make things better” by solving problems).

NEW NEW

CURRICULUM — skillfully design a

Coordinated Wide Spiral that has a

Wide Scope with Spiral Repetitions:

If your school decides “yes” for Education with Metacognition for Problem Solving — that includes Problem-Solving Activities (for Experiences) and (to learn more from Experiences) Metacognitive Thinking Strategies — one way to pursue it with enthusiastic dedication, with a Big YES, is by designing a Wide Spiral for Curriculum & Instruction.

When we're designing C&I that is “wide” the wide scope of problem solving (it includes almost everything students do) is useful because it lets teachers use problem-solving activities in all subject areas – in sciences & engineering, business, humanities, and arts, in STEAM and beyond – to produce a knowledge-and-skills curriculum with wide scope, so in every area students can have similar experiences with Problem-Solving Process, using a process of General Design and/or Science-Design that they can adapt to match their problem-solving Objectives.  These experiences can be part of a wide spiral curriculum that spans many grades in K-12, that has wide scope (so related learning experiences are coordinated across different areas) and uses spiral repetitions (so learning experiences are coordinated over time) to help all students (of all ages) improve their problem-solving skills and their basic skills & knowledge.     {more:  Goal-Directed Designing of a Wide-Spiral Curriculum – What, Why, Who, How – using instruction spirals that are short-term narrow, short-term wide, long-term wide.}

We have reasons to expect that using Design Process might be very useful in a Wide Spiral Curriculum, that it's “a good way to bet” for improving students' problem-solving education, and (especially when we build two-way bridges between school & life) their overall education.     { The best way to understand Design Process – it's my model for Problem-Solving Process – is with Learning by Your Discovery & My Explanations. }     Although I'm confident that Design Process can be useful in Education-with-Metacognition, I do have...

appropriate humility:  [ iou – Here are some ideas to be developed in late June.  /  using UbD (for "reverse engineering" from goals to C&I, plus other benefits) and URL-plus-MTSS with UDL providing a solid foundation for the Tier 1 of MTSS,  and in a "successive approximations" view of UDL, when it fails to be universal the Tier 2 & Tier 3 of MTSS can be used to help make it more-Universal.   /   and here is a rough beginning for imagining a hybrid:  for general Goal-Directed Designing of C&I, I recognize relationships between my ideas and UDL — Universal Design for Learning, a system that is more sophisticated and highly developed, compared with my ideas — plus ways to productively combine the two perspectives on curriculum design, along with Design Process and other models for thinking & learning. ]

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).

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 4-12, I'll write this paragraph.

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.

== [[ iou – in mid-July I'll write an INTRO that links back to "different kinds of understandings" because 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. ]]

Below, the 10 Modes of Action are detailed descriptions — showing WHAT is being done and HOW to do it better — of the main Actions that are functionally organized to form the diagrams in my model for Design Process.  It's a different perspective way to understand the diagrams in Model amily of models for problem-solving Design Process. Model amily of models for problem-solving Design Process. 

Actions and Process:  This section supplements a family of models for Design Process by offering a different perspective. 

Actions ➞ Process:  My model(s) for Process is a system of functionally related Actions that are logically organized in educationally productive ways to show the coherent integration of productive actions to form a productive process.  It's educationally useful for students to see (in verbal-and-visual diagrams) how the 10 modes of Problem-Solving Actions are organized into a model for Problem-Solving Process.  (actually it's a family of related models that students can explore in a 5-stage progression for learning)

a system of functionally related modes of action — that becomes an overall model of Design Process when the modes are logically organized in educationally productive ways to show the coherent integration of productive actions (in these modes) to form a productive process. dynamic model0

are coordinated (by making action-decisions about “what to do next”) to form a productive design-process.

Actions and Process:  Or, when we ask “converting Problem-Solving Skills into a Problem-Solving Process”, Design Process shows how productive design-actions (in the Modes) — which include creative-and-critical productive design-thinking and more —

iou – The introduction (outlined above) will include this diagram, to show connections between my DP-Diagrams and my 10 Modes of DP-Action:

Here are 10 Modes of Action – organized into 4 categories with colorizing – that people use during 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.