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 2, 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 1 “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, and that would be fine) do actions for...

co-creating better education:

I'm an enthusiastic educator who enjoys talking with other educators informally, 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."

education for all ages:  While writing this page (and the rest of my website) I'm thinking mostly about K-12 schools.  But the ideas – about our goals & my model, in Parts 1 & 2 – also can be useful for younger children in pre-school, and older students in college, and all ages in everyday life, because everyone can do lifelong learning.

  put this section into left-side frame 

Part 1

What?  This section will help you use Discovery Learning to understand Problem-Solving Process, and also use Recognition Learning.

How?  You will discover three kinds of Essential Actions in my model for creative-and-critical Design Process ( i.e. for Problem-Solving Process) when you...

use a process of discovering:  In this diagram, observe (and think about) the words & colors and spatial relationships, always asking “what does this mean?  what action is being described?”  Below are some questions that will help you explore-and-discover.

an option:  You may enjoy first using part of a Short-PowerPoint — with 7 slides (23-29) that will help you learn from Your Discoveries & My Explanations — and then returning to this section.

a Mystery Question:  Why does the Cycle have a right-side arrow, pointing from Evaluate to Generate?    tip:  To enjoy your process more, try to Solve the Mystery before looking at the two clues below.

In the Top Part of the diagram, what are the two essential Problem-Solving Actions?  and what is produced when they're alternated?  –  These are Essential Actions #1.

use a process of recognizing:  [iou – this paragraph will be written tonight, March 11]   You will recognize that These Actions are Your Actions when you combine ----

a Mystery-Clue:  What action has an essential function in the Top Part & Bottom Part?

In the Bottom Part, what are the three essential Problem-Solving Actions?  what is the purpose of each “____ Check” ?  (what information does it give you?  how does it help you achieve what you want?)  – These are Essential Actions #2.

a Mystery-Clue:  If you Compare Predictions with Goals (in the Quality Check on left side) and you decide that the quality-of-matching isn't fully satisfactory, what is a useful Next Action?  Is this Action represented by the right-side arrow?  –  The Mystery Answer is Essential Actions #3.

spoiler alert :  You can see The Mystery Answer (it's #3) on the left & right sides of Diagram 3 that's followed by a brief explanation of Guided Generating (#3);  later there is a detailed explanation;  and it's semi-brief in Slide 26.

spoiler alert :  A section about Recognition Learning has explanations for these three Essential Actions — Design Cycles, Quality/Reality Checks, Guided Generating — and for...

     why that section will help you recognize that Design Process is Your Process.  When you study Design Process you will see familiar Actions that form the intuitive Problem-Solving Process you already have been using to Solve Problems (to Make Things Better) in most areas of your life.

[iou – this section will be completed tonight, March 11]   You can see other Essential Actions in the Top-Text and Bottom-Text of Diagram 1.  You begin a Problem-Solving Project (a Design Project) when you Learn about a Situation, and Define Your Goals (for what you want to achieve, what you want to make better) & Define Your Goal-Criteria (for the characteristics of a satisfactory Problem-Solution.  Then you Solve This Problem by using Actions in the Central Core

  put this section into left-side frame 

Part 2

Design Process has Wide Scopes that

increase two Transfers of Learning and

help build motivational Transfer Bridges:

These three claims are logically supported and causally connected, because we have logical reasons to expect that...

     • my model for Design Process has Wide Scopes for Problem-Solving Activities (for doing most of our life-Activities) and for Problem-Solving Process because most people use a General PS-Process that is similar (but not identical) for most of their PS-Activities, AND this PS-Process is accurately described by Design Process;

     • we should expect that these Wide Scopes (for PS-Activities & PS-Process) will promote Transfers of Learning (Across Areas, Through Time) because the Wide Scopes let us teach in ways that are recommended (in How People Learn, NRC 2000) for increasing Transfers;

     • these Transfers (Across Areas, Thru Time) help us build stronger Transfer Bridges for a student — from School into Their Life and into Their Future — so they believe that “ if I improve my School-Learning, it will improve my Life-Living in ways I want, it will help me achieve my whole-person goals for Life,” and these beliefs give them Personal Motivations to learn in school, so they are motivated to proactively pursue their own Personal Education.

The next 3 sections describe logical reasons for my claims about
Wide Scopes and Transfers of Learning and Transfer Bridges.

iou – These three sections “need work” and I'll do this March 9-12.

The Wide Scope of Design Process:

iou – This section “needs work” and I'll do it March 11-12.

what?  With a broad definition of Problem — it's an opportunity to make something better, in any area of life — you are Problem Solving whenever you are trying to make things better, and this includes most things you do in life.

what?  I claim that ...   • most people use a General Process of Problem Solving that is similar (but not identical) for most things we do in life, for our Problem-Solving Activities, AND that ...   • this General Process is described accurately-and-usefully in my model for Design Process (i.e. for Problem-Solving Process) so it has a Wide Scope for Process-and-Activities.

why?  My claim that Design Process has a Wide Scope is based on this three-part chain of reasoning:

    One general reason:  I think it's educationally useful to broadly define a problem as any opportunity to make something better, so Problem-Solving Activities include most things people do in life;  you are problem solving (verb) whenever you are trying to make something better, and you are a problem solver (noun) whenever you do make something better.

    Another general reason:  I think most people use a similar General Process of Problem Solving for most things they do, for most Problem-Solving Activities.

    A specific reason:  I think this General Process is described by Design Process in ways that are accurate, and are useful for helping students improve their Problem-Solving Abilities (in being able to Solve Problems) and Problem-Solving Motivations (in wanting to Solve Problems, wanting to make things better).

Why do I think these claims are justified?  This is explained later in the section.

so what?   The two wide scopes (for PS-Activities & PS-Process) are educationally useful because they can help us increase Transfers of Learning and build “Transfer Bridges” between School and Life, to motivate students when they believe that improving their School-Learning will improve their Life-Living.

How?

You can make something better when

     ... with reactive Problem Solving you “make it better” by improving it (to fix it) after it already exists, or

     ... with proactive Problem Solving you “do it better” the first time, so there is no need to "fix it" with reactive improving.    { This is the “measure twice, cut once” strategy of carpenters, to take advantage of the only opportunity to make a high-quality first cut. }

If the “something to make better” is an ongoing situation (like a relationship) and you imagine the “possible futures” that could happen, these Predictions (if... then...) can help you make things better when

     ... with proactive Problem Solving you do positive Actions (producing beneficial effects) that either will increase quality (by making the future situation more-good than it would have been without your positive Actions) or maintain quality (by making the situation less-bad than it would have been without your positive Actions), or

     ... with protective Problem Solving you use “wise filtering” to avoid negative Actions (that would produce detrimental effects) and your proactive self-control makes things better (compared with doing the negative Actions) by either increasing quality or maintaining quality.     { more about Problem Solving that is reactive, proactive, protective }

What is The Problem?  To begin a Problem-Solving Activity you ask “What do I want to achieve?  i.e. What do I want to make better?  what problem do I want to solve?”   When you make this decision, you Define your Problem-Solving Goal;  your Goal is what you want to achieve, it's your Goal-Purpose (i.e. your Purpose)* for doing Your Process of Problem-Solving (for doing Your Process of Solution-Designing).  You Define your Goal when you choose to design a better product, activity, relationship, and/or strategy (in General Design, aka Design) and/or (in Science-Design, aka Science) a better explanatory theory about “how things work in the world.”  These Problem-Solving Goals – extending far beyond traditional “design fields” – include most things we do in life.    /   * These terms are approximate synonyms ( ≈ );  your Problem-Solving Goal is your Goal ≈ your Goal-Purpose ≈ your Purpose ≈ What You Want to Achieve ≈ What You Want to Design ≈ What You Want to Make Better ≈ The Problem You Want to Solve.  A teacher (and their students) can choose to use any of these synonym-terms, although

The main reason that it's "most things we do" is because we design-and-use strategies many times every day, in many ways.  In fact, you do this every time you make a decision.  You can design... 

     • Action-Strategies for "doing it better the first time" with proactive Problem Solving,

     • Thinking Strategies (using cognition-and-metacognition) that include Self-Regulated Learning, and

     • Time-Strategies by asking “what is the best use of my time now? and later?” so you can wisely use your time, and – because “time is the stuff life is made of” (Ben Franklin) – you will wisely use your life.

my model for Design Process has Wide Scopes for Problem-Solving Activities (for doing most of our life-Activities) and for Problem-Solving Process because most people use a PS-Process that is similar (but not identical) for most of their PS-Activities, AND this PS-Process is accurately described by Design Process;

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

the wide scope of human Problem-Solving Process  and

the descriptive accuracy of my model for Design Process:

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

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

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

Design Process describes "the basic process" — the essential Problem-Solving Actions that we always do — but not the complete process.  These basic actions are necessary for problem solving, but are not always sufficient for optimally-effective problem solving.  Therefore, sometimes it can be useful to supplement the principles & strategies of Design Process with the principles & strategies of other Models-for-Process, as explained in Combining My Model with Other Models or with Different Levels of Design Process.

[ iou – March 8-11, I will be working to convert the following collection-of-ideas (in the rest of this section) into a coherently organized system-of-ideas, with a writing style that is more polished.  But before this happens, I think you will be able to understand the ideas and the system.

[ the limits of my claims " education-improving reasons to

combine Design Process with other Models-for-Process

[ a wide scope for PS-Activities:  IF we use a broad definition for problem solving, THEN many models for problem solving – not just Design Process (DP) – can claim to have a wide scope for PS-Activities.

[ a wide scope for PS-Process:  IF we accept my general claim that "most people use a Problem-Solving Process that is similar for most things we do, for most of our Activities," THEN many models for problem solving (not just DP) can claim a wide scope for PS-Activities.  And [well, maybe not] many models also can claim (as I do for DP) that their model accurately describes a general PS-Process.  Therefore I should modify my claim to make it more specific, by claiming that DP has...

[ a wide scope for describing PS-Process in a way that is educationally useful in two ways, to improve Learning of PS-Skills by students, and to improve Performing of PS-Skills by students.

[ my model for DP is constructed from short-term Actions (Define, Generate, Evaluate, Choose, imagine-to-Predict, actualize-and-Observe, Compare, Revise,...) that often are used in short-term Sequences (as in these Action Sequences), but many other Models-for-Process are constructed from long-term phases (that each contain many short-term Actions);   the framework of DP allows it to accurately describe a wider range of PS-Activities (and associated PS-Process), in ways that can be understood by thinking about these two metaphor-analogies:  with modular flexibility, a few simple Lego Bricks can be combined to form many kinds of complex Lego Structures or {a few simple atoms can be combined to form many kinds of complex molecules};   with modular flexibility, the short-term Actions of DP are analogous to simple Lego Bricks {or atoms}, and the wide scope of PS-Process "that is accurately described by DP" is analogous to the wide scope of Lego Structures {or molecules} that can be constructed,  by contrast with the long-term sequences of other models that are analogous to Lego Structures {or molecules}.

[ my model for Design Process is a family of sub-models:  each sub-model selects different Actions to include (and exclude) in its Action-Diagram,* so each sub-model is accurate in different ways, and is educationally useful (to improve PS-Learning and/or PS-Performing) in different ways, and the existence of different sub-models offers benefits for creatively Designing Instruction;*   all sub-models are similar because each describes the same overall Design Process, but each is different (so they are ≈ similar, are semi-similar, are not identical) because each model includes (and thus encourages a student to think about) different aspects of the overall process.    /   * e.g. in Diagram 1 the major PS-Strategy is using Design Cycles of Generate-and-Evaluate;   Diagram 2 adds important details about "how we Evaluate" in a second major PS-Strategy, when you Evaluate an Option by using 3 Elements (Predictions & Observations, Goals) in 3 Comparisons (in two Quality Checks and one Reality Check);   Diagram 3 adds the major PS-Strategy of using Guided Generation when you use Evaluation (done by Comparing two Elements) to motivate-and-guide your Generation, when you creatively Revise an Old Option so you Generate an Option that is Semi-New, instead of Inventing an Option so you Generate an Option that is More-New, or even (although maybe impossible?) is Totally-New.

[ * because DP has many "levels" with sub-models that range from simple to more-complex, teachers can design instruction-progressions that moves from simple (using only Diagram 1 with its Cycles of Generate-and-Evaluate) to medium-simple (using Diagram 1+2 with Diagram 2 that adds its Evaluation by using 3 Comparisons) to more complex (using Diagram 3 that adds Guided Generating with Evaluation motivating-and-guiding Generation.

[ zzzzz necessary but not sufficient, inclusive but not totally-covering all, --> combining DP with other models

SO WHAT ?

some educational benefits of descriptive accuracy:

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

some educational benefits of the two wide scopes:

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

  put this section into left-side frame 

Logical Reasons to Predict Transfers:

iou – This section “needs work” and I'll do it March 9-12.

Below, related sub-sections (1 & 2) explain why we should expect that using my model for Design Process (for Problem-Solving Process) will increase Transfers of Learning (Between Areas & Through Time) due to the logical evidence-based connections between...

two Wide Scopes (of Design Process) in 1 (in 1A & 1B) and

Scientific Knowledge (about Transfers) in 2 (2A & 2B),

and because (1C & 2C) it promotes deep understanding

     with a logical organizing of Problem-Solving Actions

     in the verbal-and-visual framework of its diagrams.

1 – Two Wide Scopes for Problem Solving

I confidently claim that Design Process accurately describes the creative-and-critical Process we use for most things we do (i.e. for most Activities) so it has a Wide Scope for Process-and-Activities.  But it's often useful to view this One Wide Scope as being Two Wide Scopes, with...

1A)  a wide scope for Problem-Solving Activities

because Design Process describes (in ways that are accurate and educationally useful) most things people do, so most things that students do can be a Problem-Solving Activity, a PS-Activity. 

     Therefore a teacher can use Design Process (DP) during a wide variety of PS-Experiences and — because students are getting more PS-Experiences and (by metacognitively using DP) they are learning more from each PS-Experience — they will improve their skills in PS-Learning and PS-Performing.     { education is learning from experience, and more education occurs when students learn more from their experiences by getting more experiences and learning more from their experiences. }

1B)  a wide scope for Problem-Solving Process

because students intuitively use a PS-Process that is similar (but not identical) for most things they do, in School and in Life.

The framework of Problemuse the PS-Actions in Design Process Problem-Solving Actions for most things they do in life.  We find other similarities-in-process when we dig deeper.  And for most problem solving (in both General Design and Science-Design) the process-of-thinking that people typically use is accurately described by Design Process.  But in addition to similarities we also see differences because, for different people & different situations, the Problem-Solving Process is similar but is not identical.  Why?  When we examine the problem-solving process more deeply,...

We see similarities because people use The Actions of Design Process for solving most problems, for most of the things we do.     { also, whether our “thinking” is mainly conscious or subconscious in a particular situation, we use a similar process of Observe-to-Learn, Generate-and-Evaluate Options, Decide & Do. }

But differences occur because The Problem-Solving Actions — including all verbs (Learn, Define, Define, Generate, Choose, Evaluate, Design, Do, imagine & make-use, actualize & make-use, use by comparing, use, revise) — can be combined into MANY different sequences when The Actions are done by different people to solve different kinds of problems.  A person will coordinate their problem-solving process by making decisions (how?) about “what to do next” for each specific problem, and with experience – especially when they use metacognition to pursue a learning objective – they will develop customized strategies for each kind of problem, to optimize their process (for the kind of problem they're working on now) and to design a better solution.  Their flexible improvising is analogous to the goal-directed improvising of a hockey player.  But not the rigid choreography of a figure skater.   /   Their coordinating-of-process also is analogous to the modular process-of-building when a few kinds of simple Lego Bricks are used to build many different complex structures.  With a modular process-of-solving we can use the same Problem-Solving Actions to form many variations of Problem-Solving Process.  People can solve a wide variety of problems by custom-building a Process that is similar (but not identical) for most things we do, because each Process is a variation (improvised with modular flexibility) on a basic theme, made by combining the same Actions in different ways. // In a brief description of the 9 Actions, we use experiences to 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 }

2 – Scientific Knowledge about Increasing Transfer:

Why should we expect transfers-of-skills to increase when we use Design Process?  Some logical science-based reasons come from How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (a highly respected book, commissioned by the National Research Council, about using educational research to improve educational practice) when — after saying "the ultimate goal of learning" is transfer, so it's "a major goal of schooling" — the authors recommend that to increase transfer, we use teaching methods that include these three Strategies:

2A)  teach knowledge in multiple contexts, and...  1-A) this 2-A Strategy is allowed by the wide scope of Problem-Solving Activities (when using Design Process) that includes most things that students do, in multiple contexts in many areas of life;

2B)  teach knowledge in an easily-generalizable form, and...  1-B) this 2-B Strategy can be done by using Design Process to show students the wide scope of Problem-Solving Process that is similar for most things they do (i.e. it's already generalized), for their Problem-Solving Activities in all areas of their Whole-Life, inside & outside their School-Life.

2C)  teach knowledge in ways that promote deep understanding, and...  1-C) thi (below) how another main recommendation by HPL — to teach for the "deep understanding" that improves transfers — is promoted by the logically organized structure of Design Process that includes a combining of visual-and-verbal meanings, with productive interactions between these two representations of procedural knowledge.

solid foundations in educational research:   iou – I'll re-write this paragraph in late-February,

[[ and will include information in AI-reports that examine these questions:  • What are the differences between teaching for transfers-between-areas (it was the main focus in How People Learn, HPL) and for transfers-through-time from present to future?  {based on preliminary "quick reports," similar methods are effective for both};   • HPL focused on transfers-between-areas for conceptual knowledge, so for procedural knowledge will similar methods be effective?  {yes, effective teaching for both kinds of knowledge is based on similar principles and uses similar methods, including what I'll add as 2-C for the "mastery learning with understanding" that is promoted by the systematic-and-intuitive logic of Design Process};   • HPL was published in 2000, so are its research-based principles still valid?  {yes, recent research supports the conclusions & recommendations in HPL.  When it was published in 2000, HPL described principles (including 2-A, 2-B, 2-C) that had solid foundations in evidence-based scientific research, and a quarter century later the current evidence still supports 2-ABC.    /    The up-to-date evidence also supports other claims I've made, e.g. for the effectiveness of metacognitive regulation that can be promoted by using Self-Regulated Learning (and thus by using Design Process) for improving performance in a wide range of areas. ]]

{more about transfers}

When we help students build bridges

so they expect school-to-life transfers,

this will produce the indirect benefits

of improving motivation & confidence:

iou – This section “needs work” and I'll do it March 9-12.

Design Process has two wide scopes (for PS-Activities & PS-Process) and shows the logical organization of our creative-and-critical thinking so — based on what we know about How People Learn, as explained above in 1 & 2 — we should expect Design Process to help increase transfers Across Areas (between subjects in School and areas in Life) and Through Time (from Past to Present into Future).  Because this is happening, ...

A student will get direct benefits when these transfers improve their problem-solving abilities (and other abilities) in a wider variety of situations, in their School-Life and NonSchool-Life, with School-Life + NonSchool-Life = Whole-Life.  These direct benefits produce changes in their external results, in their abilities to Learn AND Perform.

A student also gets indirect benefits when they improve their internal attitudes, their motivations (for wanting to learn) and their confidences (in being able to learn).

Confidences in Abilities to Learn:  These will improve when students recognize that their external results are improving — when they see reasons for confidence with better problem-solving abilities (and other abilities) in a wider variety of situations, in their School-Life and NonSchool-Life — and this helps them develop a growth mindset.     { A growth mindset is part of the foundational Habit 1 – Be Proactive – in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. }

Motivations for Personal Education:  These will increase IF you help students persuade themselves – whether or not you use Design Process* – to believe that their Problem-Solving Activities in School will be personally useful in Life.  Students will be motivating themselves because they are thinking “when I improve in School NOW, this will help me improve in Life LATER.”    { * Although using Design Process isn't necessary for motivating students, it can be very useful due to its two wide scopes (for Problem-Solving Activities & Problem-Solving Process) and the Transfers (Across Areas & Thru Time) this facilitates. }     { timings:  In their Now-and-Later, the "Later" can happen after school today, and next year, and when they're an adult, a little later and a lot later, spanning a wide range of time. }    During this process of attitude change, we are helping students develop personal motivations to pursue their personal goals by using personal education that is proactive problem solving (by making things better, by designing my life) when they decide “I want to make my education better because this will make my life better, will help me achieve my goals for life.”

iou – March 5-9, I'll merge some these ideas into this section, either above or below:  IF a student believes that their learning will transfer Between Areas (from School into Their Life) and Through Time (from School into Their Future) so their learning will be personally useful.  When this happens they are thinking “ if I improve my School-Learning, it will improve my Life-Living, it will help me achieve my goals for Life,” and these beliefs give them personal motivations to learn in school.  When they think “making my education better will make my life better,” they are motivated to improve their own personal education, to design their life.   /    How can we actualize this IF so it becomes a reality?  By creating a productive environment with “attitudes and activities” that make School Experiences more fun-and-useful for more students.  This includes showing students how – by using Design Process and in other ways – they can Build Bridges between School and Their Life & Their Future.     { more:  Motivations for Personal Education by Building Bridges from School into Life, and using motivational metaphors that encourage students to skillfully “drive your brain” and “be CEO of your brain” so “you will optimize your wonderful Whole-Brain System of Conscious Thinking and Subconscious Processing.” }

iou – during mid-March, I'll describe a generalization of Personal Education, when a student does a very important kind of problem-solving Design Project, when they decide to proactively-and-wisely design their life to make it better now and in their future.

Our strategies for motivating students can include these three ways to get students more excited about thinking:

motivating with bridges:  We can logically explain (as outlined in The Two Wide Scopes) why students should expect transfers-of-learning (Across Areas & Thru Time) that do produce direct benefits (with better results in their learning & performing) and can produce indirect benefits (with better attitudes in their motivations & confidences) IF – with a growth mindset – students confidently expect increases in their problem-solving abilities (and other abilities) in a wide range of situations, in school and in life.  Their intrinsic motivations will increase when they expect thinking to be a valuable part of their life, and they think their efforts in school will be rewarded in ways they want, when they expect their skills-in-school to “transfer” and become skills-in-life that will make their life better in ways they want.   /   Of course, teachers can motivate by “building bridges” whether or not they use Design Process and its distinctive benefits.   /   We can help this " IF " happen for students when we build bridges — in their expectations for what will occur, and the realities of what does occur — that show them the two-way Transfer Bridges Across Areas (from School into Life, and from Life into School)* and Transfers Thru Time (from their Present into their Future).  These bridges can improve their Transfers of Learning (Across Areas & Thru Time) and also their Transitions of Attitudes (by improving their motivations for wanting to learn, and their confidence in being able to learn).    {* The two-way bridges produce two-way transfers so — although I've been emphasizing present-to-future transfers from school into life, to increase students' motivations — they also get past-to-present transfers, from life into school, to increase their confidence when they think “I already have done this before (during design-in-life) so I can do it again (for design-in-school).” }     {more about building bridges and encouraging transitions of attitudes}

motivating with metaphors:  We can enhance the natural motivations of students with motivational metaphors° by encouraging 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 Thinking” by using executive control with metacognitive Thinking Strategies;  and “be CEO of Your Life” by Designing your Life.  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 how can you 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 (to use your capabilities) for performing?”

motivating with invitations to explore:  We can give students exciting “adventures with thinking” in many ways, by inviting them to explore the fascinating world of thinking.  They have opportunities to explore in this website and beyond it.  For example,

In one kind of exploration adventure, I think many students will be fascinated when they study the logic-and-art in diagrams for Design Process, especially when they already have been motivated by bridges & metaphors.*  To make their exploring easier, I've made a Discovery Page with three diagrams – my favorite and two others – that promote Discovery Learning when they "observe the words & colors, and spatial relationships."  While they're doing this, if they ask “are these Problem-Solving Actions the same Actions that I use while I'm solving problems?” most will say Yes (why?) and their Discovery Learning will become Recognition Learning.  They also can enjoy in-depth explorations of many topics.    /   * gifted students and homeschool students are more likely to be among “the many who will be fascinated” but this also will happen with some other students.

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

 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 four related ways to use metacognitive Thinking Strategies:  by using a Growth Mindset and with Learning that Improves Performing and Learning More From Experiences and using Design Process.  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.    /    We also can develop-and-use strategies to motivate students with bridges (between school & life, present & future) and metaphors (to “drive your brain” and “be CEO of your thinking”) plus “adventures in thinking” with Design Process and invitations to explore.

* 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 October, maybe I'll briefly describe the physical changing of neuronal connectivities that is allowed by neuroplasticity, and how this relates to having confidence in our possibilities for growth, and thus for confidently using a growth mindset. ]]

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

Personal Goals to improve

Performing and/or Learning:

When you want your best possible performing now, you have a Performance Goal.  When you want your best possible learning now, so you can improve your best possible performance later, you have a Learning Goal.   For example, compare the main objectives for a basketball team's early-season practice (with a Learning Goal, wanting to learn NOW so they can perform better LATER) and late-season tournament game (with a Performance Goal, 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 some optimal combination of both, by placing different values on the present (wanting to perform better now) and future (wanting to perform better later, by learning better now).  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 Goals) with present performing (wanted in your current Performance Goal).     { 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." }    { how a friend became – by learning in his present times – a better-performing welder in his future times }     [[ iou – in late-March, 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. ]]

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 late August I will continue this section (about Regulation of Metacognition) by writing a highly condensed version of ideas from the big section about regulating metacognition and (by condensing a section from the Long-HomePage) I'll 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 ]]

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

[[ iou – in late March, 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. ]]

 put this section into left-side frame

What kind of Knowledge-and-Skills Curriculum

will produce optimal Whole-Person Education?

multiple goals and limited resources:  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 – about the effects of teaching metacognitive Self-Regulated Learning.  It 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.  Or to often not use it.  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 consciously 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

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 9-12) I'll revise all of it, especially this currently-incomplete ending. ]]

iou – during September 26-30 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 – in mid-September, 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