Site-Using Tips  –   open only this page   –   put page into left frame 
Education for Problem Solving
 
teachers doing DEEPdt Design ThinkingThis 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 togethercan 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.     {a possibility for talking at a conference}   {improvising conversation & improvising music}
  Students doing Design Thinking

* 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 Ben 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.

 

viewing tips:  If possible, view this page on a large screen so when you put page into left frame (if it isn't there already) the links will work better because linked-to sections appear in the right frame, and you still can see this page in the left frame.  But if you have a small screen, you can open only this page and then links will open in a new tab.   /   Below, a small diagram can be enlarged by right-clicking it and Opening in a New Tab (or a New Window that can be relocated and resized), or by “squeezing outward” on a touch screen or trackpad.


 
 

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.

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 find, invent, or improve) a better product, activity, relationship, and/or strategy (in General Design) and/or (in Science-Design) a better explanatory theory.  We use strategies MANY times every day, These objectives – extending far beyond traditional “design fields” – include almost everything we do in life.     { We 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. }

 

How?  The process of "making things better" can be described in 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 models for instruction:  Having a variety of models gives teachers flexibility in 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 below, in four models:

 

In a simple model for problem solving (i.e. for designing), 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.   /Problem Solving (moving from actual now-state to desired goal-state)   This is an Old Model that I found by searching our collective memory.  It isn't a New Model (designed by me) but it's “public domain” so I've included it in my overall model for Design Process because its simplicity gives it practical cognitive utility and educational value.     { terms:  a Now-Situation & Goal-Situation also can be called Now-State & Goal-State }

 

In another way to view the problem-solving process, the right-side diagram – it's an overview with more details – shows what people do when we Define and Solve.  To make this diagram more concrete, an overview of Design Process, showing how we Define-and-Solveyou 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 cycle's left-side the arrow (from Generate to Evaluate) — STOP READING and “think about why” so you can self-discover the reason — 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 related clue-question}   {another question:  What are the benefits when you "Learn... before-and-after you Define your Objective and Define your Goals"? }

 

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" 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. }

3 Elements (Predictions, Observations, Goals) used in 3 Evaluative Comparisons, during General Design and Science-Designlearning 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. }  

This diagram shows how people typically Evaluate An Option.  And 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 }

* 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.

 

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?

 

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.the most-detailed diagramn for Design Process  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 stimulate-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 stimulate 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 for "Predictions" or "Observations" or to "Design an Experiment" or for other problem-solving Actions.  You can get knowledge-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 }

 

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.

 

two ways to learn:

You can improve your understandings — as when you're learning about my models in this page (above) and in the long-HomePage (Part 2) — from your discoveries and my explanations.  Students are learning in both ways when you ask them to carefully study the four diagrams  —  (Now-State → Goal-State),  (Define and Solve),  (3 Comparisons of 3 Elements),  (Guided Generation in Design Cycles)  —  by examining a 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;  • understanding how the spatial relationships are logically meaningful.  And think about how all of this describes the actions you use when you are solving problems, when you reflect on your own experiences, so your Process of Discovery is also a Process of Recognition.

A classroom teacher can help students learn Principles for Problem Solving in both ways – from discoveries & explanations – with classroom activities designed to guide students in a process of Experience + Reflection ➞ Principles that uses a process-of-inquiry to help them understand principles-for-inquiry.

 

 



 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 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 although I have some useful understandings and skills, I need help from other educators who have developed other understandings and skills,... 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.  By working together with coordinated cooperation, creatively combining your understandings-and-skills with mine, 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, in mid-June, 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 it. ]]

 

 

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 everyone in everyday life.

 

two kinds of improvising:  We can help students improve the important social skill of improvising conversation (in ways that promote understanding & respect) and the enjoyable artistic skill of improvising music (by playing a keyboard with chord-notes that are colorized – with red, blue, green – to guide their creative inventing of harmonious melodies).   /   Both kinds of experience – especially improvising conversations, but also improvising music – are valuable ways to develop (in young people) and maintain (in older people) healthy brains.

 


 

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 soon, probably May 5-10. ]]   [[ @#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. ]]

 

 

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 
 

The two wide scopes of Design Process

increase two Transfers of Learning AND

help make education Personally Useful:

Creative uses of Design Process will be especially beneficial for education...

    IF using models for Design Process will help a student increase their transfers-of-learning Between Areas (inside School & in many areas of their Life) and Through Time (from the Past & Present into their Future).  As one component of the coordinated educational strategies we use to increase both kinds of transfers, Design Process can be very useful by helping students develop-and-use metacognitive Thinking Strategies to improve their Performing and/or Learning.   /   Will this IF really happen?  We have reasons to think “yes” due to the two wide scopes of Design Process (for Activities & Process), as explained below in 1 and 2.

    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.   /   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.

 


 

Logical Evidence-Based Reasons to Expect Transfers

Why should we confidently expect that using Design Process (plus other strategies for thinking) will help students improve two kinds of transfers, Between Areas and Through Time?  The sections below (1 & 2) explain some logical reasons to predict that using Design Process will increase transfers of learning because of logical evidence-based connections between...

Wide Scopes (for problem solving) in 1, and

Scientific Knowledge (about transfers) in 2.

 

1 – Two Wide Scopes for Problem Solving

When we use Design Process (it's my model for Problem-Solving Process) in our Education for Problem Solving, we have logical reasons to expect that the result will be very useful for K-12, and for younger & older, because with Design Process there is a wide scope for Problem-Solving Activities (that include almost everything people do) and for Problem-Solving Process (that is similar for almost everything we do):

 
1-A)  There is a wide scope for Problem-Solving Activities

because when educators choose to use broad definitions — a problem is any opportunity to make things better, and problem solving (PS) occurs whenever we do make something better — almost everything students do can be a PS-Activity.  Due to this wide scope, teachers can use Design Process to give students a wide variety of PS-Experiences that – because education occurs when they learn from experience are educationally useful.  And...

 
1-B)  There is a wide scope for Problem-Solving Process

because when students are Solving Problems (as described in my simplest model) they just Generate Ideas & Evaluate Ideas, and we use these mental actions for almost everything in life.  We find other similarities-in-process when we dig deeper.  But also differences because, for different people & different situations, the Problem-Solving Process is similar but is not identicalWhy?  When we examine the details of problem-solving process,

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

But differences occur when each problem-solving person flexibly coordinates their problem-solving process by making decisions about Actions.*  The flexible goal-directed improvising of a problem solver is analogous to the flexible goal-directed improvising of a hockey player.  But not the rigid choreography of a figure skater.   /   The flexible process-coordinating 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 9 Actions to form many variations of Problem-Solving Process.  We can solve a wide variety of problems by building a Process that is similar (but not identical) for almost everything 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.

* coordinating your process:  iou – during early May, I'll write this by condensing a longer version. [[flexibly coordinates their problem-solving process by asking “what is the best way to make progress in my process?” and making strategic Action-Decisions about “what to do next,” about which Actions.....]]

{ more about The Wide Scope of Process }   { also, whether our “thinking” is conscious and/or subconscious in a particular situation, we use a similar process of Observe & Learn, Generate, Predict & Evaluate, Decide & Do }

 

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 two Strategies:

2-A)  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 almost everything students do;

2-B)  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 almost everything they do, for their Problem-Solving Activities in all areas of their Whole-Life, inside & outside their School-Life.

 

solid foundations in evidence-based educational research:  When it was published in 2000, How People Learn described principles (including 2-A and 2-B) that had a solid foundation in evidence-based research.  Although a quarter century has passed, afaik the current evidence still supports 2-A and 2-B.   /   And afaik the current evidence also supports other claims I've made, including the effectiveness of metacognitive regulation — that can be promoted by using Self-Regulated Learning and thus by using Design Processfor improving performance in a wide range of areas.

 

{more about transfers}

 


After an introduction that briefly summarizes two of my claims — that using Design Process can " increase two Transfers of Learning  and  help make education Personally Useful " — two longer sections (above & below) examine each claim in more detail.

 

When we help students build bridges

so they expect school-to-life transfers,

this will produce the indirect benefits

of improving motivation & confidence:

Based on what we know about how people learn – as explained above in 1 & 2we 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).  When this is happening,...

 

Students 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.  And when they have better transfer, students get direct benefits that produce changes in their external results, in their abilities to Learn AND Perform.

 

Students also get indirect benefits when they improve their internal attitudes, their motivations (for wanting to learn) and their confidence (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."

Motivations for Personal Education:  These will increase IF students persuade themselves – with us helping them by showing the two wide scopes (for Problem-Solving Activities & Problem-Solving 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.”   { 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) 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.”     { This growth mindset is the foundational Habit 1 – Be Proactive ( A  B  C  D  E ) – in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. }

Motivations from Building Bridges:  We can use the wide scopes of PS-Activities & PS-Process to help students expect transfers (with their internal attitudes) and actualize these transfers (in their external results).  We can help them build bridges — in their expectations for what will occur, and the realities of what does occur — with two-way Transfers Across Areas (from School-Life into NonSchool-Life, and from NonSchool-Life into School-Life) and Transfers Through 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).    {more about building bridges and encouraging transitions of attitudes}

 

 



 
 open only this page   –   put page into left frame 
 
Now we'll shift from WHY (with Reasons for Using Design Process because this can Increase Transfers (because of Two Wide Scopes) and Build Bridges that improve Confidences & Motivations) to WHAT-and-HOW, beginning with three related ways — with a Growth Mindset + Learning that Improves Performing + Learning More From Experiences — to use metacognitive Thinking Strategies.  One useful Thinking Strategy 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 – in mid-June, an idea to mention is the literal growth of neuron number-and-connectivity 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.  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 the present – a better-performing welder in his future }

[[ iou – here are ideas I'll add... 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 or evaluating;  and with regulating it's “regulating your thinking” to produce metacognitve regulation – it's action-oriented with a goal – that usually (but not always) 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 June 18-30, I'll revise this paragraph and those below. ]]

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

[[ iou – June 15-17, the rest of this subsection will be revised ---- An essential metacognitive thinking skill [[check description in ws]] is being able to effectively regulate your metacognition by deciding when to avoid it (to just focus on cognitive thinking-and-doing) or use it, and how to use it. / regulation with metacognition that can include regulation of metacognition (use "when & how" quote) thus thinking about [just "be aware of']

ut most educators think it's better to “observe your thinking {or feeling-and-thinking} and regulate your thinking {or feeling-and-thinking}” because:  • when you have intention to observe and also regulate, , and this usually makes your metacognition more effective in improving the quality of whatever you are doing;  

When a teacher wants to help students learn Principles for Problem Solving (that are accurately described in a model for Design Process), this Reflection is the central part of Experience + Reflection ➞ Principles that uses a process-of-inquiry to help students learn principles-for-inquiry.      { getting more experiences by adventuring }    { a common Thinking Strategy is Self-Regulated Learning }

What?  In our teaching, we want students to improve their abilities Students will learn more, and will think more effectively, 

How?  A teacher can promote educationally useful cognition-and-metacognition with reflection activities by asking students to reflect on (to remember or observe, and think about) their experiences while solving a problem — by asking “what did I think, and do?” (or “what am I now thinking and doing?”) and “then what happened,” and also “with different thinking & actions, could the results have been better?” — so they can learn more from the experience and do things better the next time, to improve their performing and/or learning and enjoying.  A thinking strategy is the SRL (Self-Regulated Learning) that

[[ iou – where is #mctwo? -- check ws & home for concepts -- use as transition to #mcreg0 ? ]]

 

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.     {and how to use your system of conscious thinking & subconscious processing }

What?  This is a regulation of metacognition.  By contrast, regulation by metacognition occurs during metacognitive regulation when you use metacognition to observe-evaluate-regulate your cognition.

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).

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.

 

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, June 13-17, I'll write a highly condensed version of ideas from the big section about regulating metacognition and will add an explanation of how – whether our “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 – and somewhere I'll add a little more about the key goal/strategy to improve learning and/or performing with productive thinking that combines knowledge with creative-and-critical thinking. ]]

[[ and somewhere the process of monitoring (in SRL it's typically described as observing-and-regulating) for thoughts and also emotions, probably citing (& summarizing) The Metacognitive Student by Cohen et al. ]]  

 

 

education that improves metacognition:

[[ iou – I'll write this section during June 12-17.  It will describe how Design Process (DP) can be used to help students develop-and-use metacognitive strategies, and to effectively combine these with other metacognitive strategies (especially Self-Regulated Learning, SRL) to form a synergistic combination of specific strategies (using DP) plus general strategies (like SRL) that is more effective than either by itself.   /   It will include an important idea that isn't yet part of the website, in this HomePage or elsewhere:  although I sometimes connect DP with "Problem-Solving Activities" these include "almost everything students do" so a school's curriculum and instruction doesn't have to be radically modified in order to become "Education with Metacognition" that will help students improve their learning and problem solving. ]]

[[ teachers -- already use MC -- internal MC for own plan-do/improvise-adjust(wSRL)

[[ teachers -- explain "teaching strategy" to students -- for MO, their strategies

{{ MC knowl of SITUtask-STRATS-SELF

[[ USING the Wide Scope of Design Activities:  iou for an idea-theme that will be developed June 7-9 — Originally, DP was designed to be used for problem-solving design projects, and I encourage  But it also can be useful for designing basic strategies-for-living (e.g. for academic learning & social-emotional learning, / although Design Process can (due to its two wide scopes) help students learn more in a wide variety of situations, it's more beneficial – to get more "added value" – if some of the situations are problem-solving design projects. But doing projects requires time, and time is limited for teachers 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 problem-solving activities.   /   I will use a review article describing 6 common reasons for teachers & schools to reject a using of MC Strategies.



 open only this page   –   put page into left frame 
 

Goal-Directed Designing

of Curriculum & Instruction:

To use this strategy for designing, we...

• DEFINE GOALS for desired outcomes of our CURRICULUM, for ideas-and-skills we want students to learn,

• DESIGN INSTRUCTION with learning activities (and associated teaching activities) that will provide opportunities for experience with these ideas & skills, and will help students learn more from their experiences.

 

Below, I describe some principles & strategies for designing a Problem-Solving Curriculum and Problem-Solving Instruction.

 

CURRICULUM skillfully design a

Coordinated Wide Spiral that has a

Wide Scope with Spiral Repetitions:

For personal reasons that are explained when I ask Will our Overall Education improve if we improve our Problem-Solving Education? this section is delayed until later.

 

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, Students doing Design Thinking 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.}

MORE -- website#cmex, is brws cmei ---- 5 Rational Reasons for Teachers to Not Teach Thinking Skills ---- A Knowledge-and-Skills Curriculum, A Coordinated Wide-Spiral Curriculum, Optimizing the Benefits of Eclectic Instruction

 

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 May.  /  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. ]]

 
 

Students doing Design ThinkingINSTRUCTIONskillfully 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 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.    {more about levels}   [[ iou – to be engaged in learning (nec?), motivated to learn, view as useful -- zone of proximal development, Vygotsky}
    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.”
 
 

 

Will our Overall Education improve if we

improve our Problem-Solving Education?

the reality of practical limitations:  Educators want Overall Whole-Person Education to achieve multiple goals — by helping students improve in a variety of ways, in many areas of life – and we have limited educational resources (of time, people, money,...) so we must make tough choices about goals by asking “what resources should be invested in each kind of goal?”

two IF-factors are necessary:  Instructional Activities that lead to problem-solving experiences will produce large-scale improvements only IF the activities are educationally effective AND are widely adopted by teachers and their schools & districts.  When making a decision (Yes or No) whether to use more resources for problem-solving activities, educators consider many factors, including rational reasons to say No.  These reasons can make it difficult to convert potentially-beneficial activities (that IF DONE would help students get more experiences & learn more from experiences) into actually-beneficial activities (that ARE DONE and are experienced by students, therefore can improve their problem-solving skills and their motivations to solve problems).

 

some pros-and-cons of two strategies:  I can imagine the practical utility of two different strategies — by emphasizing the value of problem-solving instruction that either is educationally effective OR is widely adopted — by deciding to...

say “let's go for it” and make a bold claim:  I 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 Education if we increase our emphasis on Problem-Solving Education.  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 – so improving our Education for Problem Solving is a worthy Educational Goal.  Doing this would increase the instruction that is educationally effective.   /   But instead it's probably wiser to begin with the objective of wide adoption by deciding to...

say “it will be easier than you think” with minimal changes:  Why?  Because my model for Design Process (DP) has two wide scopes – for Problem-Solving Activities and Problem-Solving Process – teachers can use it to give students a wide variety of Problem-Solving Experiences that (because education occurs when we learn from life-experiences) are educationally useful.  And with a broad definition of problem – so “problem solving” includes almost everything students typically do in a classroom – we can design instruction with a smooth blending of metacognitive learning (using DP & SRL and SELf-Questioning) into the typical activities that teachers would be doing anyway, so they don't have to make major changes.

 

two appropriate humilities that are justifiable:  For two kinds of claims (• •) I'm trying to achieve an appropriate humility with confidence that is justifiably appropriate, is not too little and not too much.   /   • Although I feel confident that my model for Design Process could be useful for education that improves problem-solving skills & motivations, this claim has not been tested by actually using Design Process, so it isn't yet an evidence-based claim.  But despite this, there are logical evidence-based reasons for some of my claims, e.g. for expecting that using Design Process will promote transfers Across Areas & Through Time.   /   • As explained in co-creating better education, "although I have some useful understandings and skills, I need help from other educators who more accurately-and-thoroughly understand the perspectives of classroom 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."  All of these are important, but I don't understand them well due to lack of experience, so I have justifiable reasons for humility.

a personal confidence that might be justifiable:  Some people report that Einstein was thinking “my theory (of General Relativity) is too beautiful to not be true,” even before it was verified by evidence.  Am I now justified in confidently thinking “my model (for Design Process) is too beautiful to not be useful”?  I can justifiably claim only “maybe” due to a lack of knowledge, because currently my claims (for perceptions-of-beauty by others, and for functional utility) have very little evidence either for them or against them;  but there is evidence-based logic to support them, e.g. for predicting a promoting of transfers.  And in claiming we should logically expect a student's problem-solving education to improve when they get more problem-solving experiences and they learn more from each experience;  and we should logically expect them to learn more from their experiences when they use Design Process to develop-and-use metacognitive thinking strategies.

 

 

iou — tonight, July 17, I'll revise the ideas in this gray box.

 

rational reasons to avoid Activities

for Metacognition & Problem Solving: 

introductions:  Teachers (and their schools & districts) have rational reasons to say No and resist the changes that will help students "get more problem-solving experiences."

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

Although all teachers (and their school & district) have reasons to USE activities that are especially valuable for promoting a knowledge-and-skills curriculum (with knowledge, skills, skills-with-knowledge), they also have rational reasons to NOT USE these activities.  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.

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.    

 

limited time:  Most teachers are overworked, and all teachers have their time limited in two ways, in how they use their classroom time, and what they are willing to invest (and should be expected to invest) in their own preparation time.  These time-constraints are factors in decisions by teachers (and their schools) about using activities that involve general metacognitive strategies.   /   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 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.

say “it will be easier than you think” with minimal changes:  Why?  Because my model for Design Process (DP) has two wide scopes – for Problem-Solving Activities and Problem-Solving Process – teachers can use it to give students a wide variety of Problem-Solving Experiences that (because education occurs when we learn from life-experiences) are educationally useful.  And with a broad definition of problem – so “problem solving” includes almost everything students typically do in a classroom – we can design instruction with a smooth blending of metacognitive learning (by using DP & SRL) into the typical activities that teachers would be doing anyway, so they don't have to make major changes.

 

scores:  An important/common goal for a school/district (and its teachers) is wanting to do well on standardized exams.  [[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.  / But if a teacher/school thinks "the gifted students will do well anyway" they might be more willing to invest more time in Activities for Thinking Skills, including Metacognitive Strategies.   also: 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.

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, some of the strongest reasons for NO come from perceptions of "competition between knowledge & skills," and these lead to concerns that become especially important "when quality of teaching is defined mainly by students’ performance on standardized exams that emphasize knowledge & basic skills (in reading, math, science)" so "teachers (and their schools) who want a high rating will ‘teach to the exam’ by emphasizing knowledge & basic skills."

 

comfort: -- Most teachers are skilled in DOING Metacognition,* but not in TALKING Metacognition, and they don't feel comfortable PROMOTING Metacognition in their students.

Teachers often DO metacognition (internal & external) because this helps them teach more skillfully, and that's what they want.  They gain some value by using internal metacognition (self-empathy) to understand their own thoughts-and-feelings, and 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 making effective long-term modifications of planned instruction, and short-term improvisations in the classroom.

 

What can we do?  One interesting possibility is to begin a more widespread using of these activities (design projects & metacognitive activities) in a school's program for gifted students

a little more about 5 Rational Reasons for Teachers to Not Teach Thinking Skills }

 

A research report generated by Perplexity AI 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 the response to my follow-up asking “why don't all schools teach metacognition?” 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.

 

{ The report used information from 65 sources, including a comprehensive literature review published in 2024. }

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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. 

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 —  

 

{5 Rational Reasons for Teachers to Not Teach Thinking Skills}

 

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

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, 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. } [[change links to h.htm versions]]    { 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 }

 

 

 

ZERO-SUM ??

 

 

 

We also can use...

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 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, almost certainly (in “a good way to bet”) 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."

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.

 


 

improving Diversity, Equity, Inclusion:

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."  [[ iou – eg use semi-UDL to design so the C&I is useful for more students; later I'll explain my meaning for semi-UDL ]]   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...

 

Can we help more students build better lives?Designing 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}

 

the importance of timings:  Because we want to “keep options open” for more students, we should try to improve education for older students (now in high school & college) so – before they leave school – they will get more experiences (with problem-solving & metacognition) and will learn more from their experiences.  But when we help younger students develop personally-useful skills (for problem solving & in other areas) and attitudes (motivations & confidence) at an early age, they will receive the benefits during more of their schooling, and they will be able to more fully develop their whole-person potentials. 

options for timings:  We ask “when is the best time to plant a fruit tree?” and answer “the best time was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.”  OK.  But should we focus our now-responses on secondary & college (to get benefits for more students) or on elementary (so these students will get benefits 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.

 


 

CURRICULUM skillfully design a

Coordinated Wide Spiral that has a

Wide Scope with Spiral Repetitions:

[[ iou – During June 18-30, I'll write an introduction that includes this:  For personal reasons that are explained when I ask Will our Overall Education improve if we improve our Problem-Solving Education? this section is delayed until later. ]]

 

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, Students doing Design Thinking 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 May.  /  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. ]]

 

 


 open only this page   –   put page into left frame 
combining different
Models-for-Process
 
I'm not thinking “my model versus other models” because we don't have to make either-or choices between models;  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, with special features that produce added valueDP can be especially valuable in a well-designed combination of models, contributing to a synergism that provides extra benefits for students.

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

 

iou – during June 18-30, I'll describe 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-in-DP is easier so I'll do this first.   /   iou – June 20, I'll write this paragraph.

 

Design Process and SRL (Self-Regulated Learning)

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

Cycles of Plan-and-Monitor (aka Plan-and-Do) for Self-Regulated LearningDesign 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 the SELf-Questioning methods in The Metacognitive Student (by Cohen, et al) that is related to SRL but may offer strategies that appeal to some teachers,  and will link to places where their methods (and principles) are explained with more detail.

 

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 – Before mid-May, 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 my model for problem-solving Design Process

 

   10 Modes of Action    (into left frame`)

iou – May 5-10, this subsection – ending at "Here are 10 modes of Action..." – will continue being revised-and-condensed:

Actions and Process:  This page 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)

You can see how the 10 Modes of Problem-Solving Actions are organized into a "thinking process" model (actually it's a family of related models that students can explore in a 5-stage progression for learning) in diagrams that show relationships between models and modes`.

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

What is an "action"?  Productive Actions are "mental and/or physical" because an ACTION can be mainly mental, or mainly physical, or... mental-and-physical.    more about Mental-and-Physical }

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

 

The introduction will include this diagram, to show connections between my DP-Diagrams and the 10 Modes of Action:

Problem Solving (moving from actual now-state to desired goal-state)

 

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. Invent Options (modify old Options, or innovate 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 using Quality Checks

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

3B. Evaluate Model-Options 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.

 


 

iou – What's below is a temporary "staging area" so (during mid-June) I can condense the ideas and use them earlier in the page.

 

The Actions of Design Process

Design Process is a Model containing many models.  Each model is accurate in different ways – because it selects different actions to include & exclude – and is educationally useful in different ways.  Here are summaries for two stages, and an in-depth look at Stage 3.

 

Each model is a simplified representation of problem-solving process (it's a simplification of the complex actions that are used by people during our process of solving a problem), so each is a model for problem-solving process. 

They are part of “a family of related models” that combine to form my overall Model, as explained later.  All of my models are "related" because they all describe the same process;  but each model emphasizes different aspects of the overall process, and this makes the models educationally useful in different ways.

 

complexity and simplicity:  Although your actual process of thinking is complex — as in the blending of conscious with subconscious when you're Generating-and-Evaluating Ideas or Coordinating Your Processconstructing simplified models is useful for thinking about thinking, for learning (in education) and doing (in problem solving).

 

models and stages

By creatively using different models (in the family of models for Design Process) a teacher can design a logical progression of instruction that begins with simplicity and gradually makes complexity easy to understand.  For example,

Above you studied two complex models that visually-and-verbally (in diagrams for Stage 3) show the Actions a person does while they are Evaluating an Option, during their process of Solving a Problem.  Of course, Stage 1 and Stage 2 use models that are simpler.

Below, while you're increasing your own understanding of the Stages (1,2,3,4) you can be thinking about how to design activities that will help students understand Problem Solving, and improve their Problem-Solving Skills.  An effective way to help students understand is by providing Experiences (in Solving Problems) plus Reflections (on their Experiences) and gently guided Discussions, to help them discover Principles (of Design Process, and thus Problem-Solving Process), with Experiences + Reflections ➞ Principles.  In a progression of instruction, during each stage you “keep it simple” (by focusing on Functional Actions) to help students understand that stage.  Moving from one stage to the next, you gradually increase the levels-of-complexity they can understand.  The overall result is that eventually students will be able to “cope with complexity” at higher levels, and the complex process-of-solving will seem simple because they understand it.  When this happens, the complex process has become (in their thinking) a “simplicity” because all parts are fitting together in ways that make sense for them, so their view of Problem-Solving Process is logically simple, psychologically intuitive.

the educational benefits of logically organized knowledge:  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.

 

In the sections below (for Stages 1,2,3,4) you can learn – with your discoveries and my explanations – the Principles of Design Process.  My own favorite is the elegant beauty of Symmetry – for the Experiments we do Mentally & Physically – in Stage 2.

 

 


 

 

bio for Craig Rusbult, PhD – my life on a road less traveled

 

Copyright © 1978-2025 by Craig Rusbult.  All Rights Reserved.