OAGC Page
In October 2025 at the OAGC Fall Conference, I did a talk — "Use Metacognitive Thinking Strategies to improve Learning and Problem Solving" — that is outlined in a 50-word Program Summary and my Whova-Bio, with details in a Talk-PowerPoint that (for reasons explained later) now is being radically revised.
What happened? As you know,* my talk could have been much better, and for its relatively low quality (compared with what it should have been) I sincerely apologize. But I'm learning from the experience, as described below in details about “what happened” and – more important – “what now?” { * I'm writing this page specifically for educators who “signed up for the talk” in Whova, but generally for anyone who is reading it.
Below you'll see personal stories about...
a better response (by choosing resilient determination) plus
my Time-Dream and Time-Realities, Good News & Bad News.
two responses: After the conference, my initial response was mild despair because I had a Big Opportunity and I failed. This didn't feel good, it wasn't fun. But the next day I decided to change my response into a resilient determination to do goal-directed actions that will be productive, because I'm confident that my ideas will be educationally beneficial so I want to continue sharing them. As in the past when I made a mistake and asked “why?” – so I could learn from the experience (for self-education) and “do it better” the next time – again my answer included “ineffective process” because in some parts of my Problem-Solving Process I was not effective in doing essential Problem-Solving Actions. Below is the story of what I didn't do in October, and what I will do in 2026. How? Motivated by personal goals and a growth mindset, I'll do Learning that improves Performing — by trying to “do my best possible learning now, so I can improve my best possible performing later” — with a current Learning Objective that will help me achieve a future Performing Objective.
some Good News: I'm not delusional.
some evidence for this claim: Based on honest observation & evaluation, I realize that my presentation should have been much better. Because its quality was far below “the best it could be” I sincerely apologize.
my Time-Dream: If I had a Time Machine with Life Editing, using Control-Z for Undo-and-Redo, I would return to September 1 and change my using-of-time in the next six weeks, to improve my talk. Then our experiences would have been similar to a seminar in 2022 (for OSU Engineering Education) when I was able to honestly tell friends, by email, that "I was lively and logical, they added valuable insights, we had fun." { it wasn't perfect, but was fairly good, and I had no feeling of "mild despair" when thinking about it afterward }
the Bad News: I don't have a Time Machine, so my Time-Dream cannot be a way to “make things better” for us. Therefore I must work in...
my Time-Reality: Instead, since the conference I've been doing what actually is possible, to make things better by preparing now so I can improve my performing later, in future talks. So far the work is mainly improving the Talk-PowerPoint so it can be much more useful for you. And I'm contacting some of you, those who “signed up for the talk” in Whova, on December 5. / Of course, the Revised PowerPoint will be useful only if you use it. But if you don't do this I will understand, because you initially decided to time-invest only the 50 minutes from 1:00 to 1:50. You wanted to learn during that time, not after it.
more Good News: If you decide to study the PowerPoint (and maybe participate in a discussion)* I'm confident that your investment of time will be rewarded, because I think the principles are solid, and my claims are valid, and (most important) the teaching methods will be effective if you use them. { * iou – this week, December 1-4, I'll make a forum and will link to it here. }
our earlier Time-Reality: What happened? During my talk, four major mistakes were...
• not enough discussion. This wasn't intentional, but I let it happen. Instead I should have pre-planned specific times* to discuss each of the three POV-Questions for about 5 minutes (in small groups & all together) plus 3 minutes at the end for final comments-and-responses. This timing of 18-and-32 (with 18 minutes for our discussions, and 32 minutes for my explanations) would have been a better balance than the actual 2-and-48. / * I did plan to discuss each POV-Question, but my plans were imprecise — because I didn't decide that we would discuss a specific topic at a specific time (i.e. after a certain slide) — and my real-time improvising wasn't disciplined so I never decided to simply “stop explaining and begin discussing for awhile.”
• too many ideas. Without intending it, I tried to cram 96 minutes of ideas into 48 minutes, using PowerPoint Slides filled with TMI. Instead I should have aimed for 32 minutes of ideas in 32 minutes. One difficulty was that I under-estimated the time needed to clearly explain each idea. These time-errors happened because I had not carefully planned “what to say” for each slide and had not rehearsed it repeatedly, as in the choreographed routine of a figure skater. Therefore, because I had not rehearsed I was not able to do Reality Checks by comparing my Predictions (of the time I expected to need) with Observations (of the time actually needed); and I could not use iterative Design Cycles (of Rehearse-Revise-Rehearse-Revise-...) to improve my using-of-time by decreasing the number of ideas and decreasing the time I used to explain each idea.
• making only one PowerPoint. And... it had Too Much Information to be effective DURING this talk, although the Extra Info would be useful for you to read AFTER the talk. Because I'm learning from experience, in the future I'll design one PowerPoint Slide Deck to use during the talk (as idea-reminders for me, idea-summarizers for you) after making it by condensing a longer PowerPoint and customizing it for the particular presentation. Then the longer Slide Deck could be studied by attendees after the talk; and maybe also before it. In this way we could gain the distinctive benefits of both Decks. / my process: For decades I've known that usually I “first write long, then short.” Finally I'm using this metacognive self-knowledge productively by designing Decks that will effectively combine the benefits of both stages: using a Long Deck (with Detailed Information) before/after the talk, and a simpler Short Deck (with Just Enough Information) during the talk. I will use this new strategy – by making two single-purpose PowerPoint Decks – for all future talks.
• not creating a better atmosphere. Of course I wanted a better feeling of “us” with a mood that was comfortable and enjoyable. It should have been more like 2022 when "I was lively and logical, they added valuable insights, we had fun." Instead, this time there was no “adding of insights” because I didn't allow time for it, I didn't encourage your sharing, didn't stimulate it with questions. And there was less rapport with attendees. / Why? One reason was that I didn't adequately adjust for the difference in spaces. Earlier at OSU we were 25 people in a small classroom, very cozy. For OAGC it was a huge Regent Ballroom with a long distance (65') between front and back. Due to attending OAGC-2024, I knew the room so I had a plan. First, the talk would “begin before its beginning” (from 12:50 to 1:00) by showing the first slide — with Diagram 1+ 2 (it's my favorite) and a Mystery Question, plus tips for Discovery Learning by exploring the diagram — while I walked up & down the aisle, talking with people; arrived a little late (at 12:45)* and didn't know how to get slides to appear on-screen; the AV Helper was a lot late, and didn't get the slides on-screen until 1:04 so I began at 1:00 by just talking, and although I mentioned the diagram & Mystery Question, you didn't have time to discover and we didn't have time to talk informally. Second, during the “table talking” part of each discussion, I planned to walk the aisle and be available for conversations; but this didn't happen because I didn't do the discussion periods. So although "I had a plan" I didn't do the plan. Sigh. / * This was 15 minutes later than I had planned. Why did I arrive so late? } I drove from home, then wasted 7 minutes trying to find the chip for bluetooth-connecting the laser-pointer to my MacBook, before being rescued by Pearson Books, when Candice & zzz.}
Why did all of these things happen? It wasn't due to a lack of effort. I invested LOTS of time in preparing; it was much more than enough. Instead the cause was unwise using of the time. How? I continued to develop-and-revise the pages in my website (Education for Problem Solving) for much too long – until a week before the talk – so I didn't begin focusing on the Talk-PowerPoint soon enough. And then I didn't optimally use the remaining time. Basically, I wasn't effective in making frequent-and-wise decisions about using time, by asking “what is the best use of my time right now? and throughout the day? and the week?” in the previous 6 weeks, beginning September 1. Or even in the final 3 weeks, after September 22. And later, during the talk I should improvised better decisions for using the 50 minutes.
my current Time-Reality: I'm doing what is possible, by working to convert each imagining of “what I should have done earlier” into “what I am doing now and will do later” to make progress on the process of actualizing my goals.* I'm eagerly doing this because I have a growth mindset, plus good memories of previous talks when my planning-and-performing were better. { * One goal is to “do it better next time” for future conferences — including Ohio STEM Innovation Summit (in June) and NAGC 2026 — if my proposals are accepted. }
So what? (i.e. what difference is it making?) My short Whova-bio says "I'm an enthusiastic educator (with a PhD in C&I from U of Wisconsin) who wants to find co-enthusiasts" so I was hoping this talk-and-conference would be productive for networking that would be beneficial for both of us, producing a win-win. And you would have been more enthusiastic if my talk was more prepared.
What was lost for you? You're less likely to use the beneficial educational strategies that, with a better talk, you may have decided to closely examine and then use. You thought my ideas might be interesting & useful so you “signed up for my talk” in Whova, wanting to learn more. Two of my goals were to explain the ideas quickly-and-clearly, and facilitate a sharing of ideas between all of us. But the quality of my explaining wasn't optimized, so you learned less than I had hoped. You also didn't learn from the discussions (with each other & with me) that could have happened, but didn't. And it's less likely that you have been motivated to learn more by using my PowerPoint & website, and – most important – to use ideas that would be beneficial for your students, and thus for you.
What was lost for me? • I wanted to learn from you — by getting your perspectives on three questions about the POV's of students and teachers — but I didn't ask the questions, so I didn't learn from you. • I wanted to connect with co-enthusiasts, and with a better talk you would have been more motivated to also want this.
three questions
During the talk I had planned to ask two POV-Questions: How will students & teachers respond to my claims about "expecting gifted students to be excited about using metacognition (generally) and (specifically) to be fascinated with the logic-and-art in my model for problem solving"? • Do you think students will be excited-and-fascinated? • How will teachers (and administrators) respond to the educational possibilities?
and a related Comparison: When we compare students and teachers, re: my claims, • Do you think students will be “more motivated” to use metacognition and my model?
Two ways to quickly understand the main talk-ideas are...
• the PowerPoint for my talk (it will continue improving),
• tips for time-efficient learning in my website.
What will happen during the talk? As described in my Whova-bio (copied at end of page), "I'll explain why we should expect many gifted students to be excited about using metacognition (generally) and (specifically) to be fascinated with my model for Problem Solving (by ‘making things better ’) that's an extension of my PhD work," and we'll discuss questions about the POV' s of students & teachers. Hopefully it will be like a seminar in 2022 (for OSU Engineering Education) when, as I later told friends by email, “I was lively and logical, they added valuable insights, we had fun.”
also: Don't view this page on the mobile app of Whova, because the page will be extremely narrow. The app won't rotate to landscape mode (as in Safari & other browsers) so the page is very narrow, even if you click "open only this page" here or at the top-of-page. But the two-page format (left + right) is much better IF you view it on a screen that is wide enough to let you comfortably read the text and see the diagrams.
about me: My bio-in-Whova isn't really a bio. Most of it — all except the first sentence, "I'm an enthusiastic educator with a PhD in C&I from U of Wisconsin, who wants to find co-enthusiasts" — is about my talk. But several authentic bios are available, at the end of this page (short) and in the HomePage (even shorter) and longer HomePage (with a little more detail about my PhD work); and there is a full bio-page about my life on a road less traveled with a detailed personal history that explains how my different responses to hearing “we historians” (no but...) and thinking “we educators” ( Yes ! ) helped me become an enthusiastic educator, and describes my mixed feelings about the uncommon road.
contact info: You can use “craigru57-att-yahoo-daut-caum” to email me before-during-after the conference. I want to talk with people while we're there, so if you also want this we can exchange phone numbers for “where are you” texts.
many iou's:
The main pages in my website – the HomePage and Discovery Page – have many iou's. They're much more numerous now than in early April, because since then I've been getting ideas at a fast rate, but writing at a slower rate. I'll continue developing the website, in the “iou places” and elsewhere.
IDEAS and QUESTIONS
The paragraphs below (for ideas in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and questions in A, B) describe pages in my website about Education for Problem Solving, and here are some useful...
tips for viewing: If possible, you should view this pair of pages (on left & right sides) with a computer monitor so the text is large enough to read comfortably. The two-page format is useful because in this page sometimes (e.g. during 1, 2, 3) the internal links (to pages within the website) open in the right-frame, so you still can see this page in the left-frame. But sometimes (during 4, 5, A, B) you're invited to "put page into right-frame" because internal links (to pages within the website) open in the left-frame, so you still can continue seeing this page in the right-frame. / With either "sometimes" your browser's Back-Button will always (AFAIK) return you to “where you were” earlier ; but “in case it doesn't” each main other-page (HomePage & Discovery Page) has an end-of-page link for "Tips Page" that will open this pair of left-and-right pages; or you can proactively make “spare pairs” now. But external links (to pages outside the website) will open in a new tab. / And if you're viewing on a small-screen tablet or phone, a top-of-page link will "open only this page" and then if you click any link it will open in a new tab.
Below is a plan for time-efficient learning of ideas in my website; a “partial plan” is to focus on Parts 2-and-3 to get the main ideas. Another option (even more time-efficient) is the PowerPoint for my Talk.
For the reasons explained above, this page is designed to be in a left-side frame, so if necessary (if it isn't there already) you can put it on the left side.
⊡ 1 – Begin with the HomePage but read only its first paragraph. {and maybe the bio-paragraph} Also look at the Table of Contents in a “details” page (just to see the wide range of topics) but don't click any links. Then use the Back-Button to reload the HomePage and move onward to...
⊡ 2 – The best way to understand my model for creative-and-critical Design Process (i.e. for Problem-Solving Process) is to learn by discovery when you study its diagrams, by observing (and thinking about) the words & colors and spatial relationships. You can begin by studying the right-side diagram. Then for deeper understandings, in a Discovery Page read the Page-Introduction (in a “White Box” that indicates its importance) and a second White Box that has questions & comments about the three main diagrams. / Then continue downward for a wider range-of-discovering in "the flexibility of Design Process," illustrated by "three common Action-Sequences" that show how we do Quality Checks & Reality Checks (to ask the Design Question & Science Question) and use Guided Generation; and how people develop-and-use metacognitive mental roadmaps. / But skip the gray box (with "three common Action Sequences – Part 2") until later.
⊡ 3 – scroll downward and read the third White Box (titled "the Two Wide Scopes of Design Process") that describes an important characteristic of Design Process — it has Two Wide Scopes (for Problem-Solving Activities & Problem-Solving Process) — and explains how these wide scopes help make Design Process more educationally useful. / also: • how combining Design Process with other models-for-process can make the combination more effective than either model by itself, and • how Design Process can help students develop-and-use metacognitive Self-Regulated Learning.
Before moving on to ⊡ 4, first I'll describe the...
three kinds of information in my website:
Model Information describes my model for Design Process, as in ⊡ 2. Education Information describes general Educational Principles & Educational Goals that you already know and probably accept, so while reading you will be thinking “yes”. But often I also explain how using Design Process can help us achieve our Educational Goals, and for these claims (they're Education-with-Model Information, are featured in ⊡ 3, ⊡ 4, ⊡ 5) 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 revise or reject), and all of these responses can be useful when we're discussing possibilities for improving education, and...
"I'm hoping you will see our “common ground” [regarding general Education Info] so you will be thinking “Craig understands education, wants what we want, is similar to us.” And also “he is a little different, with an innovative model [learned with Model Info] — that describes (verbally & visually) human problem-solving actions, to help students understand these actions and improve their own actions — and [based on Education-with-Model Info] this model could contribute useful ‘added value’ for us, so working with him will help us improve our education.” I'm hoping you will want to discuss possibilities, and that – by working with colleagues (who might include me, or maybe not) – you will be able to co-create better education by actualizing strategies for effectively using metacognition, with or without using my model.
iou – before tomorrow morning (November 6) I'll explain why you should put this page into the right-side frame for Sections 4, 5, A, B.
⊡ 4 – Back in the HomePage a long fourth White Box contains related sections that explain – with more depth than in ⊡ 3 – how "the two wide scopes of Design Process increase two Transfers of Learning [Across Areas & Through Time] and help make education Personally Useful" plus our "Logical Evidence-Based Reasons to Expect Transfers" and how we can help students build bridges so they expect school-into-life transfers that produce direct benefits (with better results in their learning & performing) and indirect benefits (with better attitudes in their motivations & confidences)" so a student wants to proactively pursue their own Personal Education, and wisely Design Their Life. We also can motivate students with metaphors (to “drive your brain” & increase its performance, and “be CEO of your thinking”) and promote their adventures with thinking (when they explore web-resources & do activities) that can include Design Process (by studying its logic-and-art, and using it to improve their problem-solving abilities).
Between ⊡ 4 and ⊡ 5, you may enjoy the light-yellow sections with Education Info: Growth Mindset (this won't be new for you) and (with familiar ideas expressed in new ways) having a Performance Objective and/or Learning Objective.
⊡ 5 – a fifth White Box describes metacognition (the what, why, how) and the metacognitive Thinking Strategies that are highly effective for improving student performance-and-learning in academic areas (including standardized exams) and for social-emotional aspects of life. Two effective ways to use metacognition are self-questioning and Cycles of Self-Regulated Learning, and (much better) using both. Design Process can help students develop-and-use SRL, and teaching SRL-with-DP offers three benefits that make it easier-and-better; one benefit is that using DP is “SRL Plus” because DP can help students improve their metacognitive self-regulating skills (with SRL) AND their cognitive problem-solving skills (with DP), and improving both is an effective combination.
My Whova-bio has two related POV-Questions, about the POV s of students and teachers:
⊡ A – Do you think students will be excited-and-fascinated? This asks about my claim — "we should expect gifted students [and many other students] to be excited about using metacognition (generally) and (specifically) to be fascinated with the logic-and-art in my model for problem solving" — that seems to be supported by what is known about the motivations of gifted students so it's plausible, but is not proven due to a current lack of observations; hopefully this soon will change. Teachers can motivate all students with strategies like those in ⊡ 4 , by building bridges from school into life, using metaphors of brain-driving & CEO-ing, promoting adventures with thinking. And gifted students tend to be naturally self-motivated, being very interested in thinking and wanting to improve their cognitive-and-metacognitive thinking skills. / also: Compared with teachers, do you think students would be “more motivated” [if they get the opportunity] to use metacognition and my model?
⊡ B – How do you think teachers [and administrators] will respond to the possibilities I'm describing? This question is complex in many ways; it's examined in a large set of sections asking "What kind of Knowledge-and-Skills Curriculum will produce optimal Whole-Person Education?" that includes the benefits of starting with gifted students. (⊡ A and ⊡ B are mostly Education Info but also have some Education-with-Model Info)
This is the program-summary (in 50 words) for my talk:
Use Metacognitive Thinking Strategies to improve Learning and Problem Solving
Give students more experiences that are educationally useful, and use metacognitive thinking strategies (self-questionings, reflections, Self-Regulated Learning, my model for Problem-Solving Process,...) to help them learn more from their experiences, improve their knowledge and skills. Use the wide scope of “problem solving” to build motivational transfer-bridges (from school into life) throughout the curriculum. { note: For clarity in the first sentence, this is expanded to 57 words. }
I'm an enthusiastic educator with a PhD in C&I from U of Wisconsin, who wants to find co-enthusiasts. (bio-details are in final paragraph)
PowerPoint for Talk: educationforproblemsolving.net/oagc/talk.pdf
In my talk, we'll discuss questions, and I'll explain...
what my verbal-and-visual model for Design Process (i.e. for Problem-Solving Process) IS and ISN'T; it will help you recognize The Design Question & The Science Question.
how its two wide scopes (for PS-Activities & PS-Process) help students "build bridges" from school into life, so they will be motivated to proactively pursue their own Personal Education;
why we should expect gifted students to be excited about using metacognition (generally) and (specifically) to be fascinated with the logic-and-art in my model for problem solving (for "making things better") that's an extension of my PhD work about Scientific Methods;
why researchers have concluded that metacognition is extremely useful for improving learning-and-performing.
During the explaining and after it, we'll discuss two POV-Questions: Do you think students will be excited-and-fascinated? How do you think teachers will respond to the educational possibilities? Is it possible that students will be more “motivated for metacognition” than teachers?
The talk is described more fully in an "OAGC Page" at (EducationForProblemSolving.net/oagc [it's this page]) that will help you pre-understand ideas and pre-think questions. It links to a bio-page about "my life on a road less traveled" that explains how my responses to hearing "we historians" {no but...} and thinking “we educators” { Yes! } helped me become an enthusiastic educator.
and an “actual bio” written for my seminar (in 2022) with OSU Engineering Education:
I'm an enthusiastic educator who enjoys discussing ideas with other educators, who wants to find co-enthusiasts. Improving our education — by designing better ways to teach & learn, so we can improve our thinking and doing — is one of the most important things we can do. And it's fun!
I've continued studying education after earning a PhD in C&I from U of Wisconsin, following degrees in Chemistry (BS, MS) and History of Science (MA) from U of CA-Irvine, U of WA, and U of WI. My PhD project was developing a model for Scientific Method and using it to analyze science instruction for Opportunities to Learn; later it was generalized into a process-model for Problem Solving (for Science-Design plus General Design that includes Engineering) and I've developed a comprehensive website – about Education for Problem Solving – to explore ways of using my model (and other models) to help students improve their problem-solving abilities in all areas of life.
One motivation for moving from Madison to Columbus, in May 2022, was my goal of networking with other educators and doing cooperative collaborations to improve our education, so I'm hoping to working with other educators to co-create better education.