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.
I would be happy to communicate with you,
Craig Rusbult <craigru57@yahoo.com>
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 have a different response, with 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. Therefore I have...
a justified response: Because the 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 this Time-Dream cannot be a way to “make things better” for us. I can do productive actions only in...
my Time-Reality: Instead, since the conference I've been doing what actually is possible, to make things better by learning now so I can improve my performing later, in future talks. Currently my main focus is improving the Talk-PowerPoint so it will be much more useful for you now, and for others later. And December 5, I'm contacting some of you, those who “signed up for the talk” in Whova. / Of course, the Revised PowerPoint will be useful only if you use it. But if you don't 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. Or you may want to read it — maybe during your winter break between semesters, when you'll have more free time? — and if you do, I'll be working to continually improve it so later (with a goal to finish the revising by December 20th) it will be better.
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 weekend I'll set up a discussion forum, and will link to it here before 5 pm, December 7. Or you can communicate with "just me" by email }
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 mixture 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 not precisely detailed — 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 (with a stopwatch), 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, plus knowing the exact timings
• 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, and tips for Discovery Learning by exploring the diagram — while I walked up & down the aisle, talking with people; but I arrived a little late (at 12:45)* and couldn't 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 by exploring” 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. / * 12:45 was 15 minutes later than I had planned. Why did I arrive so late?
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.
Why did I arrive so late for my own talk? iou – tomorrow night (December 6) I'll explain why it was 12:45 instead of the originally planned 12:30, because... I drove from home in Clintonville (and hit a few extra red lights, was later than the ETA predicted by GPS) instead of just walking from the dining area; then I wasted 7 minutes trying to find the small USB Stick (it had fallen down between the seats) that made the bluetooth connection between the laser-pointer to my MacBook (before being rescued by a loan from Nicole from Pearson Books, arranged by Candice from Pearson.
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?
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. }
about me: My bio-in-Whova (it's below) isn't a full bio. Most of it – all except the first sentence, "I'm an enthusiastic educator..." – is about my talk. But several authentic bios are available, in the HomePage (short) and original HomePage (with more about my PhD work); plus 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.
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.