Making Thinking Visible: Small Loops That Lift the Work

Some days the class moves quickly and the work still feels thin. This is the moment to slow the frame just enough to see thinking. On the JVDT line we are still traveling the same route, from Information to Integration to Comprehension to the Field of Application, on the rails of Root and Context. The aim is simple: help learners notice how their thinking works, test it against evidence and criteria, and return tomorrow a little stronger.

Picture a short scene. A student shares a solution. Another asks, “What makes you say that?” The room pauses. We look back at the steps, compare them with the success criteria, and choose one fix that will lift the work. That tiny loop is the practice this post is about.

We begin with critical reflection, which is nothing more than looking back in order to move forward. Learners describe what they tried, what it produced, and what they will adjust. Not a diary. Three lines at most. Alongside this sits metacognition, the habit of naming the strategy you chose and why. “I compared examples before deciding.” “I underlined the verb and sequenced the steps.” Once strategies have names, luck becomes method.

Deeper tasks ask for higher-order thinking skills. Beyond recall we compare, classify, hypothesize, justify, and design. If a prompt only needs a definition, we cannot expect analysis. Once an audience is real, comparison and justification appear naturally. To support this, we keep self-regulation visible and stigma-free. Brief resets, quiet starts, small breaks between steps. Plan the next move, do it, check the result. A steady tone keeps thinking going.

Two companion moves make improvement concrete. First, analysis and evaluation. Break a whole into parts, then judge those parts with criteria. Show your steps, test your steps, explain the decision. Simple tools help: a Claim–Evidence–Because log, a two-column “strengths and next step,” or a one-line rubric in student language. Second, continuous improvement. Short cycles. Try, check, repair. Save versions so progress is visible. Treat error as information and revision as the normal path to quality.

What this looks like this week

Open with a clear Root, written where all can see it, then ask one brave question after the first attempt. “Which piece of evidence carries the most weight for our audience?” One honest question often raises the level more than a long talk. Mid-lesson or at the bell, collect a three-line reflection: I tried… It produced… Next time I will… Begin tomorrow from two you read aloud. Keep metacognition quick and concrete with a small menu on the board: compare, sort, model, ask a better question, trace steps. Learners circle the one they used and write six words about why it helped.

Build higher-order thinking into the prompt by switching the verb. “Define the term” becomes “Decide which definition better fits our case and defend it.” “List causes” becomes “Rank the causes for this audience and justify your order.” Teach a tiny evaluation tool that fits in one line: clear claim, relevant evidence, reason that links them. Ask pairs to highlight where each appears, then repair the weakest line. Save versions as V1, V2, V3 in a slim folder or simple digital log. When a student feels stuck, lay out the versions and ask, “Where did the work get better, and what moved it?”

A small scene that traveled

We held the Root to one sentence: explain one decision with one piece of evidence and a clear because. Learners drafted a first response, paused for a three-line reflection, then in pairs highlighted claim, evidence, and because and chose one repair. We recorded a 30 to 45 second explanation for a real listener and saved both versions in a folder. The room was quiet and intent. By the bell the work could leave the classroom and still make sense.

Why this matters on the JVDT train

Association is honoured when new tasks link to strategies learners already use in life. Analysis strengthens every time we show and test steps. Root stays in view through crisp criteria and small goals. Context becomes real when thinking is aimed at an audience beyond the room. Love, Respect, Happiness are not slogans here. They sound like a calmer question, a kinder repair, and a visible path from today’s version to tomorrow’s.

Keep people at the front of the train and the tools on the track. Thinking will deepen. The journey will hold.

Annex: HOTS Pack (Higher-Order Thinking Skills)

What HOTS is

Analyze, evaluate, create. Not just remember and repeat. In JVDT, HOTS rides the rails of Root and Context and uses the Four Keys to move: Association connects to what learners know, Analysis breaks a task into steps, Root keeps one clear success criterion in view, Context points thinking at a real audience and purpose.

Quick task upgrades you can use today

• Define → Decide: two definitions, pick the better one for this case and defend your choice.

• List → Rank: list three causes, rank them for this audience and justify your order.

• Identify → Revise: find the weakest step or sentence and rewrite it to meet the criterion.

• Describe → Compare: compare two approaches, name one strength and one trade-off for each.

• Explain → Design: design a 60-second explainer for families, one idea, one proof, one because.

Prompts by subject area

• Language and Social Studies: which headline is more accurate for our audience; compare two decisions and pick the wiser with reasons; weigh a primary vs a secondary source.

• Science: which model better fits the data and why; rank variables by impact; improve a procedure in two steps and name the trade-off.

• Math: which solution is more efficient and why; create a non-example that breaks the rule and explain the break; choose the data display that best informs a parent audience.

• Arts and Design: which composition better serves the stated mood; redesign for a smaller venue and name one sacrifice and one gain; choose a medium and defend with audience and purpose.

Micro-rubric learners can remember

C–E–R: Claim clear, Evidence relevant, Reason links them. Peer step: highlight C, E, R in a partner’s response, then repair the weakest line.

Three fast routines

Three-line reflection: I tried… It produced… Next time I will…

Strategy menu for metacognition: compare, sort, model, ask a better question, trace steps.

Versioning: label attempts V1, V2, V3 and ask where it got better and what moved it.

Ten-minute HOTS block

Root on the board in one sentence. Switch a low-ceiling verb to a high one. Think–write–pair for five minutes with a quick C–E–R repair. Share to a real listener in two minutes. Exit with a three-line reflection or a single “I moved forward when…” line.

Two doors to HOTS

Model door shows one strong compare-and-justify answer to copy once then adapt. Pattern door shows two good answers so learners can name the pattern and apply it to today’s task. Same Root for everyone. Choice lowers threat. Pattern raises thinking.

Planning checklist

Root in one line. Real audience and purpose. Prompt that demands analyze, evaluate, or create. One tiny evidence tool. A built-in repair step. A version saved so progress is visible.

Troubleshooting

Shallow answers: add a criterion and ask for the most important reason.

Freeze: offer the two doors and keep the Root small.

Too much talk: add sixty seconds of silent write before speak.

No improvement: force a single repair with the micro-rubric.

Off-topic debate: restate the audience and purpose, then ask which evidence matters for them.

Why this fits JVDT

Association honours what learners bring. Analysis shows and tests steps. Root holds one clear success. Context gives the work a place to land. Love, Respect, Happiness are heard in the tone of the question, the fairness of the criteria, and the visible path from V1 to V2. Small moves. Real thinking. Travel that lasts.