CHOOSING A THINKING ROUTINE*
My Thinking Made Visible
3-2-1 Bridge

1. In what context do you want to use a thinking routine?

In the online content (including doing something with it in the book) then connect back to it at the F2F. So it has to be robust enough to work both places. (We might even consider changing the topic at F2F : Making Thinking Visible then Thinking Routines. Not sure about that but it landed in my brain so I pushed it out. Oops I mean made my thinking visible.

2. Which thinking routines seem like they might be a good fit?

I’ve highlighted some of the pros and cons of each in the email.

3. What is the purpose of this thinking routine?

The purpose of this routine might be to see if you can move your audience to a new attitude about something, moving at least from neutrality to a more positive embrace. I considered using this at a Sunday School I was going to do on global warming but backed out in the end. It places somewhat more pressure on the instructor to “turn things around.”

I could type or copy key passages from the purpose statement here, but I’m going save that for question 4.

However, I think it’s valuable to try and formulate a brief statement that captures as much of the purpose as you can in one’s own words or using clips from the text that telescope the heart of it.

So here’s mine:

To uncover prior student knowledge in a way that pushes beyond just the facts students might know and in a way that links that prior knowledge, including questions and understanding with the new ideas that come along as the study progresses.

(probably incomplete but it’ll do for now)

4. What is the structure of the routine?

How is the routine itself organized?Carefully examine the steps provided for the routine. If you were to break the routine apart what parts would you identify? How does each part contribute to the overall purpose? What else do you notice of the structure of the routine?

Here’s the text of routine (actually it’s a picture) :

Another Statement of the Overall Purpose: To activate prior knowledge both for the students sake but also so the instructor will have a general sense “what’s going on in those heads out there.” Then to do a second reading later -- or perhaps many times -- in order to see if there’s been forward movement.

The Title: …Easy to remember… points to the 3 things you ask for (twice) and the final reflection.
First 3-2-1 response from students : What you do before you do before there’s been any real instruction. (However they have to have a little prior knowledge … which could be a problem …) Purpose here is to do an initial “testing of the water.” Making the thinking visible to the teacher so he/she can know what’s out there.
A Period of Learning
The second 3-2-1 response from students (which can be done more than once): To look at it all in light of additional learning and reflection and to make the connections.
The Bridge: To create a link between what they “thought” earlier and what they’re “thinking” now. And to place on display for the instructor.

Since I’m trying this out here’s another way I could have done it which I can do because I have the electronic text available to me … and I’ll do now. Copy paste the text here then underline important parts.

Here’s the text of the purpose statement from MTV:

The Purpose. The first part of the 3–2–1 Bridge routine is all about activating prior knowledge before a learning experience begins. By starting with three words, the routine is very accessible in activating some basic ideas. The two questions push a bit further. Finally, the one metaphor or simile is a test of how one is understanding and framing a topic or issue. After students' initial thoughts are generated, these ideas are set aside and not discussed. Instead, teachers begin the learning of the unit. The initial experience can be brief, a short reading or video, or it can more extended, a whole week of lab activity or other inquiry. After this initial period of learning, which should advance students' thinking on the topic and move it in new directions, students return and produce a second 3–2–1. At this stage, the key thinking done by learners is distilling their new ideas while assessing their current thoughts and understandings about the topic. The purpose of the final part of this routine, the Bridge, is to help learners recognize and name their own learning and development. This helps to develop students' metacognitive ability, that is, the ability to step back and examine their own thoughts and learning. In the Bridge, students look at their initial responses (sometimes with a partner) and reflect on how those first impressions differ from their current take on things.
Ritchhart, Ron; Church, Mark; Morrison, Karin (2011-03-25). Making Thinking Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding, and Independence for All Learners (pp. 86-87). John Wiley and Sons. Kindle Edition.

5. What are the arguments?

What are the pros and cons of using this particular routine. Or a different one? Or no routine at all for this goal? When might you want to use this routine and when would it not be a good idea?

<I’m admittedly running out of steam here…>

Pros – Mostly stated above: Already well received. Easy to conceptualize. Large scale and frequent application is apparent. Etc.

Cons – It’s possible that the Achilles heel of this (for our purposes) could be the prior knowledge piece referred to earlier. There may be more positioning work than we want to do. It’s also not entirely obvious to me which TOPIC is best … or whether we could get a way with shifting slightly from web to F2F?

Conclusion: I think it will be a bit of challenge to lay this out for the two different experiences (online and F2F), but I think we can do it.

*The thinking routine is the text inside the gray box in the Making Thinking Visible book, pages 55 – 213. Everything else is the instruction manual for the routine (purpose, selecting appropriate content, steps, uses and variations, assessment and tips).