Designing Learning Activities That Require Thinking

 A classroom scenario

Imagine a Computer Science class.

The students have just learned about sorting algorithms. They know what an algorithm is, they have seen different sorting techniques, and they have written code to implement them.

The teacher gives them an assignment:

“Write a Python program to sort a list of numbers.”

The students get to work.

Some remember the algorithm from the previous class. Others look at their notes. A few search for examples. Eventually, most of them produce a working program.

The teacher checks the outputs.

Correct.

The activity has achieved its immediate objective.

But there is a question worth asking:

What, exactly, did the students have to think about?

For many of them, the answer may be: "not very much."

They remembered a procedure, translated it into code and checked whether the expected output appeared. 

There is nothing wrong with that activity. Students need opportunities to practise and consolidate new knowledge.

But if our objective is to develop higher-order thinking, we need to go further.

Change the question

Now imagine that the teacher changes the activity.

Instead of asking students to write one sorting program, the teacher gives them two algorithms.

Both produce the correct result.

The teacher then gives each group several datasets: one small and almost sorted, another large and randomly arranged, and another containing many duplicate values.

The instruction is:

“Test both algorithms with the different datasets. Decide which algorithm you would use in each situation. Explain your decision using evidence from your observations.”

Suddenly, the classroom changes.

There is no single procedure for students to follow. 

  • They have to decide what to test.
  • They have to observe what happens.
  • They have to compare results.
  • They have to interpret those results.

And, most importantly, they have to justify a decision.

The programming knowledge is still there. But now the activity requires thinking with that knowledge.

The difference is in the activity

This is where I think learning design becomes particularly important.

We often say that we want students to develop critical thinking, analytical skills or problem-solving ability.

However, those abilities don't automatically appear because we use a more difficult question.

  • A long assignment can still be largely procedural.
  • A complicated-looking problem can still have students following a familiar recipe.
  • A question can contain sophisticated vocabulary while requiring very little independent thought.

The real question for the teacher is:

What does the student actually have to do mentally in order to complete this activity?

If the answer is simply remember, follow, reproduce and submit, we are probably not asking for much higher-order thinking.

If the student must analyse, compare, make decisions, interpret evidence, justify a choice or reconsider an assumption, the nature of the learning activity changes.


Give students something to investigate

In a Computer Science classroom, relatively small changes can make a significant difference.

Instead of:

“Fix this program.”

we might say:

“The program produces the wrong result for some inputs. Identify the conditions under which it fails, determine why it fails, and explain your proposed correction.”

Instead of:

“Write a program to solve this problem.”

we might say:

“There are several possible approaches to this problem. Identify two approaches, compare their strengths and limitations, and recommend one for this particular situation.”

Instead of:

“Analyse this dataset.”

we might say:

“You have been given this dataset, but you are not told what decision it is intended to support. What would you need to know before drawing any conclusions from it?”

The difference is subtle but important.

The teacher is no longer simply asking students to produce something.

The teacher is creating a situation in which students have to think before they can produce something meaningful.



And the teacher does not disappear

There is sometimes a misconception that learner-centred or inquiry-based activities mean the teacher should step back and let students figure everything out for themselves.

I don't believe that.

When students are struggling, the teacher can ask: 


  • What have you tried so far?
  • What do you already know that might help?
  • What evidence are you looking at?
  • What assumption are you making?
  • What would happen if you changed that assumption?
  • Can you think of another approach?

These questions don't give students the answer.

They help students move their thinking forward.

The teacher remains very much part of the learning process—but the teacher's role shifts from simply delivering the answer to designing, scaffolding and guiding the thinking process.

Thinking needs foundations

There is another important point here.

We cannot ask students to analyse, evaluate or create something if they do not possess the foundational knowledge needed to do so. 


  • A student cannot meaningfully compare algorithms without understanding what the algorithms do.
  • A student cannot evaluate a dataset without understanding the relevant concepts.
  • A student cannot design a solution without having something to design with.

This is why higher-order thinking should not be presented as an alternative to foundational learning.

It grows from it.

The challenge for the teacher is to build a progression:

Understand → Apply → Investigate → Analyse → Evaluate → Create

Not every activity needs to reach the final stage.

But the learning journey should give students opportunities to move beyond simply reproducing what they have been shown.

A simple test for learning activities

Before using an activity, I find one question particularly useful:

Could a student complete this successfully without really thinking about the problem?

If the answer is yes, that doesn't necessarily mean the activity is bad.

It may be exactly the right activity for practising a new skill.

But if our stated learning outcome is higher-order thinking, then we need to ask whether the activity actually requires it.

We can then redesign the task. Not necessarily by making it longer. Not necessarily by making it harder. But by making the thinking unavoidable.

A well-designed learning activity not only gives students something to work with, but also something to decide, investigate, question or explain.

The objective is not to make every lesson intellectually exhausting. 

It is to make the intellectual work intentional.

And once students are no longer simply looking for the correct answer, another interesting possibility opens up:

What if we ask them to imagine a different answer?

That takes us beyond problem solving and into realm of creative thinking.


What do you think? 👇

I'd be interested to hear from teachers, educators, lecturers, academic leaders and other education professionals who have experience with these issues. If you have a different perspective, a classroom experience, or an approach that has worked for you, please feel free to share it in the comments.

Thoughtful disagreement is welcome too. The aim is to learn from one another and keep the conversation going. Thank you!

Next: Designing for Creative Thinking, Not Just Problem Solving

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When the Grade Becomes the Goal

Image
    When Assessment Stops Measuring Learning. A university had begun noticing a growing pattern. Students were becoming increasingly dependent on AI when completing major assignments. The institution's first response was to look at AI use. But one faculty member asked a different question: What if the problem was not only what students were doing with AI, but what the assessment system was asking them to do in the first place? Read the case →  CASE STUDY 04 Educational Management & Learning Design The Case A university had begun noticing a change in student behaviour. Assignments were becoming increasingly polished.  The language was sophisticated.  The structure was often excellent.  Students were producing work that appeared more professional than some of their previous submissions. At the same time, faculty members were becoming increasingly concerned about generative AI. Some students openly acknowledged using AI to improve their writing.  Othe...
Read more

The Student Who Stops Submitting

Image
When Non-Submission Is a Symptom, Not the Problem. A first-year IT student begins missing assignments. Is the problem motivation — or is something breaking down in the learning experience? Read the case →  CASE STUDY 01 Educational Management & Learning Design The Case Meet Arjun! Arjun is a first-year student in a Bachelor of IT programme. He is taking an introductory programming course delivered through a combination of face-to-face classes and an institutional learning management system (LMS). There are about 45 students in the class. During the first four weeks of the semester, there is nothing particularly unusual about Arjun's performance. He attends most classes, follows the programming demonstrations and submits the first two small exercises. His marks are around the class average. Then his pattern begins to change. In Week 5 , one assignment is submitted two days late. In Week 6 , there is no submission. In Week 7, Arjun attends the lecture but does not attend the pr...
Read more

The Classroom Caught Between Two Extremes

Image
   When Technology Becomes the Question, Not the Answer. A school wants to prepare its students for an AI-driven future. Some teachers want stronger restrictions on technology. Parents want more AI exposure. Students are caught between the two. The institution now has to decide: should it teach students to use AI, teach them to work without it, or teach them when each approach is appropriate? Read the case →  CASE STUDY 03 Educational Management & Learning Design The Case A secondary school had begun discussing how it should prepare students for a world increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence. Some teachers were already using AI tools to generate examples, create practice activities and provide students with additional explanations. Others were becoming increasingly concerned that students were using AI to complete work they should be doing themselves. Parents were divided as well. Some believed the school was not doing enough to prepare their children for the ...
Read more