## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Expert knowledge often tacit**: Skilled practitioners know more than they can easily articulate, making their expertise invisible to learners > - **Modelling reveals cognitive processes**: Think-alouds, worked examples, and demonstrations make hidden thinking visible to novices > - **Metacognitive awareness develops**: Making thinking visible helps students understand not just what to do but why and when ## Definition **Making expert thinking visible**: Instructional strategies that reveal the cognitive processes, decision-making, and reasoning that experts use automatically but novices must learn consciously (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989). ## Overview Much expert knowledge is tacit - knowing how without being able to articulate it (Polanyi, 1966). Experts often struggle to explain their expertise because automated processes occur below conscious awareness. This tacit dimension creates a teaching challenge: how can students learn what experts cannot easily describe? Making thinking visible addresses this challenge through specific instructional strategies that reveal cognitive processes during problem-solving, decision-making, and skilled performance. These approaches benefit novice learners by showing not just final products but the thinking that produces them. ## Connected To [[Worked Examples]] | [[Explicit Teaching]] | [[Situated Cognition]] | [[Experts and Novices Think Differently]] | [[Scaffolding]] | [[I Do]] | [[Curse of Knowledge]] --- ## The tacit knowledge problem Experts possess extensive knowledge they cannot easily articulate. After years of practice, procedures and strategies that initially required conscious effort become automated, executing below awareness (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). An expert mathematics teacher solving equations automatically applies properties, performs transformations, and checks results without consciously thinking through each step. When asked to explain their thinking, experts may struggle because the knowledge has become tacit. This creates difficulties for learners. Students observe expert performance but cannot see the thinking that produces it. A teacher demonstrates solving an equation, writing steps on the board. Students see the written steps but not the reasoning behind decisions: why choose this transformation, how to recognise when simplification is complete, what to check to verify the solution. Without access to expert thinking, students cannot develop expertise themselves. The [[Curse of Knowledge]] compounds the problem. Experts underestimate what novices need to know because automated knowledge feels obvious and simple. The teacher solving equations has forgotten what it is like not to know, making it difficult to recognise which aspects of thinking need explicit explanation (Hinds, 1999). ## Cognitive apprenticeship: making invisible visible Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989) developed cognitive apprenticeship as a framework for making expert thinking visible in academic domains. Traditional apprenticeships work well because craft processes are observable - apprentices watch experts shape wood, mix materials, or assemble components. Academic work, being primarily cognitive, lacks this natural visibility. Cognitive apprenticeship adapts apprenticeship principles to make thinking observable. The framework includes six teaching methods, the first three focused specifically on making thinking visible. ### Modelling The expert performs tasks whilst making cognitive processes visible through verbal explanation. This differs from simple demonstration by revealing the thinking behind actions. A teacher solving problems does not merely write steps but talks through reasoning: "I'm looking at this equation and noticing it has variables on both sides, so my first step is to collect like terms. I'm choosing to move the smaller coefficient to keep the numbers manageable" (Collins et al., 1989). Effective modelling reveals decision points and reasoning, alternative approaches considered and rejected, checks and monitoring of progress, and recovery from errors when they occur. This comprehensive revelation of expert thinking provides students with models of cognitive processes, not just final products. ### Coaching The teacher observes students attempting tasks and provides guidance, hints, and feedback. Coaching makes teacher thinking visible by articulating observations: "I notice you've simplified both sides separately, which is good. Now I'm thinking about whether both sides are as simple as they can be before you solve for the variable." This running commentary reveals how teachers monitor student work and decide what feedback to provide. Coaching also prompts students to make their own thinking visible through questions: "What are you thinking about doing next? Why did you choose that transformation? How will you know if your answer is correct?" These questions encourage students to articulate reasoning that might otherwise remain implicit. ### Scaffolding The teacher provides support enabling students to complete tasks beyond current independent capability. Making thinking visible during scaffolding involves explaining why particular support is provided: "I'm going to give you the first step here because choosing where to start requires knowing about order of operations, which we're still developing. But I want you to complete the remaining steps" (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). This explicit framing helps students understand what they are learning and what they can already do, supporting metacognitive development. Students learn not just procedures but also awareness of their current capabilities and learning edges. ## Think-alouds: verbalising cognitive processes Think-alouds involve verbalising thought processes whilst performing tasks. This strategy makes visible the self-talk, monitoring, and decision-making that accompany skilled performance (Bereiter & Bird, 1985). During reading comprehension, teachers might think aloud: "I've just read this paragraph but I'm not sure I understand the main idea. Let me reread it more slowly... Okay, I think the author is saying that cognitive load affects learning, but I want to check if that's right by looking at the examples... Yes, the examples all show students struggling when there's too much information. So the main idea is about cognitive load overwhelming learners." This revelation shows students that expert readers monitor comprehension, employ fix-up strategies when confused, and use evidence to verify interpretations. Without think-alouds, students only see that teachers understand text, not how they achieve that understanding. Think-alouds prove particularly valuable for processes that lack physical manifestation: comprehension monitoring, planning and organisation, error detection and correction, and strategy selection and adaptation. These invisible processes become visible through verbalisation (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). ## Worked examples with explanations [[Worked Examples|Worked examples]] show complete problem solutions step-by-step, reducing cognitive load for novices learning procedures (Sweller & Cooper, 1985). However, worked examples become more powerful when they include explanations making reasoning visible. A basic worked example might show: ``` Solve: 3x + 5 = 20 3x = 15 x = 5 ``` An worked example making thinking visible includes explanations: ``` Solve: 3x + 5 = 20 [First I need to isolate the term with x by undoing the addition] 3x = 15 [Now I can undo the multiplication by dividing both sides by 3] x = 5 [I'll check: 3(5) + 5 = 15 + 5 = 20 ✓] ``` The explanations reveal cognitive processes: identifying goals, selecting appropriate strategies, monitoring progress, and verifying solutions. Students learn not just what steps to perform but why those steps make sense. Research shows that examples with explanations produce better learning than examples showing only steps, particularly for developing conceptual understanding alongside procedural skill (Chi et al., 1989). ## Classroom discourse: making student thinking visible Effective teaching makes not only teacher thinking visible but also reveals student reasoning to both teacher and peers. Classroom discourse strategies accomplish this by requiring students to articulate and explain their thinking. **Explain your reasoning**: Rather than accepting correct answers without explanation, teachers ask students to describe how they arrived at solutions. This makes student thinking visible, allows teachers to verify understanding versus lucky guesses, reveals misconceptions underlying incorrect answers, and provides models of reasoning for other students. **Compare solution methods**: Students share different approaches to the same problem, explaining their reasoning. The comparison reveals multiple valid paths whilst highlighting connections between methods. Students develop flexibility in thinking and appreciation for alternative approaches. **Identify and explain errors**: Students analyse incorrect solutions, explaining what went wrong and why. This develops error detection skills, strengthens understanding of correct procedures, and makes visible common misconceptions requiring instruction. **Justify claims**: Students support statements with evidence and reasoning rather than assertion. This develops argumentation skills and reveals the basis for conclusions, making invisible judgements visible for examination. These discourse moves transform classrooms from places where only teachers think visibly to communities where all participants make reasoning explicit (Chapin, O'Connor, & Anderson, 2009). ## Metacognitive modelling Metacognition involves awareness and control of one's own thinking (Flavell, 1979). Experts monitor their understanding, select appropriate strategies, and regulate their learning. Novices often lack these metacognitive capabilities, attempting tasks without planning, persisting with ineffective strategies, and failing to notice when understanding breaks down. Making metacognitive processes visible helps students develop these crucial capabilities. Teachers model metacognitive thinking through planning aloud before tasks, monitoring understanding during work, evaluating outcomes after completion, and self-correcting when errors occur. For writing tasks, a teacher might say: "Before I start writing, I'm going to think about my purpose and audience. Who will read this and what do they need to know? That will help me decide what information to include... While I'm writing, I'll pause occasionally to reread and check if my ideas are clear... After I finish a draft, I'll read it as if I were the audience to see if it makes sense." This metacognitive modelling shows students how to approach tasks strategically rather than diving in without planning or continuing without monitoring. ## Implementation strategies **Plan verbalisation in advance**: Thinking aloud effectively requires preparation. Identify in advance what aspects of thinking students need to see, where students commonly struggle and need visibility into expert reasoning, and what decision points during tasks require explanation. Without planning, teachers may demonstrate silently or provide incomplete revelation of thinking. **Slow down performance**: Automated expertise executes quickly, making it difficult for students to follow. When making thinking visible, deliberately slow performance to human processing speed. Pause at decision points to articulate reasoning. Show rather than tell: demonstrate actual thinking rather than post-hoc rationalisation. **Include errors and corrections**: Perfect performance does not reveal how experts handle difficulties. Intentionally make errors and talk through detection and correction: "Wait, I don't think that's right. Let me check... I see the error now. I multiplied when I should have added. Let me fix that." This shows students that mistakes are normal and provides models for error recovery (VanLehn, 1999). **Make implicit strategies explicit**: Expert strategies often feel so natural that teachers forget to mention them. Identify heuristics and approaches used automatically, such as checking answers by substitution, drawing diagrams to visualise problems, or breaking complex tasks into smaller steps. These invisible strategies need explicit revelation. **Fade visibility gradually**: Initially, make all thinking visible through extensive verbalisation. As students develop competence, gradually reduce the amount of explanation, expecting students to fill in reasoning themselves. This fading mirrors the gradual internalisation of expert thinking (Collins et al., 1989). **Invite student visibility**: After modelling, ask students to make their thinking visible through explanations and think-alouds. This allows teachers to identify gaps in understanding, provides practice in articulating reasoning, and creates peer models of developing expertise. ## Research evidence Studies examining the effectiveness of making thinking visible show consistent benefits. Worked examples with explanations produce better learning than examples showing only steps (Chi et al., 1989). Think-aloud protocols during problem-solving improve student performance compared to silent modelling (Meichenbaum, 1977). Metacognitive modelling enhances student self-regulation and learning effectiveness (Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006). The benefits prove particularly strong for novice learners who lack automated knowledge and require explicit models of expert thinking. As students develop expertise, extensive revelation of thinking becomes less necessary ([[Expertise Reversal Effect]]), though metacognitive modelling remains valuable even for advanced learners. ## Key considerations and warnings **Authenticity matters**: Verbalisation should reveal actual thinking, not scripted performance. Students benefit from seeing genuine expert reasoning, including uncertainty, reconsideration, and error correction. Overly polished demonstrations that make everything appear simple and obvious do not prepare students for the reality of problem-solving. **Cognitive load balance**: Extensive verbalisation whilst demonstrating can overwhelm working memory if students must simultaneously process both the demonstration and explanation. Effective revelation of thinking manages this load through pausing to explain after demonstrating steps, using visual representations alongside verbal explanation, and chunking explanations into manageable segments. **Language accessibility**: Explanations must match student language capability. Overly technical or complex verbalisation about thinking may obscure rather than illuminate. Teachers should use clear, accessible language when making thinking visible. **Cultural considerations**: Some students come from cultures where explicit teacher explanation and direct instruction are valued, whilst others expect more discovery and implicit learning. Making thinking visible aligns with explicit instruction traditions but may feel overly directive in some cultural contexts. Teachers should be aware of cultural expectations whilst maintaining evidence-based practice. **Not sufficient alone**: Making thinking visible supports learning but does not replace other essential elements of effective instruction: students need opportunities to practice with feedback after seeing expert thinking, explicit instruction in foundational knowledge, time to develop fluency in component skills, and scaffolded opportunities to attempt increasingly complex tasks independently. Visibility of thinking is necessary but not sufficient for learning. > [!tip] Implications for Teaching > > - Plan in advance which aspects of expert thinking to make visible during demonstrations > - Think aloud during problem-solving to reveal decision-making and reasoning processes > - Use worked examples with explanations showing why steps make sense, not just what steps to perform > - Include errors and corrections in modelling to show how experts detect and fix mistakes > - Ask students to explain their reasoning to make their thinking visible for teacher feedback and peer learning > - Model metacognitive processes like planning, monitoring, and self-correction explicitly ## References Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. *Cognition and Instruction*, 2(2), 131-156. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0202_1 Chapin, S. H., O'Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2009). *Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, Grades K-6* (2nd ed.). Math Solutions. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. *Cognitive Science*, 13(2), 145-182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), *Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser* (pp. 453-494). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. *Psychological Review*, 102(2), 211-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211 Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). *Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data* (Rev. ed.). MIT Press. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. *American Psychologist*, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on prediction of novice performance. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied*, 5(2), 205-221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.5.2.205 Meichenbaum, D. (1977). *Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach*. Plenum Press. Polanyi, M. (1966). *The tacit dimension*. Doubleday. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. *Research in Science Education*, 36(1-2), 111-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8 Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. *Cognition and Instruction*, 2(1), 59-89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3 VanLehn, K. (1999). Rule-learning events in the acquisition of a complex skill: An evaluation of CASCADE. *The Journal of the Learning Sciences*, 8(1), 71-125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0801_3 Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. *Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry*, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x