How Can Thinking Moves Be Used in the Classroom

Bringing Cognitive Engagement to Life Across Content Areas

The answer to this question is rooted in both research and real-world effectiveness: thinking moves transform learning when they are embedded into the fabric of instruction across disciplines in ways that are usable by teachers and developmentally meaningful to students. This transformation is not theoretical—it is supported by classroom-based evidence, learning science, and strong instructional design.

According to Hess’ Cognitive Rigor Matrix, true rigor arises when students engage in higher-order thinking (Bloom’s Taxonomy) while applying that thinking in complex, meaningful contexts (Webb’s Depth of Knowledge)^[1]. Thinking moves like reasoning with evidence or uncovering complexity enable students to do just that—moving beyond recall to synthesize, evaluate, and transfer knowledge. These moves become the engine behind authentic, cognitively demanding tasks.

From a Pedagogy of Play perspective, thinking moves also promote the three conditions essential for deep learning: agency, wonder, and reflection^[2]. Whether students are investigating a scientific phenomenon, interpreting a primary source, or solving an engineering design challenge, thinking moves guide them toward personally meaningful engagement and playful exploration.

As Ron Ritchhart underscores in Creating Cultures of Thinking in Action, thinking moves are not skills to be taught in isolation. They are the “tools of thought” that help students make meaning, connect ideas, and internalize how learning works^[3]. When teachers consistently model and name these moves, they make the invisible work of learning visible. This visibility is what transforms classrooms into cultures of thinking—communities where deep engagement is the norm, not the exception^[4].

What follows is a practical reference for applying each of the eight thinking moves—observing, explaining, reasoning, connecting, perspective-taking, concluding, questioning, and uncovering complexity—across KnowAtom Science and Engineering, social studies, math, ELA, reading, and art. Each example is grounded in the KnowAtom lesson routine and pedagogy, where students actively investigate, reflect, and engage in discourse to develop their thinking.

1. Observing Closely and Describing What’s There

• KnowAtom Science: Kindergarten students observe bean seed sprouting and draw changes in observation journals during Circle Time, identifying leaf, stem, and root development.
• KnowAtom Engineering: Third graders compare materials in a water filtration challenge, recording flow rate and clarity in structured logs.
• Social Studies: Students describe elements of a historical image before interpreting context.
• Math: Students describe patterns and anomalies in data representations
• ELA: Students identify character actions and descriptive language before making inferences.
• Reading: Students highlight observational details in expository text.
• Art: Students describe visual elements like contrast and negative space.

Close observation builds the noticing skills foundational to critical thinking and supports DOK 2 analysis and early interpretive habits that drive inquiry and reflection^[5][6].

2. Building Explanations and Interpretations

• KnowAtom Science: Fifth graders use water runoff models to explain how slope and soil type influence erosion rates.
• KnowAtom Engineering: Second graders analyze why some student-designed shipping packages failed, drawing on test data and design intent.
• Social Studies: Students explain historical motivations by organizing evidence chronologically.
• Math: Students explain a multi-step strategy in their own words.
• ELA: Students interpret how a setting shapes a character’s mood.
• Reading: Students identify the author’s message using context clues.
• Art: Students explain symbolism in surrealist art.

Explanation deepens understanding and supports students in Bloom’s “analyze” and “evaluate” levels while developing interpretive agency aligned with Ritchhart’s focus on meaning-making^[7][8].

3. Reasoning with Evidence

• KnowAtom Science: Fourth graders support claims about heat conduction using temperature readings from materials tested with foil, felt, and paper.
• KnowAtom Engineering: First graders compare test outcomes for canopy prototypes, justifying which best provided shade and durability.
• Social Studies: Students support claims about civic values using excerpts from speeches and laws.
• Math: Students defend a strategy using numeric patterns and properties.
• ELA: Students cite dialogue and narration to support character analysis.
• Reading: Students justify their choice of main idea with highlighted text.
• Art: Students support an interpretation by analyzing artistic technique.

Reasoning with evidence nurtures the intellectual virtues of fairness, clarity, and relevance—hallmarks of a thinking culture^[9][10].

4. Making Connections

• KnowAtom Science: Sixth graders connect tectonic plate movement to earlier discussions about Earth’s inner structure using physical models.
• KnowAtom Engineering: Fifth graders relate LED brightness in their lighthouse redesign to prior circuits work.
• Social Studies: Students link freedom movements across continents and decades.
• Math: Students relate percent, ratio, and fraction solutions across contexts.
• ELA: Students connect character development across texts and genres.
• Reading: Students relate a text to prior schema and class investigations.
• Art: Students explore how collage in modern art evolved from Dada influences.

Transfer is the essence of rigor; meaningful connections expand working memory and concept networks, leading to higher retention and flexible application^[11][12].

5. Considering Different Perspectives

• KnowAtom Science: Eighth graders interpret climate data from multiple models and discuss source reliability in Socratic dialogue.
• KnowAtom Engineering: Third graders evaluate water filter solutions from the viewpoint of different users (e.g., campers vs. municipalities).
• Social Studies: Students compare historical interpretations of the same event.
• Math: Students assess multiple correct solutions and their efficiency.
• ELA: Students analyze the story from a secondary character’s view.
• Reading: Students examine conflicting author perspectives on climate change.
• Art: Students analyze political cartoons for perspective bias.

This move supports higher-level argumentation and empathy—essential for building a classroom where ideas are explored, not defended^[13][14].

6. Capturing the Heart and Forming Conclusions

• KnowAtom Science: Third graders summarize what they’ve learned about light reflection by drawing models and stating evidence-based conclusions.
• KnowAtom Engineering: Seventh graders explain why a particular flood barrier met all design criteria, using test results and stakeholder feedback.
• Social Studies: Students synthesize the purpose and legacy of a civil rights movement.
• Math: Students write short reflections on the essence of a new strategy.
• ELA: Students state a story’s theme and justify it with scenes.
• Reading: Students condense dense text into 1–2 sentence summaries.
• Art: Students summarize the message behind a political mural.

This move aligns with Bloom’s “synthesize” and DOK 3–4, giving students a voice in meaning-making and reinforcing reflection, which Ritchhart identifies as central to learning^[15][16].

7. Wondering and Asking Questions

• KnowAtom Science: Fifth graders pose “I wonder…” questions about magnetism after a hands-on exploration with various metals.
• KnowAtom Engineering: First graders ask, “What happens if we use a heavier material?” during model revisions.
• Social Studies: Students wonder what isn’t being shown in a historical source.
• Math: Students ask how a concept applies to a real-world situation.
• ELA: Students generate questions about character motivation.
• Reading: Students ask clarifying and probing questions of the text.
• Art: Students ask how artists create illusions or symbolism.

Questions signal ownership of learning; they are the foundation of curiosity and self-directed investigation, both central to playful and rigorous learning^[17][18].

8. Uncovering Complexity and Going Below the Surface

• KnowAtom Science: Seventh graders identify how multiple biotic and abiotic factors interact within an ecosystem model.
• KnowAtom Engineering: Sixth graders investigate trade-offs in levee designs across strength, cost, and sustainability.
• Social Studies: Students explore unintended consequences of economic decisions.
• Math: Students analyze problem constraints and propose adjustments.
• ELA: Students explore subtext and irony within dialogue.
• Reading: Students uncover bias and framing in nonfiction texts.
• Art: Students examine symbolic layering in conceptual installations.

Complexity invites synthesis, abstraction, and pattern-seeking—hallmarks of both cognitive rigor and a thriving culture of thinking^[19][20].

Works Cited

1. Hess, Karin K. A Guide for Using the Cognitive Rigor Matrix with Webb’s Depth of Knowledge and Bloom’s Taxonomy. Center for Assessment, 2018.
2. Project Zero. The Pedagogy of Play. Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2021.
3. Ritchhart, Ron. Creating Cultures of Thinking in Action: 10 Guiding Mindsets That Nurture Every Learner. Jossey-Bass, 2023.
4. Ritchhart, Ron. Making Thinking Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding, and Independence for All Learners. Jossey-Bass, 2011.
5. Sherin, Miriam Gamoran, et al. “Professional Development and the Language of Teaching and Learning.” Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 66, no. 5, 2015, pp. 428–441.
6. Hmelo-Silver, Cindy E., et al. “Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning.” Educational Psychologist, vol. 50, no. 2, 2015, pp. 115–121.
7. Osborne, Jonathan, and Justin Dillon. “The Science Education of Primary School Teachers.” Science Education, vol. 99, no. 6, 2015, pp. 1033–1037.
8. McNeill, Katherine L., et al. “Supporting Students’ Construction of Scientific Explanations.” Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 25, no. 2, 2016, pp. 168–206.
9. Furtak, Erin M., et al. “The Influence of Formative Assessment on Student Learning: A Meta-Analysis.” Educational Research Review, vol. 18, 2016, pp. 1–14.
10. Greene, Jeffrey A., et al. “Measuring Epistemic Cognition in Multiple Contexts.” Educational Psychologist, vol. 50, no. 3, 2015, pp. 143–152.
11. Darling-Hammond, Linda, et al. Deeper Learning: Opportunities and Outcomes. Learning Policy Institute, 2017.
12. Beane, James A. “A Common Core of a Different Sort.” Middle School Journal, vol. 46, no. 4, 2015, pp. 6–14.
13. Van de Pol, Janneke, et al. “Scaffolding Student Learning: A Conceptual Framework.” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 27, no. 4, 2015, pp. 557–571.
14. Pellegrino, James W., and Margaret L. Hilton, editors. Education for Life and Work. National Academies Press, 2015.
15. Cervetti, Gina, and Tanya S. Wright. “The Role of Knowledge in Comprehension Instruction.” The Reading Teacher, vol. 69, no. 4, 2015, pp. 413–419.
16. Jirout, Jamie J., and David Klahr. “Children’s Scientific Curiosity.” Developmental Review, vol. 38, 2015, pp. 43–70.
17. Finkelstein, Noah, et al. “Curiosity-Based Learning in STEM Education.” Frontiers in Education, vol. 3, 2018, p .3.
18. Barzilai, Sarit, and Clark A. Chinn. “Epistemic Cognition Interventions in Education.” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 27, no. 3, 2015, pp. 353–393.
19. Lee, Okhee, and Cory T. Buxton. Integrating STEM in K-12 Education. Springer, 2015.
20. Resnick, Lauren B. “Knowledge, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser.” Routledge, 2018.