I Notice I Wonder¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (3 for, 1 mixed) · 12 studies (6 quant-synthesis, 5 causal, 1 theoretical), q2–q4 · 5 of 12 report an effect size

Description¶

I Notice I Wonder is a two-step discussion routine: learners examine an artifact (image, graph, text, object, or problem) and generate observations ("I notice…") without interpretation pressure, then generate questions ("I wonder…"). The routine defers explanation and evaluation, making it a low-stakes entry point that activates prior knowledge, surfaces misconceptions, and creates a "need to know" that subsequent instruction can resolve.

Design Implications¶

The routine works by having learners explore a problem space before receiving explanations, which prepares them to understand the explanation rather than merely hear it Comparing and contrasting cases before instruction improves learning from the subsequent explanation. [+S]. The "I wonder" phase generates curiosity questions that instruction can then answer, converting passive reception into goal-directed learning Activation of prior knowledge improves learning outcomes. [+M]. Because every contribution is framed as a noticing or a wondering rather than an answer, the routine lowers the social cost of participation and widens who contributes.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A rich, ambiguous artifact worth observing — one that supports multiple valid noticings and genuinely puzzling features
• Facilitation that accepts all noticings without correcting them during the routine; correction comes later, during instruction
• A follow-on instructional move that addresses the wonderings (mini-lecture, reading, demonstration), so curiosity is resolved rather than left hanging
• Adequate wait time and a record of noticings/wonderings (board, chart, shared document) so contributions are visibly valued
• A rich, question-free stimulus with enough ambiguity to generate genuine wondering
• Public recording of responses (board, shared doc) so contributions are visible and buildable
• A planned follow-up that connects selected student ideas to the target task
• Sufficient wait time after each prompt — several seconds minimum — for idea generation

Constraints¶

• With no follow-up instruction, the routine produces engagement without learning; unexplained wonderings decay rather than motivate Active learning improves exam performance only when paired with accountability or consolidation. [~M]
• If the artifact is too simple or too familiar, noticings are trivial and the routine collapses into listing
• Groups with strong status hierarchies may still concentrate airtime among confident speakers unless turn structures (round-robin, think-pair-share) are imposed
• Overuse with the same artifact type makes the routine formulaic; learners stop genuinely wondering
• Without a deliberate follow-up linking student ideas to the target task, the routine becomes a warm-up ritual with no learning payoff [~M]
• Open prompts can drift into low-value observations ("I notice it's blue") if the instructor does not model substantive noticing early on
• Time cost is real; overuse on trivial stimuli erodes its value and student investment
• Less effective when the stimulus is so constrained that the "hidden" question is obvious — wondering collapses into guessing the teacher's intent

Implementation Variability¶

• Silent first pass: learners write noticings individually before discussion, increasing contribution breadth
• Notice/Wonder/Theory: a third step ("what might explain this?") adds hypothesis generation for science contexts
• Mathematics adaptation: applied to a graph or problem stem before any numbers are computed, focusing on structure rather than procedure
• Museum/visual art origin: the routine descends from Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS), where a facilitator paraphrases each comment and links it to the image
• Silent individual first, then share: private noticing before public sharing increases participation breadth
• What do you notice? only: for dense stimuli (e.g., a complex graph), a single prompt reduces load
• Wonder-to-problem handoff: the instructor selects a student "wonder" and reframes it as the day's problem, giving learners ownership of the question
• Digital variants: annotation tools (e.g., Desmos activity builder screens) collect notices asynchronously

Target Learners¶

• Novices facing unfamiliar material, who benefit from structured low-stakes exploration before formal explanation Comparing and contrasting cases before instruction improves learning from the subsequent explanation. [+S]
• Reluctant or anxious participants, since noticing is always "correct" and requires no prior knowledge
• Multilingual learners — the sentence frames ("I notice…", "I wonder…") provide accessible syntax for academic talk
• Less suitable when learners already have expertise; open noticing becomes redundant and slow [~W]
• Novices and math-anxious learners, who benefit from an entry point with no wrong answers and from attending to structure before computation [~M]
• Multilingual learners — the routine values observational language before technical vocabulary

Target Learning Goals¶

• Observation and evidence-gathering: separating what is seen from what is inferred
• Question formulation: generating genuine, answerable questions
• Conceptual readiness: building the puzzle that instruction will resolve Cognitive disequilibrium motivates conceptual change. [+M]
• Discussion norms and academic language development
• Problem comprehension: modeling a situation before solving it
• Conceptual sense-making: attending to structure, relationships, and anomalies in a representation
• Discourse norms: building a classroom culture where student ideas drive instruction

Instructions¶

1. Select an artifact. Choose an image, graph, data display, object, or problem stem that is rich enough for multiple observations and contains a puzzle the upcoming lesson will resolve.
2. Silent or paired noticing. Give learners 1–2 minutes to record "I notice…" statements individually or in pairs before whole-group sharing.
3. Collect noticings without evaluation. Record every noticing publicly; paraphrase but do not judge or correct. Distinguish observation from inference gently by asking "what do you see that makes you say that?"
4. Collect wonderings. Shift the frame to "I wonder…"; record questions on a visible chart. These become the lesson's driving questions.
5. Bridge to instruction. Explicitly connect the upcoming explanation, reading, or Demonstration to the recorded wonderings ("we'll be able to answer three of these by the end of class"), and return to the chart afterward to resolve or revise them.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — I Notice I Wonder is a concrete routine for doing so at the start of a lesson
• Think-Pair-Share — a turn structure that can precede whole-group sharing in the routine
• See-Think-Wonder — the parent Project Zero routine with an explicit interpretation step between noticing and wondering
• Use the Ten Times Two routine to build observational vocabulary before data analysis
• Use low-stakes, multiple-entry warm-ups like \"Which One Doesn't Belong?\" to reduce fear of wrong answers

Examples¶

• Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) (vtshome.org) — Housen and Yenawine's museum-education method: a facilitator asks "What's going on in this picture?" and paraphrases every response; I Notice I Wonder is a classroom-friendly descendant.
• Project Zero's Thinking Routines Toolbox (pz.harvard.edu) — Harvard Project Zero publishes the routine among its visible-thinking toolbox; Ritchhart, Church, and Morrison (2011) document classroom use.
• Illustrative Mathematics (illustrativemathematics.org) — opens lessons with a "Notice and Wonder" phase on a graph or context before any computation, directing attention to structure rather than procedure.
• Data science and statistics classrooms — teachers present an unlabeled or partially labeled graph; students notice patterns and wonder about causes before variables are revealed, then instruction explains the display.
• NCTM / Illustrative Mathematics routines — Notice and Wonder is a named instructional routine in the Illustrative Mathematics K–12 curriculum, typically opening lessons with a graph or context before the task.
• The Math Forum "Problems of the Week" — the original home of the routine; scenarios presented without questions so students formulate what is being asked.
• Data science warm-ups — presenting a scatterplot of real data and collecting notices before teaching trend or correlation concepts.

Key Sources¶

• Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. Jossey-Bass.
• Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4
• Housen, A. (2002). Aesthetic thought, critical thinking and transfer. Arts and Learning Research, 18(1), 99–132.
• Yenawine, P., & Miller, A. (2019). Using Visual Thinking Strategies with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Museum Education, 44(2), 152–161.
• Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340. doi:10.1080/10986060802229675
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. NCTM.
• Ray, M. (2013). Powerful problem solving: Activities for sense-making with the mathematical practices. Heinemann.
• Boaler, J., & Brodie, K. (2004). The importance, nature, and impact of teacher questions. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.