I Used To Think Now I Think¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (2 for, 1 mixed) · 8 studies (4 quant-synthesis, 3 causal, 1 review), q3–q4 · 3 of 8 report an effect size

Description¶

"I Used to Think… Now I Think…" is a structured reflection routine developed by Project Zero at Harvard's Graduate School of Education. Learners first record their prior understanding or belief about a topic, then articulate their current understanding after instruction, making the shift between the two explicit. The routine is typically used at the end of a lesson, unit, or reading, and works best when learners have earlier documented their initial ideas (e.g., via a See-Think-Wonder-style prompt or a quick write) so the comparison is concrete rather than reconstructed from memory.

Design Implications¶

The routine operationalizes reflection as contrast: by forcing learners to juxtapose an old and new mental model, it surfaces conceptual change that would otherwise remain implicit. This aligns with research showing that prompting learners to explain and monitor their own understanding improves outcomes Metacognitive prompting improves learning across age groups. [+M], and that cognitive conflict between prior and current ideas is a driver of conceptual change Cognitive disequilibrium motivates conceptual change. [+M]. The routine also serves the instructor as a fast formative assessment: the "used to think" column reveals persistent misconceptions that instruction did not dislodge.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A topic with genuine conceptual movement — learners must actually have learned something that revises an earlier idea
• A record of initial thinking (pre-assessment, anticipation guide, or opening quick-write) so the "before" is authentic
• Time and psychological safety for honest disclosure of prior misconceptions; if learners fear being graded on their old ideas, they will write what they think the teacher wants
• A brief sharing structure (class discussion, pair share, or posted sticky notes) to normalize the experience of changing one's mind

Constraints¶

• Produces shallow, formulaic responses when used as a perfunctory exit ticket with no genuine conceptual shift to report [-W] — if nothing changed, learners invent trivial changes ("I used to think it was boring, now I think it's interesting")
• Requires prior knowledge to be activated and recorded first; without an authentic "before," the routine collapses into a generic summary Prior knowledge activation improves learning. [~M]
• Less useful for purely procedural or skill-based learning where beliefs are not the unit of change
• Can reinforce overconfidence if learners claim revision without evidence; pairing with a prompt to cite what caused the change ("…because…") tightens the reasoning

Implementation Variability¶

• Written then shared: individual writing followed by whole-class or small-group sharing, making misconception revision a public norm
• Sentence-stem variation: "I used to think… but now I realize… because…" — the added causal clause pushes self-explanation
• Digital boards: tools like Padlet or Jamboard collect responses so the class can see clusters of changed and unchanged ideas
• Unit-length version: bookend a multi-week unit, revisiting the opening reflection at the close

Target Learners¶

• Learners with entrenched misconceptions that instruction aims to displace — the contrast format makes the displacement explicit Cognitive disequilibrium motivates conceptual change. [+M]
• Adolescents and adults, who can metacognitively report on their own belief change; younger learners need more scaffolding of the "before" record
• Reluctant writers — the two-part stem lowers the barrier compared with open-ended reflection prompts

Target Learning Goals¶

• Conceptual change: revising naive theories and misconceptions
• Metacognition: monitoring and evaluating one's own understanding Metacognitive prompting improves learning across age groups. [+M]
• Epistemic development: normalizing the revision of beliefs as part of learning rather than a sign of failure

Instructions¶

1. Capture initial thinking before instruction — a quick-write, anticipation guide, or advance organizer that commits learners to a position.
2. Teach the new content through active learning, evidence, or case-based learning that challenges the initial idea.
3. Reveal the original record and distribute the two-part stem: "I used to think… Now I think…"
4. Require a causal clause ("…because…") so learners must articulate what evidence or experience drove the change, not just that it occurred.
5. Share and normalize — collect responses publicly so learners see that changing one's mind is the expected outcome of good instruction.

Related Strategies¶

• KWL charts — the "K/L" columns serve the same before/after contrast function with a "what I still want to know" extension
• Exit tickets — the routine is a content-rich variant of the exit ticket format
• Anticipation guides — a common way to generate the authentic "before" record the routine depends on
• 3-2-1 reflection — a lighter-weight alternative when no genuine belief shift is expected
• Use shared metacognition as the routine practice for educators and learners to critically evaluate AI-generated outputs
• Staff development should make teaching principles explicit through articulation, reflection and evaluation, supported by institutional incentives and training

Examples¶

• Project Zero's Visible Thinking — the originating source; the routine is documented among Project Zero's Thinking Routines toolbox with classroom video examples.
• Science misconception revision — after a unit on seasons, students compare their pre-unit explanation ("Earth is closer to the sun in summer") with their post-unit model (axial tilt), making the conceptual displacement explicit.
• Professional development — teachers complete the routine at the close of workshops on instructional practice, modeling the routine they will use with students.

Key Sources¶

• Ritchhart, R., Palmer, P., Church, M., & Tishman, S. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. Jossey-Bass.
• Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. doi:10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
• Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203874813