This document discusses thinking routines and their potential use in CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) classrooms. It defines thinking routines as simple patterns of thinking that make the thinking process visible. The document explores how thinking routines can support learning by activating prior knowledge, encouraging questions, and promoting social construction of knowledge. It then analyzes three specific routines - Think-Puzzle-Explore, Circle of Viewpoints, and See-Think-Wonder - and provides examples of how they have been used in Spanish CLIL classrooms to support both content learning and language development.

1. Thinking Routines in CLIL Classrooms:
A Preliminary Exploration
Alfonso López Hernández
alhernandez@comillas.edu / alfonsolopezhernandez.com
October 2017

2. What are thinking routines?
• Intro video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLXglUq5slY
Thinking routines are “simple patterns of thinking that can
be used over and over again and folded easily into learning in
the subject areas. They have a public nature, so that they
make thinking visible, and students quickly get used to them.”
(Ritchhart, 2002).
[…] “a small set of questions or a short sequence of steps that
can be used across various grade levels and content.” (Project
Zero, n.d.)

3. Making thinking visible – the
rationale
“Thinking is pretty much invisible”
(Perkins).
à Thinking skills hard to learn by
imitation and modeling

4. Making thinking visible
How can thinking be made visible?
• By explictly using the language of thinking with our
students (Tishman & Perkins, 1997) Words such as:
evidence, hypothesis, observation, question…
• By prioritizing questions: What? Why? What if? Why
not?
• By making thinking a a cooperative endeavor
• By giving thoughts a visible / graphic representation
(e.g. through graphic organizers or notes)
à All of the above, in the context of content-learning

5. This sounds compatible with
the CLIL promise!

6. Theoretical areas of
compatibility
• Constructivist approach to content instruction (Coyle et al,
2010)
- Activating by students by anchor new learning to previous
knowledge (Mehisto et al,2008)
- Personalizing contents
- Social construction of knowledge
à Implication: questions should be a priority in CLIL classes
• Emphasis on communication, and overall promotion of
student talking time (STT)
- Scaffolded (not free) production in L2

7. General research question
To what extent, and in what ways, can thinking routines
support learning processes in CLIL classes?

8. Specific research questions
• Which are the most helpful thinking routines in CLIL
scenarios? Why?
• In what moments of a class or unit can they be best used?
• Do TRs promote authentic communication in English?
• How must TRs be conducted, considering that students are
not working in their mother tongue? (= how shoud they be
scaffolded?)

9. Method
• Started with the 7 core routines (out of over 30)
• Applied the 7 core routines in different CLIL scenarios, and
assessed their effect on
a) Content learning and cognition
b) Language production
• Target students:
- Teacher trainees
- Primary students in public and concertado schools
- Early Childhood Education students (Ages 4-5)
• With the help of
- Teachers at Mater Immaculata School (Madrid)
- Teacher trainees doing their Trabajo de Fin de Grado on Thinking
Routines in CLIL / Educación Infantil

10. The 7 core routines
• What Makes You Say That?
• Think Puzzle Explore
• Think Pair Share
• Circle of viewpoints
• I Used to Think…Now I think
• See – Think – Wonder
• Compass points
(See Harvard Project Zero, Visible Thinking home-page for the
full list)

11. Today: Focus on three routines
• What Makes You Say That?
• Think Puzzle Explore
• Think Pair Share
• Circle of viewpoints
• I Used to Think…Now I think
• See – Think – Wonder
• Compass points

12. 1. Think-Puzzle-Explore
1. What do you think about this topic?
2. What questions or puzzles do you have?
3. How can you explore this topic

13. • Use:
o Activation stage of the unit, to reflect on what students
already know, and have them formulate guiding questions
• Examples
o Energy / The Solar System / The Water Cycle…*
(Especially useful considering how the Spanish curriculum is
structured)
• (Possible) formulaic language:
I think that…
My question is,...
I’d like to explore...

14. Examples
The Earth and the Solar System. Mater Immaculata School, Year 4 students.

15. Think-Puzzle-Explore v KWL
• TPE is quite similar to KWL, which has been used by CLIL
and CBLT teachers for a long time. Which one is more
useful?

16. Strengths of TPE
• The first column is less intimidating
than in KWL:
By asking what students "think they
know" rather than what they "know,"
the prompt uses conditional language
that suggests possibilities and openness
rather than absolutes (Langer & Piper,
1987; Ritchhart & Perkins, 2000). This
encourages sharing of tentative ideas.
(Perkins, 2003)
• The opportunity to think of questions
to direct further investigation

17. Weaknesses of TPE
• In many cases, the contents of the last two columns are
rather redundant (= students want to explore their answers
to their questions, or they always give the same generic
answers)
• It doesn’t offer the L column, which is great for an end-of-
unit review

18. 2. Circle of Viewpoints
• Great for exploring different perspectives, voices, points
of view on a topic or situation. Requires an effort at
empathizing
• Examples: understanding wars (History), characters
(fiction), artworks

19. • Formulaic language:
I am thinking of ... the topic... From the point of view
of ... the viewpoint you've chosen
I think ... describe the topic from your viewpoint. Be
an actor - take on the character of your viewpoint
A question I have from this viewpoint is ... ask a
question from this viewpoint

20. Examples
Mater Imaculata School, Year 4 students

21. Assessment of the routine
• Very powerful for developing creativity / divergent
thinking
• Scenario (topic, photo, story) has to be well chosen
to ensure there is value to the routine, as it can be
quite time-consuming
• Sample video: Circle of Viewpoints using an
artwork (Mater Immaculata, Year 4 students)

22. 3. See-Think-Wonder
• What do you see?
• What do you think about that?
• What does it make you wonder?

23. • Use
oTo promote careful observation and reflection
oTo stimulate curiosity toward a topic or situation
• Examples:
oMany topics in natural science (e.g. animals)
oSocial science: transport, neighbourhood, city v country…

24. Examples
Virgen de Mirasierra, Primary Year 1 students

25. Assessment
• A highly versatile routine
o Can be done as activation of a
topic, or later on in a unit
o Can be done in front of a picture /
photo, or even outside the
classroom!
• Great to connect careful
observation and intellectual
curiosity
• Very useful in Early Childhood
Education (no writing, in Spanish)
to develop evidence-based
thinking

26. Conclusions – Content and
Cognition
• Questions are certainly a strength of many
routines à they direct and personalize learning
• Many routines, and most of the core routines, can
be used during activation stages
(a) Of units or projects
(b) Of classes (e.g. Think-See-Wonder)

27. Here, working on
the texbook page
could be replaced
by a “books-
closed” thinking
routine: think
puzzle explore,
see think
wonder…
Sample page: Social and
Natural Science, year 5
(Macmillan)

28. • Although it has a more limited range of uses than
other routines, Circle of Viewpoints is perhaps the
most cognitively rich
àAsks learners to consider (and empathize with)
different perspectives. May be used in history,
literature, religion, citizenship…
• See-Think-Wonder can be very useful for
(explicitly) connecting thought with observation

29. Conclusions – Communication
• Thinking routines are much more “inclusive” than
traditional brainstorms – it’s easier to get everybody
involved. This is a plus for weaker / less fluent
students, who feel more empowered
• The language is certainly limited à don´t count a TR
as a proper communicative speaking activity, especially
at higher levels
• Compatible with cooperative learning groupings and
strategies needs to be considered à TRs seem to
favour Teacher-class interaction rather than groupwork

30. How to adapt the routines to
CLIL contexts
Scaffold the routines by…
• Maximizing exposure to the
written form
à Good idea to post the table or
graphic organizer on the board
• Allow individual thinking time +
writing, so that all students have
something to say
à Use an individual template to
support the thinking

31. • Insist that the students use the formulaic language
• Recast the answers for maximum aural exposure and as
non-aggressive way of correcting the grammar
(the same can be done with the occasional answer in L1)
• Allow and respect no answer(occasionally)
• In general, it’s better to do less routines and repeat them
often, than doing more and repeating them less often
• (As always!) It’s best to work with other teachers so that
students are exposed to the routines gradually and
systematically.

32. Further research questions (to
be tested empirically)
• What are the most commonly used thinking routines?
• Why do teachers use them? (Effectiveness / Convenience)
• What training do teachers who use TRs have?
• In what stages of the didactic units do teachers use them?
Hypothesis: activation stage
• Do TRs promote a higher degree of participation in less
extoverted/fluent students, in other moments of the class?
• How can the use of TRs (and other thinking strategies) best
be combined with stable cooperative learning
arrangements?
• How can the TRs be adapted to different leraning styles?
(visual, kinesthetic, musical)

33. Acknowledgements
The research presented here owes significantly to the help of
• Mater Immaculata School (Madrid); in particular, teacher
Rodrigo Ruiz Aguarón.
• Teachers Mercedes Maldonado and Yolanda del Amo, who
researched the applicability of TRs in CLIL and Early Years
(respectively), as part of their end-of-degree papers
(Trabajos de Fin de Grado).
• Systematic training provided by Fundación Trilema, as part
of Escuelas Catolica’s de Madrid’s Program 43.19.

34. References
• Published texts:
Perkins, D. N., & Ritchhart, R. (2004). When is good thinking. Motivation, emotion, and
cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development, 351-384.
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote
engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. John Wiley & Sons.
Ritchhart, R., Palmer, P., Church, M., & Tishman, S. (2006). Thinking routines: Establishing
patterns of thinking in the classroom.
Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why itmatters, and how to get it. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tishman, S., & Perkins, D. (1997). The language of thinking. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 368.
• Webs and videos:
Fundación Trilema, Rutinas de Pensamiento. Retrieved from
https://www.slideshare.net/FundacionTrilema/presentations
Intro to thinking routines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKV_S5NpDdc
Visible Thinking, Harvard Project Zero:
http://www.visiblethinkingpz.org/VisibleThinking_html_files/03_ThinkingRoutines/03a_Thin
kingRoutines.html

35. ¡Gracias!
https://alfonsolopezhernandez.com/