George Lucas Educational Foundation
Subscribe to RSS

Teenagers and Abstract Thinking: Unclear on the Concept?

Shawn Cornally

Dealing with the fear of being a boring teacher (Iowa, Internet)
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Share

The frustrations teenagers experience with school are more a case of statistics and lack of experience than that of work ethic or "attitude" problems. These statistics are not tied to socioeconomic status, weight or time spent in a seat; they're genetic and experiential. We have a bell curve of abstraction and experience, and we're only beginning to think about how to honor that.

My working, classroom definition of abstraction is the ability to simultaneously consider multiple states of a system in order to analyze it for patterns, behavior and predictability. It's something like the difference between solving an equation for a specific value of x and being able to suggest different slopes and intercepts that would model data well.

Piaget1 explained this stage as "Formal Operational," and he claimed this abstract level of thinking begins to develop in the early teen years. He's right, but the differences between peers of the same age can be so drastic that we must seriously consider how any mathematics (not arithmetic) curriculum should be introduced to students.

Anecdotal Evidence

As a student, I struggled mightily with math, and only recently did I come to understand that it was my abstraction level that was keeping me down. At the age of 22, I had one of those moments that none of us can quite explain; it just all came rushing in and made sense. That’s a long time to struggle with abstraction (seven years of abstract math from algebra through calculus II), wherein I almost quit on math hundreds of times.

What we think of as a fast and slow, or proficient and below-proficient, may really be nothing more than a terrifyingly deterministic game of genetics and timing, especially in math and science.

We've known for a long time that the brains of 13- to 21-year-olds undergo bizarre changes.2 I remember waking up one morning at the age of 15 and suddenly caring so much about my pants and shoes that I was paralyzed at the thought of wearing my usual sock and sandals combo.

More pointedly, I remember walking into physics every day and, with the mouth-agape look of a dullard, watching my teacher explain generalities, regimes and equations that apply in various situations. I don't blame my physics teacher. How could he possibly have known that I had the abstraction level more commonly seen among seventh graders?

Well, maybe he could have . . .

Abstraction Pedagogy

There are some teachers who are aware of these wild differences in abstraction level, and are adjusting their classrooms accordingly. One such endeavor involves using the Lawson Test of Scientific Reasoning.3

I spoke with physics teacher Matt Harding (@physicsramble on Twitter), who has been using the test for a few years. I asked him why he uses the exam and why so many teachers don't:

I recall dismissing the test when I first encountered it in a grad school class. It seemed at the time to be more appropriate for younger students. One of the goals for the test is to flag kids based on the Piagetian reasoning level Concrete/Transitional/Formal Operational. I came back around to it after completing a research project where I investigated techniques for trying to affect student reasoning level. I was shocked to see how many of my students were identified by the test as being concrete or on the lower end of transitional.

I see this in my classroom, and in all the classrooms I visit. We tend to wish our students were at the highest level of abstraction. We try to accelerate them there, which is especially costly in math. Huge numbers of middle school students are rushing to take geometry and advanced algebra when their abstraction level is so developmentally inappropriate that these courses are belittled to nothing more than regurgitation and back-of-the-bookishness.

But something seems fishy in using any kind of test to sort students like this. I asked Mr. Harding how he keeps this kind of measurement from becoming too “Calvinist” [emphasis is mine]:

It has been noted in the research4 that reasoning level, as measured by the Lawson Test, correlates with conceptual gain in introductory physics course work. The correlation is stronger than conceptual pre-tests. As a physics teacher, my goal is to push my students as far as possible in terms of conceptual understanding. Reasoning level seems to be a limiting variable in terms of that capacity for growth. Rather than use it as a justification for lower student gains, I think it motivates me to seek out interventions that have the potential to advance student reasoning level. That's what first got me using items like Ranking Tasks with my students, because with those items, the emphasis is on explaining the reasoning behind the answer, more so than with a worksheet of plug and chug problems. More recently, as I've incorporated elements of Peer Instruction and Modeling Physics in my courses, I've seen significant improvements in conceptual gain.

Finally, Matt and I discussed how one might deal with the idea that abstraction level is somehow genetically timed and, if that were so, how frustrating that would be as a teacher.

He responded:

I don't think that the variation is down to some innate, genetic limitation. I think our goal as teachers should be to seek out methods that can accelerate student reasoning levels. The evidence would certainly suggest that as time well spent, since it seems to give those students an improved opportunity to understand physics content. Additionally, I think information on reasoning level should inform the types of tasks we assign our students. Awareness of reasoning level can be of great assistance in providing reasoning level-appropriate tasks.

In other words, without knowing where your students are at, it's nearly impossible to push them toward a more abstract place.

A Classic: Hayakawa's Ladder of Abstraction

At this point, any good teacher is looking for some rungs for their students to climb, and indeed psychologist S.I. Hayakawa has already described such a ladder of abstraction. Like any good psychology tool, it at first seems dismissively obvious, but in thorough application it's quite powerful.

I asked one of Twitter's Finest, Dan Meyer (@ddmeyer), to explain the LOA, which he has written about frequently on his blog:

You look at concrete instantiations of a thing first -- different data points, for instance -- before you move up the ladder and abstract and say, "These points can all be described generally by Boyle's law." The key thing is there are different tasks that are appropriate for different rungs of the ladder, and an understanding of the lower tasks is often essential before students can understand the higher tasks.

Again, this seems obvious, but it isn't, because we see new teachers ham-fistedly asking questions of students at any and all levels of the ladder but focusing on higher rungs. If we don't know what rung our students are on, it's very difficult to say which of the following two questions we should ask:

  1. How are gas prices affected by unrest in the various oil-producing regions of the world?
  2. How were gas prices affected during the Arab Spring in Egypt?

As a teacher, I like Question 1 better. It seems more open. It seems more, well, abstract. And to that student who has reached that rung on the ladder, he or she will be able to shine. Most teenagers can only be led there through Question 2 or something like it.

The importance of abstraction measurement cannot be overstated. We're educating generations of people who disavow math as arcane and perhaps even occult. Why? Because we didn't honor their need for concreteness as a transition into doing real math.

Bret Viktor and his KillMath5 project put it best:

The power to understand and predict the quantities of the world should not be restricted to those with a freakish knack for manipulating abstract symbols.

I might add to the end of that quote, "at an earlier age than most."

How do you assess abstraction level? And how do you support students who may not have reached a higher level of abstraction yet?



Was this useful?

Shawn Cornally

Dealing with the fear of being a boring teacher (Iowa, Internet)

Comments (8) Sign in or register to comment Follow Subscribe to comments via RSS

David Wees's picture
David Wees
Formative Assessment Specialist for New Visions for Public Schools

Hi Shawn,

I wonder how much of our ability to reason abstractly is based on genetic factors, and how much of it is based on experience. We know that other animals have some limited ability to reason abstractly, and so it seems likely that genetics plays a role, but I wonder how strongly the role of culture and experience plays in our ability to develop abstract reasoning, and at what age that typically happens.

I wonder how many students would never develop abstract reasoning if we didn't drag them into experiences where they need it to cope?

Alden Blodget's picture

Shawn, you might find answers to the two questions that you ask at the end of your essay by looking at the new approach to assessment developed by Lectica ( This approach is entirely consistent with the ideas and issues that you explore.

"Professor" Paul GTO Briones's picture
"Professor" Paul GTO Briones
Host and Co-Creator of Virtual Science University & Pre-AP Science Instructor

Hi Shawn,

(The importance of abstraction measurement cannot be overstated. We're educating generations of people who disavow math as arcane and perhaps even occult. Why? Because we didn't honor their need for concreteness as a transition into doing real math).
I am using your paragraph above to make a couple of points!

Over thirty years of teaching the biological sciences and the physical sciences, I believe the ability to develop abstract reasoning can be enhanced by using the intellects of the students using the "Multiple Intelligence Model" of Howard Gardner Ph. D. Let me give you an example. I am going to use the example of TJ who is actually a fictitious name but a real person who was in one of my Pre-AP Chemistry Classes about six years ago when I was using the Seven Multiple Intellects of Howard Gardner Ph. D. Since then, I've learned there are actually nine intellects. TJ was a student whose intelligence and giftedness are very high but lazy when applying his intellect capability in class and in the lab. When it came to doing Mole problems, he went bananas, telling me and the class, "I am not doing this! This is too hard! This is worst than Algebra II!" At the beginning of the school year, I had given the class a checklist similar to the one found on this link:
TJ on his Checklist Scores had the following numbers for the Seven Intellects listed at the end of the above link. Those numbers were 7-8-3-9-9-8-3 His intellectual weakness was with Spatial-Visual Intelligence (capacity to think in images and pictures, to visualize accurately and abstractly) and Intrapersonal (capacity to be self-aware and in tune with inner feelings, values, beliefs and thinking processes). In both of these intellects, he had a 3. In his Lab Group of three other students besides TJ, I paired TJ up with two students one of which had a 9 in the Spatial Visual Intellect and the other which had also a 9 in the Intrapersonal Intellect. The 4th student in the Lab group had a 9 in Verbal Linguistic and a 9 in Musical Intelligence. With this student, TJ could identify since both were strong with the Musical Intelligence and TJ was also fairly strong with Verbal Linguistic. To make my points, using the Intelligence Checklist mention on the link above, I was able to set up my lab groups where all members of any given Lab Group complimented each other. The last point is that TJ knocked the concept of the Mole on his Exit Science Exam administered by the Texas Education Agency. TJ not only proved on my Semester Exam that TJ had mastered the concept TJ most feared but also mastered it on the Texas Science Aptitude Test known as the Exit Science TAKS Test! TAKS stands for Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. For more stories like TJ and testimonials about the efficiency of Briones MILC (Multiple Inputs Learning Concept), visit my online teaching site, Virtual Science University at
In conclusion I communicated last summer with Howard Gardner Ph. D. at Harvard University. To learn more about what he said visit the following VSU Newsletter link:

Virginia Largent's picture
Virginia Largent
Director of the Virginia Beach School of the Arts

Environment has more affect on abstract reasoning than genetics. Did you know the executive function areas of the brain develop a lot between 5-10 and then basically regress in the adolescent years. Then at 18, they "turn on" again. Teachers need to know the dramatic chemical and physical changes in the brain that occur in high schoolers. And emotional development has a great influence on these skills as well. Comments welcome. Faculty development and continuing education workshop information available at

Stephanie Stedman's picture

I enjoyed your article about abstraction. It made me uncomfortable at first because your focus was on math and physics for teenagers; however, as I continued reading, I saw how much it applied to me situation as an English inclusion teacher. It is often difficult for me to translate the abstract questions to more simpler, concrete ones in order to accurately assess my students comprehension and analytical abilities. Thank you for sharing your research.

Debora Wondercheck's picture
Debora Wondercheck
Executive Director, Founder of Arts & Learning Conservatory

A great article on abstraction, teenagers are prone to lot of problems they are actually in a well of problems where they cannot understand what to do, parental guidance is very important as these issues can lead to complete depression , thanks for sharing the content that is so helpful.

David Frum's picture
David Frum
Freelance online content writer for latest upgoing niches

Thanks for sharing informative article on abstract thinking. I would love to share an idea to develop abstract thinking into teenagers " Provide the teens with a list of items. Ask the teens to think about each item in an abstract way and give them five to 10 minutes to write down their abstract thoughts"

Beth Johnson's picture

I will be visiting your links shortly! I agree with every point you make and I strongly believe in Multiple Intelligences. I have seen how this theory works/applies in myself, students I have taught and worked with, my own children, and many others similar to those Howard Gardner observed. We know children develop in different areas at various times and degrees. Approaching learning through multiple intelligences is, in my opinion, the best experience through which we can help children/students progress to higher forms of thought in ALL areas. This is, as you, and others, have stated, what makes the difference in authentic understanding and learning. Thank you for your input!

Sign in to comment. Not a member? Register.