and I got in trouble.”); not having one’s say (“We had a group project. The
teacher told us to agree on a topic. The group chose a topic I didn’t like and I
didn’t agree on.”); reciprocity (“I was mean to an old friend and she was be-
ing nice to me.”); undeserved burdens (“I threw my toy down the toilet and
my parents had to pay for something I did.”); promised outcomes (“Yester-
day my mom promised me we could play a game and then she said I had to go
to bed.”); relationships (“I left a friend out of our project and made fun of her
behind her back. I am sorry! I used to be best friends and then we kind of
grew apart. It wasn’t right.”); human rights–social justice (“When people kill
other people on the street, because people lose their lives.”), and action
against one’s wants (“My mom didn’t let me finish my project because it was
too late. It was unfair because I need to do my homework.”)
As these examples show, students readily recognized many kinds of unfair-
ness, noticing different types of inequity and imbalance in their lives. Further,
in making judgments about how unfair these situations were and explaining
them, students showed that they were not taking absolute stances toward
these situations but could recognize aggravating and mitigating factors. In
particular, students paid attention to issues of need, who was first, age, capa-
bility, ownership, intention, relationship to the person, and the amount of
burden in deciding how unfair a situation was. These nuanced assessments
show that students bring a wealth of awareness with them to the spotting of
occasions.
Students’ Understanding of Self-Direction
One would not expect students to know as much about self-direction as about
truth and fairness. The term self-direction certainly is not part of students’ ev-
eryday speech—indeed we were not able to locate a vernacular term for self-
direction in either English or Swedish—and the construct itself is not always
easy to grasp. Accordingly, the investigator began with conversations about
what it might mean to manage or be in charge of one’s own thinking. Stu-
dents responded with ideas related to reflecting on ideas and action, checking
over one’s thoughts to make sure they were right, controlling one’s mood,
considering consequences, giving oneself time to think, and evaluating one’s
thoughts. Building on students’ ideas, the investigator then introduced a sim-
ple four-part framework for self-direction that included: thinking ahead, tak-
ing on the right attitude, checking in, and reflecting back. Each of these areas
was explored in turn, and students identified instances of when and how they
might be used. These tasks laid the groundwork for discussions of when self-
direction of one’s thinking is a problem and what you can do about it.
As to when it is a problem, students overwhelmingly mentioned factors re-
lated to mood, attitude, and one’s physical state: “It’s hard when you are in a
bad mood. When you don’t care. When you have no energy left.” Their strat-
- WHEN IS GOOD THINKING? 373