Project Zero · Harvard GSE · Thinking Routines

Navigate Any Decision with Compass Points

A practical guide for teachers — with a real classroom case study that shows exactly how to run this routine from start to finish.

For educators · Primary & Secondary · Adaptable to all subjects

Compass Points is one of the most versatile thinking routines from Project Zero at Harvard Graduate School of Education. It gives students — and adults — a structured way to examine any proposition before jumping to a verdict. Best of all, it takes only 20–30 minutes and requires nothing but a whiteboard and honest conversation.

What Is the Compass Points Routine?

Developed as part of Project Zero’s Visible Thinking project, Compass Points asks learners to map their thinking across four directions — just like a compass. Each direction corresponds to a different type of thinking:

The beauty of this routine is that it delays judgment. Students don’t rush to “I agree” or “I disagree” — they first build a richer, more textured understanding of the idea on the table.

A Real-Life Case Study: The No-Phone Policy

Proposal: “School should ban smartphones during all school hours, including lunch and free periods.”

The teacher wanted to engage the students in the classroom with minimal distractions. The school is seriously considering banning the use of phones during school hours. Rather than turning it into a debate where students simply argue and put their reactions forward, she decides to use Compass Points.

Step 1 — Setting the Stage (5 minutes)

The teacher writes the proposition on the board in large letters: “Our school should ban smartphones during all school hours, including lunch and free periods.”

She draws a large compass on the whiteboard with the four directions clearly labelled. She then asks students to write down their initial gut reaction — just one sentence — before any discussion begins. This “before snapshot” becomes important later when they reflect on how their thinking shifted.

She explains: “We’re not here to win an argument today. We’re here to think together — carefully and completely.”

Step 2 — Mapping the Compass (15–20 minutes)

The teacher invites students to share responses direction by direction, recording key ideas under each heading. Here’s a condensed version of what emerged:

E- What Excited Students

• Fewer distractions in class — better focus
• Less social media comparison and anxiety
• More face-to-face conversation at lunch
• Reduced cyberbullying during school hours
• A level playing field — no “phone flex”

W- What Worried Students

• Can’t contact parents in an emergency
• Some students rely on phones for accessibility apps
• Feels like a punishment for responsible students
• Enforcement could be uneven and unfair
• Students will find workarounds anyway

N-What They Needed to Know

• What does research say about phone bans in schools?
• How do other schools enforce this — what works?
• Will there be exceptions for medical needs?
• What will happen to confiscated phones?
• Was there any student consultation in the proposal?

S-Where Students Stood

• Riya: “I now support a partial ban — in class, yes. But not during breaks.”
• Dev: “Still unsure. I need to see the research first.”
• Priya: “I think students should be part of designing the policy.”
• Arjun: “Changed my mind — I was against it, but the distraction point is real.”

“The goal isn’t to reach consensus — it’s to make thinking visible, so students own their conclusions rather than just inheriting them.”

Step 3 — The “After Snapshot” (5 minutes)

The teacher then poses two questions:

• Has your thinking changed? If yes, what shifted it?
• What is one new question you’re now asking that you weren’t before?

This is where the real metacognitive work happens. Several students noted they hadn’t considered accessibility needs until a classmate raised it. Others admitted their “N” column was almost empty — a sign they’d been ready to judge without enough information.

What the Teacher Observed

After the session, the teacher reflected on three things that stood out:

1.Students listened differently

Because the task was to populate all four directions — not just argue — students were actively listening for ideas that could fit under any heading, not just ones that supported their side.

2. Quieter students contributed more

The structured format gave every voice a natural entry point. “N” — the need-to-know category — was especially generative for students who felt they “didn’t have an opinion yet.”

3.The “S” was genuinely varied

No two students had exactly the same stance. The routine surfaced nuance — conditional support, qualified disagreement, calls for more data — rather than a binary split.

Where Can You Use Compass Points?

This routine is highly portable. Here are some ready-to-use propositions across subjects:

Subject	Sample Proposition
Science	“Our city should ban single-use plastics completely by 2027.”
History / Civics	“Voting age should be lowered to 16 in all elections.”
Literature	“The character of Atticus Finch is a true moral hero.” (after reading To Kill a Mockingbird)
Mathematics	“Calculators should be allowed in all maths exams.”
School Community	“Our school should switch to a four-day school week.”
Health & PE	“Competitive sports should be compulsory for all students.”

Tips for Your First Time Running Compass Points

→Always model it whole-class first

Use a low-stakes, familiar proposition (e.g. “Should our classroom get a pet?”) to let students practise the four directions without the pressure of a real debate.

→Start with E, not W

Opening with what excites students creates psychological safety and signals that this isn’t an exercise in tearing ideas apart.

→Record everything visibly

Use the board or a shared doc. When students see their peers’ ideas accumulated in real time, they build on them — it becomes a genuinely collaborative thinking exercise, not a series of individual responses.

→Don’t skip the “before and after” reflection

The shift in thinking — or the confirmation of it — is the most powerful learning moment. It shows students that good thinking is a process, not a flash of instinct.

→Let “S” be genuinely varied

Resist the urge to nudge students towards a class consensus. Diverse stances — conditional support, calls for more research, minority views — are a sign the routine worked.

Why This Routine Works

Compass Points works because it separates feeling from thinking — not to dismiss emotions, but to ensure they inform rather than override analysis. When students articulate what worries them separately from what they need to know, they begin to distinguish between an emotional reaction and an information gap. That is a genuine critical thinking skill.

It also models intellectual humility. The “S” prompt — stance or suggestion for moving forward — explicitly allows students to say “I don’t know yet, and here’s what I’d need to decide.” In a classroom culture that often rewards confident answers, this is quietly radical.

Compass Points was developed by Project Zero, a research centre at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, as part of the Visible Thinking project. More thinking routines at pz.harvard.edu/thinking-routines.

Adapted for educators from the Compass Points thinking routine · Project Zero, Harvard GSE · CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Download the template for the compass point here