Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction

As many of you know, my go-to strategy for professional development is typically through podcasts or reading, and often it’s a podcast that drives me to read something. One of the podcasts that I like to listen to is called Chalk and Talk. It is hosted by Anna Stokke, a mathematics professor at the University of Winnipeg in Winnipeg, Canada. While the topics can be wide-ranging, it typically comes back to math instruction. You can check out that podcast episode by clicking here.

On this episode, Tom Sherrington, an education consultant, author of Rosenshine’s Principles in Action, co-author of the Teaching Walkthrough series, and a former teacher and school leader with over 30 years of experience, was there to talk about Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction. What struck me about this research is that it is directly related to our work on Explicit Instruction by Anita Archer.

Rosenshine’s Principles serve as an excellent guide to evidence-based teaching. You can read the piece that Rosenshine wrote by clicking here. I’m going to try to distill that 9-page article into something a little more digestible.

Just for some background, Barak Rosenshine was a teacher and educational researcher, and his principles are described as a bridge between educational research and classroom practices. Rosenshine created the principles based on his work with three sources: 1) research in cognitive science, 2) research on master teachers, and 3) research on cognitive supports. If you’d like to know more about each of these areas, check out the first page of the article linked above.

As I’ve shared before, education is ultimately about moving a novice towards mastery by building strong background knowledge. Below, I’ll share a bit about the first 5 of the 10 principles from Rosenshine’s research. Implementing each of these principles consistently should lead to higher mastery rates for our students.

1) Begin a lesson with a short review: Cognitive science tells us that one of the most successful ways to solidify learning is through retrieval practice. This means generating answers to questions. By asking students to answer questions about a previous lesson, you create additional retrieval practice, which leads to automaticity. In math, this might mean beginning a lesson by reviewing a few questions students got wrong during independent practice or homework. In ELA, it might include a daily review of key vocabulary words. Rosenshine’s research supports 5 to 8 minutes each day to review previously covered material and create some retrieval practice opportunities.

But the review at the beginning of the lesson was not limited just to things done yesterday. It would also include a review of the prerequisite skills for the lesson that is planned for today. If we don’t take the moment to review, those neural pathways may not fire as quickly as we’d like, increasing the cognitive load for students.

2) Present new material in small steps with student practice after each step: Too often in teaching, we will teach our whole lesson, which may ask students to accomplish multiple new skills, before any chance at practice. A student’s working memory cannot hold all that information at once, and we will invariably forget some of what we learned at the beginning of the lesson when it’s time for independent practice. Effective teachers recognize this, model the skill, do some guided practice, and then include a little bit of independent practice multiple times within one lesson. This means teachers may have to spend more time moving between modeling, guided practice, and independent practice.

In an ELA classroom, while working on summarizing a paragraph, an effective teacher might model identifying the paragraph’s topic in a think-aloud. Then, there might be guided practice using structured questioning to identify the topic in new paragraphs. Then students would work independently to identify the topic of at least one paragraph. Once practiced, the same gradual release could be used to identify the main idea, and finally, we’d gradually release, identifying the supporting details in paragraphs. Finally, students would practice putting it all together, the topic, main idea, and supporting details, from yet another paragraph. The cycling back and forth between different skills reduces cognitive load.

3) Ask a large number of questions and check the responses of ALL students: Questions force that retrieval practice mentioned earlier. Expecting all students to answer increases the amount of practice for each student, and seeing answers lets you know whether some, most, or all kids know the skill. If we aren’t at a minimum of 80% mastery, we aren’t ready for a new skill yet! Follow-up questions that ask students to explain how they found the answer further strengthen process learning, as opposed to the teacher repeating the steps. This means fewer questions that require just one student to share an answer. When we do that, some students can choose to opt out.

In practice in the classroom, we can increase chances for students to respond and decrease chances for students to opt out by:

  • Using a turn and talk
  • Written 1-2 sentence summary to share with a neighbor
  • Repeat the procedures to a neighbor (have both partners do this!)
  • Raise your hands if you know it (quick check of who knows)
  • Dry-erase board to show an answer
  • Raise their hand if they agree/disagree with the answer given
  • Choral response

4) Provide models: Models and worked examples help students learn the process to solve problems correctly. This happens during the “I do” portion of a lesson. When we have novice learners, we need to just tell them what to do the first time. Too often, teachers seem to jump to “What do you think we should do here?” on the first problem given. This allows incorrect answers and is not a question that guides students to success.

As you move into the “we do” portion of a lesson, in math, you might use worked examples, but ask students to complete the last step, then the last 2 steps, and so forth until they seem to have reached mastery. In reading or writing, this might look like the teacher modeling a skill, then doing the same skill a couple of times together, and finally having students do the thing independently.

Fundamentally, the process to think about is start with a question/prompt, model what to do, use guided practice through a similar prompt/question, and then supervise independent practice with clear academic feedback on the skills.

5) Guide student practice: Successful teachers spend more time guiding student practice of new material. Many of you know that I spent time coaching both basketball and football. During practice, if we were learning a new play, we would start by running it “against air” (no opponent) so my players would know what to do. Once we were consistently doing the right thing without an opponent, I would add a defense to run the play against, but we’d walk through the play a few steps at a time. Then we’d run the play at half speed. Finally, we’d get to the point of running the play at full speed against an opponent. What might that look like in the classroom with an academic skill?

As a teacher, you can facilitate the practice by asking questions directly related to the steps of the new skill. In math, this might mean going over more examples with explanations, using check-for-understanding questions along the way, and then just a few targeted independent practice problems. If students are still having problems with the independent problems, then we go back to some more guided practice. In general, when students have seen more examples, they are better prepared and more engaged in independent work time.

The principles that we put into place as teachers can help create learning environments that reduce cognitive load and increase a student’s ability to reach mastery. Rosenshine’s research indicates that master teachers who achieved successful student learning outcomes were more likely to consistently implement these principles. So, as you reflect on the five principles above, are there things you feel like you do well? Are there areas where you feel that you could improve? I suggest picking one and setting a goal to implement it consistently in your classroom. The more you plan for a new thing, the more natural it becomes to do it without thought

Explicit vs. Constructive

As I’ve shared before, I am absolutely fascinated by learning about how the brain works and how people learn. Recently, I participated in a micro-credentialing course on cognitive science. During this course, I found myself nodding along with much of what I learned because it aligned with what I had seen from students in our classrooms about how they learn. And yet, there are moments when what the research says is good practice is not aligned with the teaching methods being implemented.

And as I spend time in classrooms, I see moments where we live in two different versions of teaching. One is the idea of explicit instruction, and the other is a model called constructive. Let’s make sure we have a clear definition of both before we go further:

Explicit Instruction: A structured, teacher-led approach in which skills and concepts are taught clearly, directly, and systematically. It’s closely related to the work of Barak Rosenshine and his “Principles of Instruction.” Key features include strong modeling and explanation by the teacher, guided practice with frequent checks for understanding, immediate feedback and correction, and, finally, a gradual release of independent responsibility.

Constructive Instruction: An approach where students build (construct) their own understanding through exploration, discussion, and problem-solving. Constructivist learning theory is often supported by researchers such as Paul A. Kirschner. Key features would include student-centered learning, open-ended tasks, collaboration and discussion, and teacher as facilitator.

What I find myself reflecting on is that neither method is always the right one. There are times when students are better served by an explicit approach, and others when constructive methods work best. In fact, I’ve written a little about this line of thinking in a previous post, drawing on ideas from the book Just Tell Them by Zach Groshell. He calls it the Novice-to-Expert Continuum, and I wrote about it in this post.

So how does this relate to what I see in practice? When visiting classrooms, I often see strong explicit instruction during the literacy block. It regularly appears when we’re teaching phonics or introducing writing structure. But what I notice is that, whether the material is new to students or a review of prior learning, I see teachers almost immediately adopting constructivist practices in math. Questions like “What do you think we should do here?” or “How would you solve this?” during the introduction to a lesson might be signs of a constructivist model of instruction.

In a recent post from Barbara Oakley, a professor at Oakland University and co-creator of an online course titled “Learning How to Learn,” the thinking she shared really struck me (you can read the post here). She talked about the idea of what she refers to as “Cognitive realism.” Here’s how she defines that: “…there are facts about how brains encode, consolidate, and retrieve information, that these facts constrain what instructional approaches can succeed, and that our theories about those facts must remain open to revision when evidence says so.”

She goes on to say that cognitive realists understand there is a time and a place for inquiry, but that explicit instruction is needed to build background knowledge and make inquiry possible later. It also means that different approaches might suit different subjects and different levels of understanding. As with any pyramid, you need a solid base before you can place a stone at the top.

In an elementary classroom, an effective practice might look like this: First, teach sentence structure explicitly; then have students create sentences while providing clear feedback and corrections; and finally, have students experiment with writing styles during the independent practice portion of writing.

So, as a bottom line, let’s think about when one strategy might be better suited than another. The chart below lists some examples of when we might use each instructional model

ExplicitConstructive
Teaching something new (or reviewing something from a previous grade)Promoting deeper thinking
Fixing gapsEncouraging creativity
Building fluencyApplying learning

The reality is that in the most effective classrooms, you get a mixture of both. The teacher will cycle between modeling and guided practice until students show mastery about 80% of the time (this is the explicit instruction), then we might shift to some exploration and application (this is the constructive instruction). Across research, we see that explicit instruction is most effective for initial learning, and then constructive approaches work best after students have a strong foundation.

What would you add to the list above? Are there explicit practices you’d add? What might be a more constructive approach? Does this prompt you to reflect on your own practices? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

What Curt Cignetti Taught Me About Leadership

Let me start by sharing my bona fides for discussing the head coach of Indiana University Football. I was born and raised in Bloomington, IN. Many of my core childhood memories center on being on the IU campus for a wide variety of activities – concerts, musicals, parades, etc. One of my consistent childhood memories was going to the IU Football pancake breakfast, spring game, and press day. Back in the day, crowds were small, and you could watch from the press box. I remember bringing my own football and throwing it around with friends on the field after the game. And most importantly, I remember meeting coaches and players on the field. Somewhere, I’ve got a picture on the field at Memorial Stadium with Coach Lee Corso (he was the IU Football coach from 1973-1982). 

I attended my first IU Football game sometime in the early 1980s. We had seats on the west side of the stadium, and I remember our seats were beneath the press box, right next to the TV camera (at the time, I may have been a bit more interested in the TV camera than the game). I think it was 1985 that our family got season tickets to IU Football. We attended home games consistently until I went to college. I remember traveling with my family to games at Northwestern, Illinois, Ohio State, Kentucky, and several other places. We attended all the bowl games in the 80s. I had student tickets all four years I was at IU, and since moving to Indianapolis, I’ve tried to get to games whenever possible (though not nearly as often as I’d really like).

During those years of season tickets, there were a few high points, and a LOT of low points. I was there in 1987 when IU knocked off Michigan 14-10 in a season they finished 8-3 and then went to the Peach Bowl. I was also there when we lost 52-17 in a miserable showing against Wisconsin. I remember sitting in the rain, snow, sleet, and complaining to my mom about how cold my feet were. I remember sunny days without sunscreen and going home with a sunburn. And I remember lots of beautiful fall days in a stadium that might have been only half full, spending time with my family and hoping for a good outcome.

Every year, when football season comes around, I get excited about the possibilities, but my time as an IU fan has always been layered with sadness by the end of the season. Seeing Curt Cignetti come in and completely change the culture and expectations around IU football in just 2 years has been amazing! 

First, there was the introduction of this coach from James Madison University. This wasn’t too long after JMU had hosted College Gameday, and I vaguely remembered this coach with some great one-liners. Then we got this:

I remember seeing this and saying, “Huh… There’s some swagger to this guy.” As a lifelong fan, I was ready to give him a shot. But after all the losses that we’d had, and the fact that we’d never won more than 8 games in a season in my entire lifetime, it was a measured level of interest. A few weeks later, we got this:

Little did I know that after 2 seasons, I’d see a team that won 27 games while losing only 2 (both to teams that played in the national championship game in January of 2025).

So it’s safe to say that the guy knows something about leading people. As he’s said, he wins. In his time as a head coach, he’s never seen a season with more than 5 losses or a season with fewer than 6 wins.

But what have I noticed about his coaching? One thing that stands out to me is his ability to delegate tasks. If you watch him during a game, you’ll see him on his headset, communicating with the other coaches. When a timeout is called, you see him talking first with his assistant coaches. Afterwards, Coach Cignetti typically steps back and trusts his assistant coaches to talk with the players in their personnel groups, so the guy who coaches linebackers is the one delivering the team message to the linebackers. At key moments, he may step in and speak to a particular player, or even to the entire offensive or defensive team, but ultimately Coach Cignetti sets the vision for the team, adjusts as the game unfolds, and trusts those around him to carry it out.

As a school leader, it’s easy to strive to do it all. There are so many factors to leading a school, from instructional leadership and staff development to school systems, student interactions, safety, facilities, budgeting, staff evaluation, and community & family engagement. There are so many different directions one could be pulled in while leading a school.

One of the things that impresses me the most is the consistency of what he says. Coach Cignetti’s vision is crystal clear. During IU’s run this year, I came across an old interview from about 14 years ago, when Coach Cignetti was the head coach at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. In that interview, I heard Coach saying, “We want to be relentless competitors… 60 minutes, one play at a time… We want to buy into the process of doing things right… We’re playing one play at a time, 6 seconds a play, every play has a life and a history of its own, when that play’s over its on to the next play.” Here’s what is interesting about that… I have heard Coach Cignetti use those exact same phrases to describe his expectations for players in his current position with Indiana University. It’s hard to argue with success. He wins. And that success becomes even more apparent when you can maintain the consistency in a vision.

What I think Coach Cignetti has taught me is that if you set a vision, maintain focus on it, and put the right people in the right places to do their jobs, you have taken the initial steps toward successfully leading people. In an interview after the game, Coach Cignetti said, “If you keep your nose to the grindstone and work hard, and you’ve got the right people, anything’s possible.” He went on to say that with the right people, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” This is so true in school leadership, too. When you have the right people in the right positions, a leader can set the vision, maintain focus, and trust those around them to do the work they were hired to do.

So, as you think about how you lead, in whatever realm of leadership you exist, I think there are two key things: Surround yourself with people who are good at what they do, set a rock-solid vision for your role, and trust them to do what they do best. Be consistent in your goals, and deliver your message to the smart, hardworking people around you. You’ll find success in what you do.

The Input/Output Cycle

In a recent round of professional learning, we dug into what Zach Groshell calls the alternating principle, or the input/output cycle. Before that learning, we shared a chapter from the book Just Tell Them with our teachers. In that chapter, Groshell shares that “While students need guidance during knowledge acquisition, they can also become overloaded if presented with too much information at once.” This relates to the concepts of Cognitive Load Theory, which I’ve shared before.

Groshell goes on to share that effective explainers manage attention, behavior, and cognitive load by breaking their presentations down into smaller chunks. If you have watched any of the matches of the Australian Open, you know that in a tennis match, there is a quick back and forth between the two players. That’s how it should be during the early stages of learning a new skill. Groshell uses Direct Instruction programs as an example: when implemented successfully, students should respond at approximately 9-12 responses per minute.

The key takeaway here is that effective explanation is not about what you, as the teacher, can tell your students. It has more to do with the dialogue you build with your students. Teachers and students should take turns. There should be a brisk alternation between providing information and asking students to respond through formats such as choral response, turn-and-talk, and cold-calling.

Recently, I’ve been popping into classrooms to observe the input/output cycle informally. There are a few things I have noticed:

  • In classrooms where the input/output cycle is 5 or more per minute, student engagement is higher. It’s that “Perky Pace” that we’ve learned about from Anita Archer in the past. More inputs and outputs per minute lead to greater academic engagement, which in turn increases learning.
  • When there is more time between inputs (such as walking around to check each student’s answer on their whiteboard), students are less engaged and have more time to talk (remember the phrase from Archer – “Avoid the void, or they will fill it.”). To speed up that process, can you stand at the front and have students hold up their whiteboards? Then you can scan the answers and provide feedback more quickly, reducing the time between input and output.

Research shows that interspersing clear, concise teacher input with frequent student output is an important part of effective instruction (Pomerance et al., Learning about Learning, 2016). As you plan your lessons, make sure to include frequent inputs and outputs, and consider how you’ll have students share their work (choral response, cold call, turn-and-talk, mini whiteboard, etc.).

By implementing the alternating principle in your classroom, you can increase engagement, which in turn is linked to higher student learning. What is something you might try next week based on your learning here? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

The Bottleneck

This fall, The Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning at the University of Indianapolis is offering a Science of Learning Micro-Credential. When I saw information about it over the summer, I immediately signed up. I have long been fascinated by the human brain’s learning process. That makes sense, as I was reminded in a recent professional development session, because learning is the top value I selected when reading “Dare to Lead” by Brené Brown.

This Micro-Credential has an engaging format, comprising a total of 8 asynchronous modules and 4 synchronous learning opportunities. InnerDrive, a mindset coaching company based in the United Kingdom, presents the asynchronous learning. The company works closely with education. The first module of learning focused on Cognitive Load Theory, which I have previously written about (you can find those posts here, here, and here).

If you haven’t learned about Cognitive Load Theory, it’s based on the idea that our working memory has a limited capacity (for most people, approximately 4-7 pieces of information), while our long-term memory is very large – potentially even unlimited. During the first asynchronous module, InnerDrive presented an interview with Zach Groshell. He is a teacher, instructional coach, educational consultant, and author. I’ve referenced him and his book Just Tell Them in past posts.

He describes Cognitive Load Theory and the process of moving information from working memory to long-term memory as a bottleneck. If we define learning as creating a change in long-term memory, then our job as educators is to determine how to address that bottleneck.

Credit: Scott H. Young, Cognitive Load Theory and its Applications for Learning

Research tells us that there are several ways to address the concept of the bottleneck:

  1. Break learning into smaller bits: If you chunk information, you’re able to take complex ideas into smaller and more digestible steps. That might include starting with simple examples and then gradually adding complexity. Alternatively, you might use a worked example where you show step-by-step most of the problem, leaving students to complete the last portion on their own. Or you might scaffold learning by providing support like a sentence starter or graphic organizer, and you fade the scaffolds over time.
  2. Remember that busy does not equal learning: As I mentioned earlier, learning is about making a lasting change to long-term memory. One of the realities of education is that sometimes we focus more on what students are doing than what they are learning. Cognitive science tells us that utilizing retrieval practice, promoting connections between topics of learning, utilizing spaced practice, and creating opportunities for students to utilize self-explanation out loud or in writing.
  3. Success drives motivation: All humans gravitate towards assistance and support. When we feel successful in a learning environment, we strive to learn more. I don’t know about you, but I love to utilize YouTube as a learning tool. I can’t tell you how many of my YouTube searches involve fixing something. The other day, I was told that one of my brake lights had gone out on my truck. I spent about 5 minutes trying to figure out how to access the brake light, and finally pulled out my phone, watched a 30-second clip, and had the brake light replaced in under 2 minutes. Because of that success, I feel comfortable trying to learn more through a video format again. As teachers, it’s essential to find ways to help our students achieve success within the classroom setting. That maintains their motivation in the learning environment.

Understanding how the human brain learns is a key part of supporting students. We need to focus on the key points of learning. It’s what we’re here for!

AMRAP – As Many Reps as Possible

My computer has a sticker that says, “Wake Up and Work Out.” I live by that mindset. If I get up and work out before doing anything else, I’ve banked at least one win for the day. That means even if everything else goes crazy (like the recent day when our internet service was out almost ALL day, on a day we were supposed to be doing our state assessment), I have something to feel good about while dealing with the stress of the day.

If you don’t work out consistently, you may not be familiar with all the acronyms used in various workout designs. From HIIT and LISS to EMOM and AMRAP, you might need a cheat sheet to comprehend the terminology. However, today, I want to concentrate on the concept of AMRAP, and I assure you I will relate it back to education.

AMRAP stands for “as many reps as possible” or “as many rounds as possible.” This is a workout structure where you set a timer and either complete as many reps as possible of a specific exercise or as many rounds as possible of a series of exercises. AMRAP is a high-intensity workout that many use to boost cardiovascular fitness, but it can also lead to increases in strength and muscular endurance, high calorie burn, and more.

So, how does that relate to education? There is a quote that is often attributed to Confucius: “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.” This quote is on my mind because I’ve been reading a lot of writing and studies about cognitive psychology. What’s that, you ask? In the book Do I Have Your Attention? by Blake Harvard, he says that cognitive psychology “offers insights into how people learn and what makes for more effective and efficient learning.” Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark suggest that “learning is a change in long-term memory.”

I recently wrote a post on cognitive load theory, one of John Sweller’s key works. In Cognitive Load Theory, he explains that the brain can only hold a small amount of information in working memory. This limitation is a bottleneck, affecting what can be transferred from working memory into long-term memory. You see, information in working memory typically remains there for about 30 seconds, but as teachers, we want our students to retain that information for much longer than that. So, how do we transfer information from working memory to a student’s long-term memory? I wish I could tell you that this would happen automatically, but I’d be lying if I did. Our memory requires processing power to store information in long-term memory. As teachers, some strategies require our students to engage with the information presented in the classroom. Usually, that involves them applying the information in some way. Maybe they are identifying the correct vocabulary term or practicing some sample problems from the math skill.

The connection between working memory and long-term memory resembles a line with arrows pointing in both directions. When we are exposed to something new, it initially resides in our working memory. As we engage with that skill, it transitions into long-term memory; however, initially, there is no strong connection between working memory and long-term memory. Imagine a new trail in the woods that has not been frequently traveled. Yet, the more we are asked to utilize that information stored in long-term memory, the stronger the connection becomes. Picture a wide, paved trail ready for use by many people. For our students, the more we encourage them to remember and accurately apply information in class or on homework, the stronger their memories develop, making it easier to retrieve that information later.

Cognitive psychology suggests that creating a wide trail between working and long-term memory involves the elaborate rehearsal of information. This process is known as retrieval practice. The easiest way to explain it is that we ask our students, in some manner, to retrieve information from their memory. Students need to use their brains to recognize or recall information and then apply it appropriately. Cognitive psychology indicates that, as a study skill, retrieval practice is a more powerful learning tool than rereading text, notes, or highlighting.

Sometimes this retrieval practice happens immediately. Imagine that you introduce a vocabulary word that is written on the board: “This word is compulsory. What word?” Then you might do something to teach the meaning of the word: “When something is required and you must do it, it is compulsory. So if something is required and you must do it, it is ________.” At the blank, you would signal students to fill in the blank. Then, you might give examples and non-examples of the word, asking students to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to let you know if compulsory is being used correctly. Finally, you might close this activity by checking for understanding: “Many things become compulsory. What is something you can think of that is compulsory?” This activity requires students to retrieve information based on your instruction immediately.

This work does a great job of creating that initial weak path. However, to strengthen that path, we need to use a strategy called “spaced practice.” With spaced practice, we have our students revisit key ideas repeatedly over multiple days. In Do I Have Your Attention?, Harvard suggests a couple of strategies that involve spaced practice. One way is through an activity that closely resembles something many teachers use – it’s a variation on the exit ticket, called an entrance ticket. It could be part of your “warm-up” at the beginning of a lesson, but it should include a retrieval practice activity from yesterday’s lesson or from your current unit at the start of today’s lesson. By doing this, you create a window of time for your students to forget a little. They then must pause and reflect on what was covered in class the previous day, which establishes a stronger connection between working memory and the location of that information in long-term memory.

Harvard also employs a spaced practice activity called “Last Lesson, Last Week, Last Month.” In this, your warm-up will include a question from yesterday’s lesson, as well as one from a lesson last week and one from a lesson last month. This spaced practice helps students not only strengthen the connections between working and long-term memory but also encourages them to recognize how what they studied last week or last month contributes to their current understanding. This is especially true in math class, but can be true in other subjects as well.

For both of these spaced practice activities, I would encourage students to first try to answer from memory, then highlight their answer in one color. Next, I’d let them refer to their notes or book to modify and improve the answer, then highlight that new answer in a different color. Finally, they could consult with a peer to see if that feedback could help them refine their answer and highlight that in a third color. Ultimately, they should have the best possible answer, while also recognizing what they knew entirely on their own. The questions that required support from the book or a peer to arrive at a solid answer indicate concepts they need to study and develop further. At the elementary level, we might also use this as a formative assessment to determine which students need more teacher support on specific topics.

By creating situations where our students can repeatedly practice the essential skills we have identified, we help them strengthen the pathways between working memory and long-term memory, allowing for better recall of that information or skill the next time they need it. Students get as many reps as possible, strengthening the connection between working and long-term memory, allowing them to access those skills more easily every time they need to.

The Commitment

As a teacher, what do you define your primary purpose as? We all know that a lot goes into supporting our students – we’ve been trained in SEL, Restorative Practices, Crisis Intervention, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and that list could go on. In addition to the training we’ve had, we have supervisory roles; we communicate with families, we manage our classrooms, we document student attendance, we collaborate with our colleagues, and we may even support students by organizing extra-curricular activities. Again, this list of additional duties could go on!

However, I would define our primary purpose as facilitating learning. If I were writing the job description for a teacher, the first bullet point would be “Plan, prepare, and deliver engaging lessons aligned with curriculum standards.” A second bullet point might be “Differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all students and ensure high levels of learning for all.” In addition, it’s important to remember that great teachers deliver the content and inspire curiosity, critical thinking, and a love for lifelong learning.

For a while now, the sign right outside of my office has said the following:

We must all commit as teachers: “If they didn’t learn it, then I didn’t teach it well enough.” Yes, we all want our students to be happy and to have fun. But we also need to ensure that they are learning. This may be a bit of a mindset shift, but that’s what is required for all students to achieve at the levels that we know they are capable of.

How often have you been sitting with someone, maybe in a meeting or even a conversation among friends, and you didn’t feel like you understood what they were discussing? What does that feel like? It has happened to me. My career path has been in education, so get me around a group of teachers or other educators, and I can make small talk all evening. But occasionally, I will be in a social situation where everyone there has been in the business world. They start talking about something relating to their business, and suddenly, I’m stuck in a conversation where I don’t understand what they are discussing or have nothing to add. I almost feel lost. While I can ask questions to learn more, it’s not a great feeling. But it’s essential to remember that for some of our students who haven’t learned what we expect them to know, that is what they feel like when they sit in our classrooms each day. Yes, they may be happy to be with friends, to have chances to socialize, or to go to recess. But should we settle for that being the times they feel happy at school?

If, as teachers, we spend all our time focused on making sure our students are happy, that takes away from our time to ensure that they are learning at the levels we need all students to achieve. I also find that when we worry about making sure they are happy, we will likely find excuses for not achieving where we hope they’d be. Remember that we only have 6 hours daily to help move our students forward.

Like me, I’m sure you have seen those lightbulb moments for students when something truly clicks. What was the facial expression of a student at that moment? It’s typically a massive smile for two reasons: first, they feel proud of themselves, and second, they are happy that they now “get it.” On the other hand, no amount of positive feelings due to SEL or other social justice type work will make them feel good when they realize they don’t get what you are teaching. They’ll feel lost, just like we do in those social situations I mentioned above.

I sometimes worry that we lower our standards for one reason or another. It never comes from wanting to negatively impact our students; I’m sure it comes from wanting to show them that we care. Eventually, our students will realize that they don’t get it, and the odds are that they will not feel good about themselves when that happens.

We must commit to pushing our students to mastery. Each of us must look at each student and think to ourselves that because of the work we are going to do with them, they will learn, they will find success, and that will bring about the greatest happiness of all.

That is the commitment of a teacher.

Orienteering

Some of you may not know this about me, but many of the core memories from my pre- and teen years relate to my time as a Boy Scout. I attended weekly meetings with my troop; we had campouts throughout the year; each summer, we went to a scout camp; and every other year, there was a high adventure trip. Eventually, I worked my way up the ranks from Scout to Eagle, the highest rank available in scouting. One of the things that has to happen for a scout to advance in rank is to earn merit badges.

A merit badge is a chance for a scout to learn about things they are interested in. Topics include sports, crafts, science, trades, business, and future careers. Currently, there are more than 135 merit badges for scouts to earn. One of the most challenging merit badges I earned was the Orienteering merit badge. With that badge, we learned to use a topographic map and a compass to get from one point to the next. We learned the terrain features of the map, translated them to the environment we were in, and used that knowledge to navigate from point to point. Think of it a bit like a scavenger hunt! Orienteering comes from the word orient, which means finding your position or direction.

But Brian, what does this have to do with learning here at school? Well, recently, we started a Cluster of Professional Development around writing, with a particular focus on adding evidence and elaboration to our students’ pieces. We are engaged in this work because data has shown us that students consistently struggle with this area on our state summative assessments. Last year, only 17% of our students showed proficiency in evidence and elaboration.

As we began planning for this professional development, one thing we did was examine our standards to truly understand where our students needed to be by the end of each grade level. For our students to reach proficiency by grades 3 or 4, steps have to be in place as foundations for learning in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade (see a recent post, The LEGO Conundrum, for more on this approach).

The analogy I’m thinking of related to orienteering is that our standards are a bit like the end point on a map. But if I took you into the woods, handed you a map and a compass, showed you where you needed to get to on the map, and gave you no other information, would you be able to orienteer your way to that location? I’m guessing that for most of us, the answer is no. Why not? We don’t know where we are starting.

I’ve been chatting with teachers about our current cluster and observing classes in writing tasks. We’re doing a great job of staying focused on where our students need to be. There’s a clear understanding of the success criteria for each grade. However, I’m starting to have concerns that we might need to work a little more on understanding where our students are right now. We need to orient ourselves to the starting point.

Just as you wouldn’t be able to orienteer your way to the endpoint on a map without knowing where you are starting, how can we hope to move our students to the standard if we don’t know where they are right now? We must orient our teaching to our students’ present levels.

You see, we (educators) do a great job of thinking about learning progressions in math. We have also grown in our knowledge of learning progressions in foundational literacy skills. But there is also a learning progression in writing skills. As a classroom teacher working to support my students’ writing growth, I must know more than just where I need to get my students. I need to start with where they are.

If we start by thinking about writing as a progression, we begin first with letter formation and handwriting fluency. Then, we work up to explicit spelling instruction. Next, we support students in building sentences, starting with simple sentences and then using sentence-building charts to add more detail to the sentence structure. From there, we progress to a basic paragraph with a topic sentence and supporting details. Then, we can use graphic organizers, color-coded paragraphs, or paragraph frames to help students in multi-paragraph writing. Over time, we slowly pull back those scaffolds for students to do these parts independently.

But here’s the thing: if I were a second-grade teacher, and I asked my students to create multi-paragraph pieces of writing when they are currently still at the simple sentence level, and I only focus on trying to get them to write multi-paragraph writing, they will break down. They will reach frustration. They will believe they are not a good writer.

In math, we meet students where they are in the progression. We must do the same for our writers. If you are looking for a great resource to support your understanding of writing progressions, check out this fantastic resource from Reading Rockets called “Looking at Writing.” You can work through the progressions, beginning with Pre-K writing through grade 3. There are writing samples, suggestions for the next steps, and ideas for instructional strategies to move students forward in their learning.

Awareness of progression is key to orienting our students toward successful growth.

What are your thoughts? How have you used progressions of learning to support student growth? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

The LEGO Conundrum

Last week, we began a new round of professional development. One of our School Improvement Goals is to increase the number of students proficient in evidence and elaboration in their writing. In our most recent round of ILEARN testing (the test used in our state to check student proficiency in math and ELA in grades 3-8), only slightly more than 17% showed proficiency in this area. Our working theory is that by helping our students expand their sentences, add more details, and ensure that those details stay on topic, we will also see improvement in other areas of the written portion of the test.

But I also know that when I bring together a group of teachers ranging from kindergarten to fourth grade, some may have difficulty connecting to the data they see on the screen because “we don’t teach those standards.” To help get thinking about each person’s critical role in moving our students towards proficiency, we did an activity with one of my all-time favorite toys, LEGO! Each group received a box with a Minifigure inside, and then we put the following directions on the screen:

We asked one person to follow a step in the directions, revealing them one at a time and then passing the Minifigure to the next person. Once all tables had completed their Minifigures, we displayed the question: Which step could you skip and still have a completed Minifigure? The team reached a consensus that there were no steps we could forget and that we still had completed Minifigures.

So then, we showed this:

I know the font is tiny, so don’t feel you need to zoom in. This is a vertical articulation guide for the essential writing standards for grades K-4. At first glance, without even digging into what they say, you might notice that they become more detailed as the grades advance. When we looked at this with our staff, several noted that they built upon one another. Suppose you were to look at the third row related to writing informative pieces—every grade level talks about being on a topic or having a central idea, and every grade level has something about including details, but the requirements and expectations of each grade level become more detailed.

The analogy we made as we discussed this is that we think of the writing process as a stairstep. Each grade level has a target level of proficiency. If one grade level does not hit their proficiency level, the work of the following grades becomes more challenging because they have to play “catch-up” with their students.

The State of Indiana has provided rubrics that are written based on the academic standards, and they are broken down into the different categories that students are assessed on during the writing portion of the ILEARN assessment. They include three focus areas – organization, evidence and elaboration, and conventions. So, we started by looking at the rubric section based on evidence and elaboration (our goal area). Unfortunately, since the ILEARN rubric only includes grades 3-8, we didn’t have a clear rubric for grades K-2 in this area. So, our leadership team had done some prework. We dug into the standards and rubrics from grades three & four and then walked the rubrics back, referencing what was included in the standards in each grade level, to create a simple bullet-pointed rubric for all grades K-4.

What we came up with was something that looked like this:

Next, we sent each grade level team to dig into their standards, the academic frameworks put together by the state, and the prework our lead team had done. We then took time to define success criteria. We asked ourselves, “What should my students’ writing look like to show they have met proficiency in the areas we’ve identified?” To ensure we clearly understood what proficient writing should look like, we utilized the Vermont Writing Collaborative writing samples, which had been scored based on common core standards. These standards are very close to the ones that we use in Indiana. My favorite thing about these samples is that when you look at the scored samples, there is information on the page about why they fall into the category they did on the rubric. Then, the person who scored it wrote a short section called “Final Thoughts,” which helped us better understand what to look for to show proficiency on the standard.

Moving forward, we will use these rubrics and success criteria to identify where our students currently fall in evidence and evaluation on a cold write (a piece of writing that our students have not had any direct instruction or support to write) and then plan instructional strategies that will support their needs. It was important to us to look at cold writes instead of a piece that the students may have been working on as part of a current unit because that will give us an idea of what our students can do entirely on their own without any direct teaching to support the writing process.

Much like building a LEGO, the writing process is a step-by-step learning process so that students may grow in the vertical articulation of the standard. No step can be missed for our students to get to proficiency. The scores on the ILEARN assessment are often tied to the classroom or grade level that took the assessment. I want our teachers to be fully aware that without the foundational steps that must happen in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade, our students will never get to proficiency in grades three & four. Those scores represent our work to build a student as a writer. If you skip a page in your LEGO instructions, you will encounter problems later in the build. At the same time, if we miss a step in building proficient writers, our students will struggle as they age.

What are your thoughts? Have you, like me, ever been leading a professional development and felt like some weren’t fully engaged because the data “wasn’t from their grade level?” Have you ever been the one who disengaged? How might you think differently about your role moving forward? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

The Novice to Expert Continuum

I’ve recently been reading the book Just Tell Them: The Power of Explanations and Explicit Teaching by Zach Groshell. I see it as something of the convergence of the work from John Sweller on Cognitive Load Theory and the work from Anita Archer on Explicit Instruction. I’ve been really enjoying the book, and I highly recommend it as a way to reflect on how you explain your instruction to your students. Plus, it’s a speedy read! 

I often think of people as either novices or experts, almost as if they are binary. But what I hadn’t thought about carefully enough that Groshell calls attention to is that the transition from novice to expert really exists along a continuum. The reminder about the needs of learners based on where they are in the learning process was probably one of the greatest aha moments for me. Let’s dig into that a little bit. 

As a former science teacher, I will use an example of something that I often felt all of my students came to me as something of a novice at: using the triple beam balance to measure the mass of objects. We would learn this skill early in the year because many of the labs we would do throughout the year would require using the balance and getting accurate mass measurements. In case you’ve forgotten what a triple beam balance looks like, the ones we used in my classroom were practically identical to this: 

When we learned to use the triple beam balance, I would often take one of our balances, show our students how to “zero” the balance, and then take a random object to find the mass. To build background knowledge, we’d talk about how many people had ever used a scale that you had to move the weights (when I was in the classroom, most doctor’s offices still had that type of scale, not the digital ones that are everywhere now). Then, I’d explain how the balance is similar. 

To allow everyone to see the process, I’d place the balance on my document projector and use it like a camera to project the steps on the screen for all to see. First, I’d take my object and place it on the pan. Then, I’d explain that you start by moving the 100 g mass. Once it gets to the point where the balance goes down, you go back to the previous notch. Then, you move to the 10 g mass. Once the balance goes down, you go to the previous notch. Finally, you slide the 1 g marker until the balance is zeroed or the marker on the right points to the 0 mark. That would tell us that the object’s mass is the same as the mass we moved on the balance’s three beams. We would then add up the 100 g mass, the 10 g mass, and the 1 g mass rounded to the nearest tenth of a g. We’d do a couple more examples with objects I had on or around my desk. I might have students say what step to do next, but I was still moving the masses on the balance, although they could see it on the screen. 

After a few samples, I’d have one member of the table group come and get a balance with a few objects on a tray to bring back to their table. Then, I’d set them free. And that is where I made my mistake. Invariably, table groups would have a hard time. One group would have an issue, so I’d have to answer those questions. While I was helping that group, other groups would have problems, but with nobody to help, learning would break down, and engagement would break down. The different groups were entirely disengaged when I finished with the first or second group. Potentially, there were behavior issues. Kids were frustrated because they “couldn’t get it.” I would see kids from across the room doing things in the wrong order but couldn’t do anything about it because I was stuck at this table helping this group. 

In retrospect, I see the error of my ways. I went directly from the “I do” modeling portion of my lesson to the “You do” portion. I skipped the “We do” portion and jumped directly from the novice to the expert stage, but my students weren’t yet experts. Insert face palm emoji here! 

If I could go back, I’d do the task differently. I’d still model the task in the “I do” stage the same way. Nothing seems wrong there. However, I need to strengthen the “We do” portion of the lesson. To do that, each tray would have identical objects. That way, I would know they had the same mass. This would allow me to do a completion problem, where a portion of the task is shown to them, and then they need to finish the final step to find the answer. For the triple beam balance, I’d show them (and have them follow along on their own balance) what to do with the 100 g mass, then the 10 g mass, and then have them use the 1 g mass to find the result. We’d use something like a whiteboard to write our answers, then use a “3… 2… 1… show me” to quickly check how people did. I’d be able to see if any groups were way off that needed additional support, if we were ready to pull back on support as a class, etc. Over time, I’d fade the support, adding more steps they would complete on their own, eventually getting to the point that students were working in their groups, finding the mass of objects they selected around the room, and then having me check their work. 

Chances are, this process would take more than one day to play out, but by following a similar process, I’d build a stronger understanding of the task at hand. What I found in my old methods was that I often had to reteach the triple beam balance every time we used it because the methods I used never got my students to master it in the first place. By taking a little more time the first time and ensuring we all get to mastery, we might not have to spend as much time on a reteach the next time we pull out the triple beam balances.

Do you ever find that with something you teach, you have to reteach every time you come back to it? Maybe you need to rethink the gradual release of the task in your teaching to get your students to mastery in the first place. 

This is a sign of our rush to get to letting the students “do the work.” And trust me, I get it! We want them to be able to do it! But what is the cost of letting them do it if they cannot do it correctly? They might practice incorrectly and solidify their understanding of an incorrect method, making your job harder to reteach. Or they might become frustrated and just start to believe “I’m not a ____ person” (fill in the blank with the appropriate subject area). By remembering this concept of the novice to expert continuum, slowly fading our support, and providing models that students can go back to, they are better able to figure it out. 

My favorite suggestion from this section of Groshell’s book was the idea of a completion problem. Imagine math class with a problem that takes 4 steps to solve. In a completion problem, you model steps 1 through 3 for your students and then ask them to do step 4 on their own. After you have mastered that step, you fade the support by modeling steps 1 and 2, asking the students to do steps 3 and 4 independently. With mastery, you fade to only modeling the first step. Eventually, you get to the point where you do not complete any of the steps because your students know how to do the entire process. When we explicitly teach math (or anything), it becomes easy for our students. If you have students take pictures of these models, or you take pictures on your own and then put them on Canvas for your students, they now have a resource they can return to any time they need to remember how it’s done. I loved this idea – I often modeled problems. I frequently asked students to tell me what to do. But I never went to the level of thought that Groshell went to here. I hope it’s an aha for you too! 

So, what is a takeaway for you? What might you try to do differently in your classroom due to this post? How will you think of your students a little differently now that you know about the idea of the novice to expert continuum? Share your thoughts in the comments below!