Thomas McKenna, in his ASCD blog, Sensemaking in Science, describes how he, as a researcher, experienced firsthand what it means to pursue a question that genuinely puzzles you. He spent countless hours observing, collecting messy data, and wrestling with questions that had no clear answers. The process was iterative and uncertain. Initial observations led to new questions, different approaches, and unexpected results that challenged his assumptions.
“Real science isn’t about students confirming what they already know—it’s about making sense of what puzzles and intrigues them.”
(Thomas McKenna)
McKenna identifies how science educators increasingly view learning as a process of sensemaking. Rather than beginning with explanations that students are expected to absorb, teachers create opportunities for students to encounter phenomena, ask questions, gather evidence, develop explanations, and revise their thinking.
If we believe students learn more deeply by making sense of what they encounter rather than simply receiving someone else’s explanation, shouldn’t the same be true for teachers?
Another statement from McKenna caused me to dig further into the similarities between science education and instructional coaching: “We didn’t give answers upfront. We positioned students as capable investigators with their own ideas worth exploring.” The goal is not simply for students to learn today’s science content, but to kindle the curiosity that fuels lifelong learning.
Effective coaches take a similar approach, positioning teachers as capable investigators with their own ideas worth exploring. Rather than providing answers upfront, coaches create opportunities for teachers to question, investigate, and construct their own understanding—habits that fuel career-long professional learning.
McKenna provides a list of ten ways to value wonder and create environments where curiosity thrives by shifting how we frame learning experiences and interact with student thinking. I pulled four that I believe have a direct carryover to effective coaching.
- Start with phenomena, not explanations.
In science, McKenna encourages teachers to begin with something students observe that puzzles them and give them space to wonder before providing an explanation. Coaches can take a similar approach by helping teachers begin with what they observed rather than immediately interpreting what happened.
A coach might ask, “What did you notice?” “What did you see or hear from students?” “Was there anything that surprised you or puzzled you?” The coach can stay with the phenomenon before moving toward an explanation: “What else did you notice?” “How many students responded that way?” “When did you first see it happening?”
Only after the phenomenon has been described does the conversation move toward making sense of it: “What are you thinking might be happening?” “What are you wondering?”
Starting with the phenomenon keeps the coach from making sense of the classroom for the teacher. Instead, the coach creates the opportunity for the teacher to notice, wonder, and begin constructing an explanation.
- Ask, “What does this remind you of?”
In science, McKenna suggests inviting students to connect new observations to experiences and understandings they already have. Coaches can do the same by helping teachers place what they are noticing into a broader context.
After a teacher describes what they observed, a coach might ask, “Have you seen students respond this way before?” “Does this remind you of anything you’ve noticed with this class or other groups?” “When have you seen students respond differently?” Those questions can help a teacher recognize patterns that might otherwise remain unnoticed. A teacher might say, “Now that I think about it, they tend to ask for help quickly whenever the task is open-ended. When the steps are clearly laid out, they work much more independently.”
The coach can then probe the connection: “What do you make of that difference?” “What might that tell you about what students are experiencing when the task is less structured?” Inviting teachers to connect current observations with previous experiences honors what they already know while also helping them examine that knowledge more closely. Sensemaking doesn’t begin from scratch; it builds from what the learner already knows, has experienced, and is beginning to notice.
- Honor learners as experts.
McKenna encourages science teachers to recognize that students bring knowledge, experiences, perspectives, and different forms of expertise to an investigation. Instructional coaches can approach teachers in much the same way.
Teachers possess knowledge that a coach does not. They know their students, the history of the class, what they have previously tried, how individual students tend to respond, and what they were intending when they made particular instructional decisions. That knowledge becomes an important part of the sensemaking process.
A coach might ask, “What do you know about these students that might help us understand what we’re seeing?” “What have you already tried?” “What were you considering when you made that decision?”
Honoring the teacher as an expert doesn’t mean assuming that the teacher’s interpretation is necessarily correct—or that the coach has no expertise to contribute. It means approaching the conversation with the belief that the teacher possesses important knowledge that needs to be surfaced and explored. When coaches position teachers as capable investigators with expertise worth contributing, teachers are more likely to be active participants in making sense of teaching and learning rather than recipients of someone else’s analysis.
- Make revision a normal part of learning.
McKenna reminds us that scientists revise their thinking as they encounter new evidence. The same should be true for teachers investigating teaching and learning. Sensemaking isn’t about arriving quickly at the right explanation. It is about developing a hypothesis, testing it against what happens, and being willing to revise that hypothesis as new evidence emerges.
A coach can help a teacher turn an initial interpretation into a hypothesis worth investigating. “What are you thinking might be happening?” “If that’s the case, what might you try?” “What would you expect students to do if your hypothesis is accurate?” “What evidence might cause you to revise your hypothesis?”
Making revision normal keeps coaching from becoming a search for the right answer. Instead, teacher learning becomes an ongoing process of developing hypotheses, gathering evidence, revising thinking, and generating new questions.
Perhaps one of the most important questions a coach can ask themselves is: Am I making sense of what happened for the teacher, or am I creating the conditions for the teacher to make sense of it?
Coaches certainly have expertise to contribute. There are times when sharing an observation, offering information, or suggesting a possibility can advance a teacher’s thinking. But if we move too quickly to our own interpretation or solution, we may unintentionally take away the very thinking that produces professional learning.
McKenna’s description of students as “capable investigators with their own ideas worth exploring” offers a powerful image for instructional coaching as well. When teachers are encouraged to notice closely, connect what they observe to what they already know, draw upon their expertise, develop hypotheses, and revise their thinking as new evidence emerges, coaching becomes more than a process for improving a lesson or solving a problem.
Coaching becomes an opportunity to strengthen teachers as curious, reflective investigators of teaching and learning.
