Recently, I was preparing a 30-minute kickoff for a school district entering its second year of professional learning community (PLC) implementation. During the first year, teachers had discovered many of the benefits that come from having dedicated time to work with colleagues. They shared strategies and resources, problem-solved around student needs, developed greater consistency across classrooms, and built stronger professional relationships.

Those are important outcomes. But they raised another question for me: When does a professional working community become a professional learning community? Teachers can work together very effectively without necessarily learning together. A team can coordinate lessons, share materials, develop common assessments, discuss students, and solve immediate problems. All of that is valuable. But the L in PLC asks for something more of us. It’s why I stress the PLC question, “What do our students need us to learn?”            

Schools need both. The issue is whether time designated for professional learning moves beyond getting work done to generating new learning.

As I prepared for the district’s second year of PLC work, I developed a six-part framework to help teams move from identifying a student need or desired outcome to engaging in a collective inquiry process.

Goal — What change do we want to see in student success? This could be overall growth in a content area or growth for an identified group of students who are currently underperforming. In addition to content standards, the goal might focus on critical life skills such as collaboration, problem-solving, or critical thinking.

Student learning-production behaviors needed — What would students need to do differently to produce the desired outcome? Students cause student achievement. What students do as learners—thinking, practicing, questioning, persisting, collaborating, revising—produces their learning.

Hypothesis — What do we believe teachers might do differently that would increase the student behaviors needed to produce the desired outcome? The hypothesis connects changes in teacher actions to anticipated changes in student learning production behaviors.

Teacher moves — What specifically will we do differently to test our hypothesis? These are the instructional actions, strategies, prompts, structures, or responses that teachers will intentionally implement.

What might we look for? — What evidence would indicate that student learning behaviors are changing? These signs provide early indications of progress. If they aren’t appearing, we have reason to revisit our hypothesis and teacher moves rather than simply waiting for the eventual outcome.

What is the PLC learning? — What are we discovering about the relationship between our actions and students’ responses? What seems to be working, for whom, and under what conditions? How can we use that learning to determine what we try next?

Here is an example of how the framework might unfold around a goal of increasing students’ problem-solving attempts before requesting teacher help or giving up. Notice that the PLC doesn’t begin by deciding what teachers should do. It first identifies what students need to do differently and then builds a hypothesis about the teacher actions that might produce those behaviors.The hypothesis in this example isn’t a prescription or a promise that these teacher moves will produce the desired student behaviors. It is the PLC’s best thinking about where to begin. The learning comes from putting that thinking into action, observing students’ responses, and returning to the PLC with evidence. Perhaps students begin persisting longer but still turn quickly to the teacher rather than using peers or other resources. Perhaps the strategy works for some students but not others. Each finding gives the PLC something new to explore.

That’s why I see the framework as a cycle rather than a plan to be implemented:

Desired outcome → Student learning behaviors → Hypothesis → Teacher moves → Evidence → PLC learning → What do we try next?

Effective PLCs stay engaged in this cycle. They remain curious about what students are doing and how students are responding to changes in teacher practice. Both evidence of progress and evidence of a lack of progress inform what the PLC decides to do next. The learning gained from that inquiry can then be applied to future teaching and learning situations.

In strong schools, that PLC learning doesn’t remain within the team. It is shared across the school—and perhaps across the district—so that the learning of one group can benefit other colleagues and students.

A professional working community asks, “What are we going to do?” A professional learning community adds, “What are we learning from what we do?”

When we enter a coaching conversation, we need to consider two layers. One is visible: the lesson design, the teacher’s actions, student participation, questions and responses, and evidence of learning. The other is less visible. It includes the teacher’s beliefs and assumptions, confidence and uncertainty, previous experiences, fears and concerns, values and intentions, sense of responsibility, and hopes for students – an “invisible thread.” -(Randi Brown)

Read Randi Brown’s article, “Supporting Teacher Growth Through Trusting Relationships”

Find Joellen Killion’s insights on Heavy Coaching in this previous blog.

Subscribe to the Steve Barkley Ponders Out Loud podcast on iTunes or visit BarkleyPD.com to find new episodes!

Podcast Transcript:

[00:00:00.340] – Steve [Intro]
Welcome to the Steve Barkley Ponders Out Loud podcast. As instructional coaches and school leaders, you are tasked with guiding continuous teacher growth to create student success. This podcast looks to support you with strategies from experienced guests, as well as my own insights that I’ve gathered over the years. I’m thrilled to have you with us. Thanks for tuning in.

[00:00:29.760] – Steve
What the Observation Doesn’t Show: Coaching the Invisible Behind the Visible. A classroom observation gives us access to what happened. Coaching requires curiosity about what sits behind what happened. When I provide training in coaching skills, I stress the importance of understanding the teacher’s agenda before an observation. The teacher’s agenda includes more than the instructional plan, the desired student learning behaviors, and the intended learning outcomes. It also includes the thinking and the person behind the plan. A teacher’s decisions may be influenced by what they believe about teaching and learning, what they value for their students, the confidence they have in themselves and in their learners, and experiences that have shaped their practice. Some of that thinking may be readily expressed. Some of it may emerge only as the teacher reflects and the coach keeps listening and finding out.

[00:01:46.520] – Steve
I describe my goal in a pre-observation conference this way: I want to be able to observe the lesson first through the teacher’s eyes before I observe it through my own. I may never see everything the teacher sees, but the more I understand what matters to the teacher and what has shaped their choices, the less likely I am to impose my own meaning on what I observed. Randi Brown reinforced that thinking for me in an Edutopia article titled, “Supporting Teacher Growth Through Trusting Relationships. She writes, “Every classroom is its own small ecosystem, and the teacher is at the center of that ecosystem. Their experiences, confidence, fears, values, heartbreaks, and sense of purpose quietly shape everything that grows within it. Students don’t simply respond to instruction. They respond to the human being leading the room.” That requires me as a coach to know something about the human being leading the room. Brown suggests that when we enter a coaching conversation, we consider 2 layers. One is visible. The lesson design, the teacher’s actions, student participation, questions and responses, and the evidence of learning. The other is less visible. It includes the teacher’s beliefs and assumptions, confidence and uncertainty, previous experiences, fears and concerns, values and intentions, sense of responsibility, and hopes for the student.

[00:03:46.090] – Steve
Brown calls this second layer the invisible thread. We observe the visible thread, but we coach at the intersection of the visible and the invisible. Consider an example. A coach observes a teacher asking questions designed to uncover what students recall from previous lessons. Understanding that’s going to be important for today’s learning. After only a few seconds of silence following a question, the teacher calls on a student. When the student hesitates, the teacher rephrases the question and then supplies much of the answer. This pattern occurs several times before the teacher introduces the new learning. The coach can accurately record each of those actions, but the observation alone does not reveal what is driving them. The teacher may be worried that students are confused. Silence may cause the teacher to feel that the lesson is unsuccessful. The teacher may be trying to protect students from embarrassment. Previous attempts at waiting may have led to disengagement. The teacher may doubt that students will respond without prompting, or the teacher may be feeling pressure to cover everything planned for the day’s lesson. The visible behavior is real, but the meaning is not self-evident. That meaning is unlikely to be uncovered by directly asking the teacher to explain their beliefs, fears, or past experiences.

[00:05:39.860] – Steve
The invisible thread tends to emerge more gradually in the stories that the teacher tells, the concerns that they repeat, the choices that they defend, the possibilities that energize them. And the risk they hesitate to take. The coach’s observation notes tell us what occurred. Listening to the teacher helps us explore why it occurred and what the teacher might want to do next. Observation produces evidence. Conversation produces meaning. Consider how a conversation might unfold following the observation in which the teacher gave students only 2 or 3 seconds to respond. The coach might begin: You asked me to pay attention to how students responded as you checked their understanding from the earlier lessons. What did you notice?

[00:06:45.650] – Teacher
They didn’t seem to remember very much. I had to keep prompting them and almost pull the answers out of them.

[00:06:52.990] – Steve
Their silence suggested to you that they weren’t recalling the earlier learning?

[00:06:58.390] – Teacher
Yes. When no one answers, I assume either they don’t know or that my question wasn’t clear, and that’s why I rephrase it.

[00:07:07.240] – Steve
So when the students don’t respond, you’re feeling a responsibility to do something that gets the lesson moving again?

[00:07:16.230] – Teacher
I do. I’m conscious of how much I need to cover, and I don’t want the lesson to stall before we even get into the new material.

[00:07:25.610] – Steve
So waiting actually creates 2 concerns for you: that students may not understand and that you may not get to the new learning that you’ve got planned.

[00:07:36.130] – Teacher
Exactly.

[00:07:38.180] – Steve
Would you like to hear something that I noticed as you were waiting?

[00:07:42.780] – Teacher
Sure.

[00:07:44.370] – Steve
Most of your pauses were about 2 or 3 seconds. Twice I noticed students beginning to raise their hands just as you started rephrasing the questions. I’m wondering what you make of that.

[00:08:00.010] – Teacher
Hmm, perhaps I’m reading their silence too quickly. They may be thinking, and I’m interpreting it as not knowing.

[00:08:09.250] – Steve
Yeah, silence might mean that they don’t know, but it might also mean that they’re processing.

[00:08:16.660] – Teacher
Yes, and they may have learned that they don’t need to struggle very long because I’ll eventually give them enough of an answer.

[00:08:24.920] – Steve
So you’re wondering whether your efforts to keep the lesson moving might unintentionally be reducing the thinking students need to do.

[00:08:36.480] – Teacher
That’s uncomfortable to consider, but probably true. I’ve always felt that keeping the discussion moving was my responsibility.

[00:08:46.940] – Steve
Stepping back may require you to sit with some discomfort while students discover that you aren’t going to do the thinking for them.

[00:08:56.340] – Teacher
They may need to become comfortable with that discomfort too.

[00:09:01.510] – Steve
What might you want to try?

[00:09:04.290] – Teacher
Well, I could let the silence last longer. I might ask students to just jot down what they remembered or talk to a partner before responding. I could also tell them why I’m changing what I do.

[00:09:18.580] – Steve
What might I observe as you try that?

[00:09:22.650] – Teacher
Watch what the students do during the silence. Do they begin writing, look back at their materials, signal that they’re ready, or turn to a classmate and see whether more students contribute without me pulling the answers from them.

[00:09:39.100] – Steve
The invisible thread wasn’t apparent from the observation alone. The coach could see that the teacher usually waited only 2 or 3 seconds, frequently rephrased questions, and sometimes supplied the answers herself. The conversation revealed what the observation could not. The teacher was interpreting silence as confusion, felt responsible for maintaining the lesson’s momentum, and worried about covering the planned learning. As the conversation continued, the teacher began to question whether her efforts to help students might actually be reducing their responsibility for thinking. The coach didn’t diagnose that belief or confront the teacher with it. Careful listening, paraphrasing and relevant observation evidence allowed the teacher to uncover it herself. Trust is necessary for coaching to have an impact. At the same time, trust grows through experiences like this. When teachers experience the coach seeking to understand before responding. Joellen Killian’s distinction between light and heavy coaching provides an interesting lens for examining this conversation. Light coaching tends to focus on support, resources, encouragement, and assistance. Heavy coaching pushes more directly toward examining beliefs, assumptions, decisions, and their impact on student learning. The coach is supportive throughout this conversation, but the coaching becomes heavier when the teacher begins examining her belief about responsibility and the possible effect of her choices on students.

[00:11:53.950] – Steve
Support and challenge are not opposites. Support makes the challenge possible. The teacher’s willingness to examine an uncomfortable possibility is evidence of trust, and the coach’s response to that vulnerability can deepen the trust further. The decision is not whether light or heavy coaching is better. The decision is what will best support the teacher’s learning at this moment. An earlier question for the coach might be, what do I know, and what do I still need to find out about this teacher? That kind of knowing isn’t established in a single pre-conference or coaching cycle. It develops as the coach keeps finding out. Each conversation provides another opportunity to discover what the teacher values, what they are working toward, what concerns them, where they feel confident, where are they uncertain, and what they may be ready to question. Each time a teacher experiences a coach seeking to understand before responding, another piece of the invisible thread becomes visible and trust grows. A classroom observation gives us access to what happened. Knowing the teacher helps us explore what sits behind what happened and what might happen next. Observe what is visible. Stay curious about what is invisible. Coaching begins with knowing, and knowing begins and continues with finding out.

[00:13:57.270] – Steve
As you enter your next coaching observation and conference, consider how the invisible thread combines with the visual to maximize your understanding that guides your coaching support. Reach me at barkleypd.com with your questions or insights. Links to Killian’s and Brown’s articles are in the podcast lead-in. And as always, thanks for listening.

[00:14:26.770] – Steve [Outro]
Thanks for listening, folks. I’d love to hear what you’re pondering. You can find me on Twitter or LinkedIn @SteveBarkley, or send me your questions and find my videos and blogs at barkleypd.com.

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

One of the shifts I have long encouraged teachers to make—especially in their PLCs—is to consider how much of their attention is focused on teaching and how much is focused on student learning. That’s not because teaching isn’t important. Teachers need strong instructional skills, thoughtful planning, engaging strategies, and deep content knowledge. But teaching is not the outcome. Learning is the outcome.

In the words of Rick DuFour, a leading voice in the development of professional learning communities, “The professional learning community model flows from the assumption that the core mission of formal education is not simply to ensure that students are taught but to ensure that they learn. This simple shift – from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning – has profound implications for schools.”  

A focus on learning changes the questions we ask.

When the focus is primarily on teaching, a teacher might ask: Did I explain it clearly? Did I use the strategy correctly? Did I cover what I planned? Did I provide enough practice?

When the focus shifts to learning, the questions change: What are students doing? What are they thinking? What are they understanding? Where are they struggling? What are they doing when they struggle? What evidence tells me learning is occurring?

That shift also requires giving up some control. I can control much of what I teach. I can’t directly control what students learn. Learning requires something from the learner. Students have to produce the behaviors that generate learning—thinking, questioning, practicing, persisting, making connections, seeking feedback, and revising their thinking. So effective teachers don’t simply deliver instruction. They create environments in which students increasingly take responsibility for producing their own learning.

I believe school leaders face a similar shift—from a focus on managing to a focus on leading.

That’s not because management isn’t important. Schools need schedules, procedures, budgets, policies, expectations, and clear responsibilities. Effective management creates the structure necessary for a school to function. But just as teaching is not the outcome of teaching, management is not the outcome of leadership.

The question is what our management makes possible. When leaders are primarily focused on managing, their questions may sound like: Are teachers following the agreed-upon procedures? Is the curriculum being implemented as planned? Are PLCs meeting regularly? Are teachers submitting their professional growth plans? Is everyone doing what we agreed they would do?

Those can be important questions. But they don’t necessarily tell us whether professional learning and change are occurring in ways that will impact student success.

A leadership focus raises different questions: What are teachers learning? What are they questioning? What are they discovering about their students? Where are they struggling? What are they trying? What evidence are they examining? How are their thinking and practice changing as a result?

There is an important parallel here. Just as students have to produce the behaviors that generate their learning, teachers have to produce the behaviors that generate professional learning. They need to question, examine evidence, test ideas, collaborate, seek feedback, reflect, and revise their thinking and practice in response to what they are learning.

Leaders can’t produce that learning for teachers any more than teachers can produce learning for students. What leaders can do is create the conditions that encourage and support it. And, just as with teaching, that can require giving up some control.

When we are uncertain about results, the temptation is often to manage more closely: provide more direction, specify the practice, monitor implementation, and check for compliance. Sometimes that may be necessary. But when the desired outcome requires professional judgment, learning, and change, increased management may actually reduce the very thinking we need teachers to do. In our effort to ensure improvement, we can unintentionally reduce the professional learning necessary to produce it.

While management can create clarity around what needs to happen, leadership creates the conditions in which people learn how best to make it happen. That distinction raises an important question for school leaders: When does a situation call for management, and when does it call for leadership?

Some aspects of schooling appropriately require compliance. There are times when a leader needs to provide clear direction about what must happen. Safety procedures need to be followed. Required assessments need to be administered according to established guidelines. Deadlines need to be met. Management is important here.

But many of the outcomes we seek in schools can’t be produced through compliance. Increasing student engagement, developing greater student independence, improving the quality of classroom discussion, responding to students who aren’t learning, or determining how best to implement a new curriculum all require teachers to observe, think, make judgments, experiment, and learn. Leadership is important here.

The more an outcome depends upon professional judgment, the less likely it is that management alone can produce it.

Consider the parallel. Teachers need classroom management and strong teaching skills to create environments where students can learn. School leaders need strong management skills to create the conditions in which they can lead professional learning. In both cases, learning requires more than what the teacher or leader does. It requires giving learners the opportunity and responsibility to think, question, experiment, reflect, and make decisions.

Quality teaching builds student learning environments. Quality leadership builds professional learning environments.

The more an outcome depends upon professional judgment, the less likely it is that management alone can produce it.

There is a parallel worth considering. Teachers need classroom management and strong teaching skills to create environments where students can learn. School leaders need strong management skills to create the conditions in which they can lead professional learning.

In both cases, management and skill create important conditions. But learning requires more. It requires giving learners the opportunity and responsibility to think, question, experiment, reflect, and make decisions.

Quality teaching builds student learning environments. Quality leadership builds professional learning environments.

A meeting to establish a teacher’s professional growth plan goal can either be a perfunctory activity to be checked of the “to do list” or the start of a year-long do — reflect — apply cycle that generates professional learning. Ask these questions at the end of the planning meeting:

• Does the teacher own the goal?
• Is there something they’re curious about?
• Have they identified something they want to learn rather than simply something they want to accomplish?
• Do they know what evidence they’ll examine?
• Are they leaving the conversation thinking more deeply than when they entered it?

Subscribe to the Steve Barkley Ponders Out Loud podcast on iTunes or visit BarkleyPD.com to find new episodes!

Podcast Transcript:

[00:00:00.340] – Steve [Intro]
Welcome to the Steve Barkley Ponders Out Loud podcast. As instructional coaches and school leaders, you are tasked with guiding continuous teacher growth to create student success. This podcast looks to support you with strategies from experienced guests, as well as my own insights that I’ve gathered over the years. I’m thrilled to have you with us. Thanks for tuning in.

[00:00:29.960] – Steve
More Than Setting a Goal: Turning Professional Growth Plans into Professional Learning. One of the beginning-of-the-year activities in many schools is for teachers to sit down with their administrator and set a professional growth goal. In most cases, teachers are then expected to work on the goal throughout the year and gather evidence of progress. There’s usually some expectation that the principal will observe formally or informally during the year with the teacher’s goal in mind. And near the end of the year, a conference around the results is held. I’m currently working with a team of district principals to explore their roles in this process. Our starting point looks at the initial conversation with the teacher to identify the goal. Here’s what the district requires of teachers and administrators. The focus area goal meeting is where the educator and the administrator will review a self-evaluation that the teacher completed and collaboratively document a goal which will identify specific criteria on the district’s effective teacher rubric that the teacher will focus on in order to develop more effective teaching and learning practices with students. This focus area goal meeting can either be a perfunctory activity to be checked off the to-do list or the start of a year-long do, reflect, apply cycle that truly generates professional learning.

[00:02:25.790] – Steve
That distinction brings me back to a statement frequently attributed to John Dewey: “We do not learn from experience, we learn from reflecting on experience.” Whether or not Dewey wrote those exact words in that exact form, is debated. The concept, though, runs throughout his work. One, experience alone does not guarantee learning. Two, reflection turns experience into learning. Three, inquiry begins when we encounter uncertainty. As an instructional coach or school leader, supporting teachers’ continuous growth is a key responsibility of yours. So what needs to happen in a PGP goal-setting meeting to increase the likelihood that the process generates teacher learning rather than teacher compliance? Let’s approach our planning backwards. These questions may help identify desired meeting outcomes: Does the teacher own the goal? Is there something they’re curious about? Have they identified something they want to learn rather than simply something they want to accomplish? Do they know the evidence they’ll be examining? Are they leaving the conversation thinking more deeply than when they entered the conversation? If those are the outcomes we want, what does the leader need to do? And perhaps just as importantly, what does the leader need to resist doing during the conversation?

[00:04:24.570] – Steve
First, be a thinking partner. Leading with Curiosity: Questions and Deep Listening. A thinking partner is not primarily trying to fix the teacher’s problem, approve the goal, or steer the teacher toward the answer the leader already has in mind. A thinking partner is working to help the teacher clarify what matters, examine assumptions, identify possibilities, and make thoughtful decisions. That means leading with curiosity. Instead of quickly deciding, “Here’s what this teacher should work on,” the leader is wondering, “What is this teacher seeing? What are they concerned about? What are they hoping will be different for students? What do they already know and where is is the uncertainty. Questions are important, but questions alone don’t make someone a thinking partner. The quality of the next question depends on the quality of listening that came before it. Deep listening means listening not only to the teacher’s words, but also for beliefs, concerns, intentions, confidence, and commitment. That is where paraphrasing becomes important. A paraphrase can help the teacher hear and refine their own thinking. Imagine a teacher says, “I’d like to focus on students taking more responsibility. I feel like I’m spending more and more time managing students.” A coach might paraphrase the concern: “It sounds like that’s become increasingly frustrating for you.” Or paraphrase an intention: “You’re hoping students can take greater responsibility so that you can spend less time managing.”

[00:06:29.960] – Steve
Or perhaps confirm a belief: “You believe changing student behaviors rather than simply changing management techniques is where the greatest leverage lies.” Notice that paraphrasing isn’t simply repeating the teacher’s words. You’re listening for the meaning underneath the words and offering it back for confirmation. The teacher may say, “Exactly!” or she may say, “Not quite. What I mean is…” Either response generates greater clarity. A good paraphrase helps the teacher hear, clarify, and extend their own thinking. And that deeper thinking informs the leader’s next question. A leader behavior to resist is defining the goal. Imagine the teacher says, “I’m spending too much time managing students. I want them to take more responsibility.” A leader could immediately see a possible goal and respond, “It sounds like your goal should be increasing student independence and engagement. We could connect that to this indicator on the rubric.” While that might be an appropriate goal, we got there too quickly. The leader did most of the thinking. Instead, a leader should stay with the teacher, perhaps asking, “What would students be doing differently if they were taking more responsibility?” The teacher might respond, “They’d get started without waiting for me. They’d know what resources to use when they’re stuck.

[00:08:27.300] – Steve
Maybe they’d even turn to each other before coming to me.” Now the leader can continue, “So if those are the student behaviors you want to develop, what might you need to learn or experiment with in your teaching to increase those student behaviors?” Now we’re getting closer to a professional growth goal, and the teacher is constructing it. Resisting defining the goal doesn’t mean the principal has no input. It means delaying the input long enough for the teacher’s thinking to emerge. Lastly, move to a more mentoring or supervisory role when necessary. Resisting defining the goal doesn’t mean the leader must remain in a coaching role throughout the entire conversation. There are times when the teacher needs information or a suggestion. That’s when you might shift to mentoring. Would it be helpful if I shared a couple of possibilities I’ve seen other teachers explore? At other times, especially for a principal, there’s a supervisory responsibility. An identified area of required growth or an important expectation from the teaching rubric that may need to be addressed directly. Most of the time, as principal and instructional coach, you can stay in the coaching role and engage the teacher in a professional learning growth plan.

[00:10:10.450] – Steve
It might sound something like this: Teacher: I think I’d like to build my focus goal around students taking more responsibility. I feel like I’m doing more management the last few years, as students seem less prepared to take responsibility. Principal: You’re concerned that more of your energy is going towards managing students rather than supporting their learning. Teacher: Yeah, and I don’t think becoming better at managing them is really what I’m looking for. I’d like them to need less management. Principal: So you’re interested in changing what students are doing, not just improving how you respond when they aren’t doing it? Teacher: Exactly. Principal: What would you see students doing that would tell you they are taking greater responsibility? Teacher: They’d get started without waiting for me. When they’re stuck, they’d try something before coming to me. They might even use each other more. Principal: So independence problem solving, and using peers as resources. Teacher: Definitely. Principal: What are you wondering about what you might do differently to encourage more of those behaviors? Teacher: I think I’ve probably made it too easy for students to come directly to me whenever they’re unsure. I’m always available, which sounds like a good thing, but maybe I’ve actually trained them to depend on me.

[00:12:10.700] – Steve
Principal: You’re wondering if being so available has unintentionally increased their dependence on you. Teacher: Maybe I need to change what happens when they get stuck. Principal: What possibilities come to mind? Teacher: I could teach some routines for what to do before asking me. Maybe check your notes, ask someone at your table, look at an example. But I realize I have to teach those routines rather than just expect students to know them. Principal: So you’re thinking that increasing student responsibility may require you to explicitly teach and reinforce some independent strategies. Teacher: Right, and I want to see whether students actually start using them without my prompting. Principal: What might you look for that would tell you that’s beginning to happen? Teacher: I want to see fewer students immediately raising their hands when they’re stuck. I want to see them using resources or talking with a peer first. And eventually, I’d hope they’re getting started and staying engaged without me constantly redirecting them.

[00:13:44.840] – Steve
Through questions, listening, and paraphrasing. This school leader has helped the teacher move from a fairly broad concern, “I’m doing too much classroom management,” to identify student behaviors, possible teacher actions, and even evidence the teacher could collect to determine whether those actions are having an impact.

[00:14:11.420] – Steve
This illustrates being a thinking partner. The teacher has arrived at a hypothesis: “If I explicitly teach and reinforce strategies students can use when they’re stuck, then students may become less dependent on me and assuming greater responsibility for their learning.” Think back to the outcomes we identified earlier: the teacher owns the focus, there’s curiosity and uncertainty, The teacher has identified something to learn, something to try, and evidence to examine. And the teacher has done considerably more thinking because of the conversation. A focus area goal meeting should produce a documentable goal. That’s part of the process. But I’d suggest that’s not the best measure of whether the meeting was successful. Did the teacher do the thinking? Does the teacher own the goal? Is there something the teacher is curious about and wants to learn? And has the teacher identified evidence that will help her reflect on what she’s learning? If so, we’ve accomplished much more than completing a professional growth goal. We’ve launched professional learning. In a follow-up podcast, I’ll explore what happens next. How do leaders generate continuous teacher learning and increased student success? Let me know if you have questions about professional growth plans and how they can support teachers generating increased student success?

[00:16:04.850] – Steve
You can respond at barkleypd.com. Thanks for listening.

[00:16:12.990] – Steve [Outro]
Thanks for listening, folks. I’d love to hear what you’re pondering. You can find me on Twitter or LinkedIn @stevebarkley or send me your questions and find my videos and blogs at barkleypd.com.

Last year, a school made personalized, student-centered learning a major focus of professional learning. Through workshops, staff meetings, PLCs, and coaching conversations, teachers explored how to:

• increase student voice and choice
• tailor instruction to learners’ strengths, needs, and interests
• create more collaborative and authentic learning experiences
• support students in setting goals and reflecting on their learning

The purpose was clear: not simply to implement new instructional strategies, but to create learning experiences where students increasingly assume responsibility for their own learning through greater voice, choice, reflection, and goal setting.

Throughout the year, some teachers experimented with these practices and began to see promising results. Others watched with interest, tried a few ideas, or chose to wait. Some, due to past experiences, even wondered if this would still be a focus when the new year begins.  A single change in school administration can mean a different focus.

Now a new school year begins. The expectation is no longer to simply learn about personalized learning.  Implementation is an expectation.

At this point, it’s tempting for leaders to ask, “How do we get everyone to believe this will work?”

That may be the wrong first question.

A more productive question is, “How do we help teachers experience enough success with these practices that their confidence and commitment grow?”

Thomas Guskey’s work on teacher change offers an important answer to that question. We often assume that if teachers believe in an innovation, they will implement it. Guskey’s research suggests the change process more commonly works in the opposite direction. Rather than beliefs changing first, teachers’ beliefs frequently change after they implement a new practice and experience evidence that it benefits students.

Instead of thinking about change as:

Beliefs → Practices → Student Outcomes

Guskey proposed a different sequence:

Professional Learning → Changes in Classroom Practice → Improvements in Student Learning → Changes in Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes

The implication for coaches and school leaders is significant. The early goal of implementation is not to convince every teacher that the initiative will succeed. The goal is to create conditions where teachers can implement new practices, receive support while doing so, and gather evidence of how those practices influence students. As teachers begin seeing students more engaged, more reflective, more collaborative, and assuming greater responsibility for their learning, confidence grows. Those successful experiences become the foundation for lasting commitment based on a new belief.

Changes in students’ learning production behaviors become the earliest evidence that the new practice is taking hold. They provide teachers with important feedback on the value of the change, long before end-of-unit assessments or standardized test results are available.

Guskey’s approach moves a coach’s focus from “selling a belief” to generating experimentation and reflection. A coach/teacher conversation might proceed like this:

Teacher: I understand the value of student-centered instruction for students to develop learning-to-learn skills. I just don’t see how it fits in my classes. I already struggle to get through the curriculum. Having students explore, debate, and discuss takes time. If I add that, something else has to give.

Coach: It sounds like your concern isn’t whether student-centered learning has value. It’s whether it can work within the instructional time you have.

Teacher: Exactly. If I fall behind, I’m the one who has to answer for it.

Coach: Time is a concern for most teachers. I’m curious, when you picture student-centered learning, what part of it do you think would have the greatest impact on your students learning if you could make it work?

Teacher: Probably having students explain and defend and even argue their thinking with each other, before having any input from me.

Coach: What makes that the concept stand out for you?

Teacher: Too many students wait for me to tell them whether they’re right instead of questioning themselves and each other.

Coach: Suppose you chose one upcoming lesson and we explored, “What do we gain, and what does it cost?”  when generating increased student reflection and engagement. Is there one lesson coming up where you’d envision a benefit from students doing that reflection?

Teacher: Probably next week’s lesson starting a new unit on variables.

Coach: Rather than redesigning the entire lesson, what if we identified one twenty-minute segment where students worked in pairs or triads to develop or compare strategies before you explained them?

Teacher: That still takes extra time.

Coach: Likely. What you’d be looking to decide is “are the benefits worth the costs?” What student behaviors would tell you those twenty minutes were a worthwhile investment? What teacher moves might increase the likelihood of seeing those behaviors? Do you think 20 classroom minutes is a fair risk to take?

Teacher- Sure. I am going to have to describe some of the things I am exploring in my professional growth plan with my principal. This sounds like a doable first step.

Coach: I look forward to seeing what we find out. Think about one or two benefits that would be a valuable payoff for this investment of instructional time and we’ll meet to explore a design to test out. I’ll do a little search for some possibilities in the meantime.

Whatever the change your school is asking teachers to implement this year, keep returning to this question:

“How do we create experiences that allow teachers to discover the value of this work for themselves?”

The role of instructional coaches, teacher leaders, and administrators is not to convince teachers that change will succeed. It is to support thoughtful experimentation, encourage reflection, and help teachers notice the impact their decisions have on students.

When teachers begin seeing changes in students’ learning production behaviors—and those behaviors lead to improved learning outcomes—their commitment to new instructional practices becomes rooted in belief rather than compliance.

Support the process. The viewpoint will follow.