All 24 indicators. Every Coaching Moment.

Try first Process

Teacher “You saw this problem works like one you already knew, and you used that rule here. That is carrying over what you know — look for the familiar pattern again whenever a new problem feels half-known.”

• Naming the connecting move teaches the student what to look for next time, instead of leaving the insight a one-off flash they cannot reproduce. · Mueller & Dweck (1998) process praise

Say next Process

Teacher “Say the rule out loud without mentioning this problem at all — just the rule, so it would work on a different problem.”

Student States the rule in general terms, stripped of this problem’s specifics.

• A strategy stays glued to the problem it was learned on until the student states it in general terms — stripping the specifics is what makes it portable. · Rosenshine (2012)

Go deeper Process

Teacher “Where else would that same rule work? Pick one other place and tell me what the rule would look like there.”

• Asking for one specific next use — not general agreement that it could apply somewhere — is what produces real transfer instead of the feeling of it. · Hattie & Timperley (2007) feedback levels

Try first Process

Teacher “You kept the big idea and cut the small details. That is summarizing — cut the small details again the next time a reading is too long to hold in your head.”

• Naming the decision the student actually made — choosing what to leave out — gives them a move to repeat on purpose; praising the summary itself leaves nothing to aim for. · Mueller & Dweck (1998) process praise

Say next Process

Teacher “In one sentence, tell your partner the big idea — and one detail that proves that idea.”

Student Ranks the ideas out loud — keeps one, drops the rest — for a real listener.

• A one-sentence retelling to a real listener forces the student to rank ideas instead of listing them, and ranking importance is the entire skill of summarizing. · Rosenshine (2012)

Go deeper Process

Teacher “If you could keep only one detail and cut all the others, which detail would you keep — and what makes it carry more weight than the rest?”

• Explaining why one detail outweighs the others turns a hidden judgment into stated criteria the student can apply to the next text they read. · Black & Wiliam (1998) formative assessment

Try first Process

Teacher “You explained every step instead of jumping to the answer. That is showing your reasoning — show your steps again whenever a problem gets hard.”

• Praise changes what a student does next only when the strategy has a name they can carry and a named occasion to use it again — a bare compliment leaves nothing to repeat. · Mueller & Dweck (1998) process praise

Say next Process

Teacher “That is one route to the answer. Now show me a second way to reach the same answer.”

Student Rebuilds the solution a different way instead of reciting the first from memory.

• A second explanation cannot be pulled from memory — the student must rebuild the reasoning from the start, and that rebuilding is where the learning actually happens. · Chi et al. (1994) self-explanation

Go deeper Process

Teacher Send the student to teach a partner with one rule: explain each step and why it works, so the partner can solve the next problem alone.

Student Teaches every step aloud — the steps they skip or fumble are the ones they only half-knew.

• Explaining each step to another person forces every step into words, exposing exactly which steps were understood and which were held loosely. · Rosenshine (2012)

Try first Process

Teacher “You asked why it works instead of settling for the answer. That is a why-question — ask another one the next time something almost makes sense.”

• Naming the kind of question the student asked gives them a category to aim for again — “good question” is a compliment, and a compliment leaves nothing to repeat on purpose. · Mueller & Dweck (1998) process praise

Say next Process

Teacher Before you answer, have the student ask their question to a partner or the whole class, and collect two or three first responses before you speak.

Student Asks their own question to classmates and hears their first responses.

• Answering a good question immediately ends the thinking it started — passing it to the class keeps the cognitive work with the students. · King (1990) reciprocal questioning

Go deeper Self-regulation

Teacher After the first answer lands, silently count three to five seconds, then ask the student what they are wondering about now.

• The silence feels far longer to the teacher than to the class, and those extra seconds are what produce a longer, more complex follow-up question. · Rowe (1986) wait time

Try first Process

Teacher “You stayed with the task after it got hard instead of setting it down. That is staying with it — stay with the task again the next time the work starts to drag.”

• Tying the outcome to the student’s own persistence — with a name and a named next occasion — makes the effort repeatable; praise for being focused is not a strategy. · Mueller & Dweck (1998) process praise

Say next Task

Teacher Give the next stretch a finish line with a real number in it: work until ten fifteen, then show me one thing you figured out.

Student Works to the named time, then shows one thing they figured out along the way.

• A checkpoint the student can see turns an open-ended task into a reachable target, and the show-me step reads their understanding without stopping the work. · Black & Wiliam (1998) formative assessment

Go deeper Self-regulation

Teacher “What exactly did you do to stay with the task when it got hard? Name that move out loud — it is yours to use on the next hard task.”

• A student who names their own focus strategy lifts the lesson from this one task to how they manage themselves — the level that carries into the next class. · Hattie & Timperley (2007) feedback levels

Try first Process

Teacher “You went back to the page and found proof. That is backing your position with evidence. When someone asks “how do you know?” — go back to the reading and find the evidence that supports your claim.”

• Names the exact move the student can repeat — go back to the source and find supporting evidence — instead of praising an answer they cannot reproduce on purpose. · Mueller & Dweck (1998) process praise

Say next Task

Teacher “Find one more piece of evidence that supports your claim — then find one piece that argues against it.”

Student Weighs both pieces and explains what the disagreeing evidence does to their claim.

• Two sources is weighing evidence and one source is a lucky quote — the counter-example shows whether the claim is held or merely repeated. · Black & Wiliam (1998) formative assessment

Go deeper Process

Teacher “Why does that quote prove your claim? What has to be true for the quote to mean what you say it means?”

• Students often set a quote beside a claim without stating the link between them — building that link out loud is where the reasoning gets constructed instead of assumed. · Chi et al. (1994) self-explanation

Try first Process

Teacher Run think-pair-share before the whole-group question: thirty seconds of silent thinking, one minute with a partner, then open it to the room.

Student Says the idea once to one partner before saying it to twenty classmates.

• Rehearsing an idea with a single partner removes most of the risk of speaking up — and that risk is exactly what keeps quieter students silent in whole group. · Rowe (1986) wait time

Say next Task

Teacher “Take your time. What is one idea you and your partner landed on together?”

• Asking for the pair’s idea gives the student cover if the idea turns out wrong. The study behind this one measured a warm individual greeting at the classroom door, which raised engagement for the whole period — the finding is about warmth doing work a demand cannot, and this is the same warmth aimed at one answer. · Cook et al. (2018) positive greetings

Go deeper Self-regulation

Teacher Give the student a standing job in the discussion: ask one follow-up question of whoever spoke before them, or summarize the last two comments before adding a new one.

Student Holds the discussion job for the whole period — a role, not one brave moment.

• A defined discussion job turns participation into a role the student holds all period, which is what builds the habit rather than the exception. · King (1990) reciprocal questioning

Try first Process

Teacher “The idea you put in moved your group off the spot where they were stuck. That is adding an idea, not just talking — put in the next idea the next time your group stalls.”

• Praising the effect the contribution had — the group got unstuck — tells the student what kind of contribution to make next time, not just that speaking is good. · behavior-specific praise (O’Handley et al., 2023)

Say next Process

Teacher Send the idea back for one more turn before the group moves on: have the student restate it as something the group can actually try in the next five minutes, then have the group try exactly that.

Student Turns the idea into one concrete step the group starts on now.

• An idea a group cannot act on is applause, not contribution — restating it as a next step is what converts a good thought into work the group actually does. · Black & Wiliam (1998) formative assessment

Go deeper Process

Teacher “Whose idea does yours build on? Put the two together out loud, and tell me what that gives your group.”

Student Names the other idea, joins it to their own, and says what the combination gives the group.

• Offering an idea and connecting it to somebody else’s are two different skills, and the second is what turns a pile of suggestions into one plan a group can hold. · King (1990) reciprocal questioning

Try first Process

Teacher Teach Listen–Paraphrase–Add before group work starts and post the three words: do not plan your answer while they talk; say their idea back before you respond; build on their idea rather than replace it. Model one round yourself.

• Students told to “work together” without a protocol default to taking turns talking — three concrete steps give them something they can actually do mid-group. · Webb (1989) help-related behavior in groups

Say next Process

Teacher “You said your partner’s idea back before adding yours, then built on their idea instead of starting over. That is building on — build on the next idea too when your group talks over each other.”

• Naming the specific collaborative move and its occasion gives the student a part to repeat; general praise of teamwork does not say which part. It is also the rarer habit — teachers use general praise far more often than specific praise, and praise of any kind drops sharply from elementary to high school (Jenkins, Floress & Reinke, 2015). · behavior-specific praise (O’Handley et al., 2023)

Go deeper Process

Teacher Give the student one job for the next group session: get an idea out of whoever has said the least, using a stem like “what do you think about…” — then ask the student afterwards what they heard.

Student Uses the stem on the member who has said the least, then reports back what they heard.

• Drawing an idea out of a quiet member is harder and more useful than offering your own, and it is the move that stops one strong voice from carrying a whole group. · Webb (1989) help-related behavior in groups

Try first Process

Teacher “You slowed down and walked your classmate through the step instead of handing over the answer. That is walking someone through it — walk the next stuck classmate through it too.”

• Naming the action and the next occasion gives the student something to repeat on purpose. In secondary classrooms, behavior-specific praise delivered at a steady rate — about once every two minutes — produced large, immediate gains in class-wide engagement (O’Handley et al., 2023); in K-5 classrooms, the teachers who used more of it had less off-task behaviour, though that one is a correlation (Floress, Jenkins, Reinke & McKown, 2018). What nobody has tested is specific praise against “good job” head to head, so this is the better bet, not a proven comparison. · behavior-specific praise (O’Handley et al., 2023)

Say next Process

Teacher Pair the student with a classmate stuck on the step they just cleared, and circulate; when you hear a clear explanation, name out loud what made it clear.

Student Explains the cleared step to a classmate who is still stuck on it.

• The student doing the explaining gains more reliably than the one listening — receiving an answer helps nobody much, while giving a worked explanation helps the explainer — so deliberate pairing creates that practice on purpose instead of by seating luck. · Webb (1989) help-related behavior in groups

Go deeper Process

Teacher Give the student a small group and a harder job: teach the strategy and why it works, not just the steps — then have the group try one alone as the check.

Student Teaches the reasoning behind the strategy, then watches the group try one without help.

• Explaining why a strategy works, rather than reciting its steps, pushes the explainer into self-explanation and firms up the parts they only half-knew. · Chi et al. (1994) self-explanation

Try first Process

Teacher “You asked what to do first instead of starting wrong and finding out later. That is checking before you start — check the directions first again any time they are not clear.”

• Praising the question and naming its next occasion tells the student that checking early is a strategy, not an admission that they were not listening. · behavior-specific praise (O’Handley et al., 2023)

Say next Self-regulation

Teacher Answer the question plainly, then close the loop: have the student say the direction back in their own words before starting the work.

Student Restates the direction in their own words — what comes back is the real check.

• A nod is not evidence of understanding — hearing the student restate the direction is the only way to know the answer landed where you thought it did. · Rosenshine (2012)

Go deeper Process

Teacher Post a short bank of question stems — “What does this word mean here?”, “What should the first step be?” — and have the student use one to help a stuck classmate.

Student Uses a stem to ask the checking question on a stuck classmate’s behalf.

• Turning a private habit into words the student can hand to somebody else transfers the skill from asking for help to giving help. · King (1990) reciprocal questioning

Try first Process

Teacher Teach the rule before independent work starts: try for three minutes, then ask something specific. Model the difference out loud — “I don’t get it” is not a question; “I don’t know what to do after step two” is.

• Students who have never heard what a good question sounds like default to asking for the answer — naming the difference gives them a standard they can hit. · Rosenshine (2012)

Say next Task

Teacher “Before I answer, tell me what you already tried and the exact step where it stopped working.”

Student Reviews their own attempt to name the broken step — and often finds the error while explaining it.

• Making the student walk their attempt first holds the taught standard: a help request names the step that broke, not just the fact of being stuck. · Black & Wiliam (1998) formative assessment

Go deeper Process

Teacher Name what made the request good — “you told me exactly which step broke, so I knew where to look” — then route the next question to a classmate first.

• A well-formed help request produces better learning than a request for the answer, and routing it to a peer keeps the practice alive while you are across the room. · Webb (1989) help-related behavior in groups

Try first Task

Teacher “Just write the first line — that is all I want right now. I will be back in one minute to see that line.”

• The block is almost always starting, not the work itself — a seconds-sized request removes the reason to stall, and the named return time makes it a commitment. · precorrection (Colvin, Sugai & Patching, 1993)

Say next Self-regulation

Teacher Before the next task begins, say out loud what starting looks like — materials out, name on the page, first line within two minutes — then walk past that desk inside the first minute.

• Naming what starting looks like before the task heads the stall off, instead of reacting to a stall that has already set in and now must be undone. · precorrection (Colvin, Sugai & Patching, 1993)

If it persists Task

Teacher Ask for two or three quick things the student will almost certainly do — hand me that paper, read me the title — then make the harder start request immediately after.

Student Says yes to the easy requests and is already in motion when the real request lands.

• A short run of easy yeses builds momentum, so the harder request lands on a student already moving instead of one starting from a dead stop. · high-probability request sequences (Mace et al., 1988)

Try first Task

Teacher Cut the task to one visible first step and stay nearby while they do that step: “write the first sentence” works where “get started on the paragraph” does not.

• A student who has stopped trying is usually looking at a task that feels too big to begin — a single concrete step is small enough to be worth attempting. · precorrection (Colvin, Sugai & Patching, 1993)

Say next Process

Teacher “You got a whole sentence down, and it says something real. Build the next sentence off that one.”

• Naming the exact effort the student just made — and tying it straight to the next step — keeps the momentum instead of letting the first attempt become the finish line. · Mueller & Dweck (1998) process praise

If it persists Task

Teacher Circulate past that desk on a short loop with brief positive contact on each pass, plus a two-minute check-in at the start and end of the period.

• Frequent, brief, non-punitive teacher contact raises engagement for a disengaged student far more reliably than one long conversation about effort does. · active supervision (De Pry & Sugai, 2002)

Try first Task

Teacher Give the standard before the work, not after: post one sentence of what finished looks like — “clear enough that a classmate could follow it without asking you” — where the student can see it while working.

• A student who defines “done” as “handed in” will always be first — a visible standard replaces speed with a target they can actually aim at. · Black & Wiliam (1998) formative assessment

Say next Self-regulation

Teacher Require a self-check before anything is turned in: the student reads their work against the checklist and marks the one item they are least sure about.

Student Checks their own work against the standard and names their weakest item.

• Self-assessment against stated criteria builds the checking habit, and naming the weakest item is more honest and more useful than a blanket “I checked it.” · Black & Wiliam (1998) formative assessment

If it persists Task

Teacher “This one step here is the part to fix. Redo just that step, then bring the work back to me.”

• Feedback aimed at one identified step gives the student something they can act on, and a single-step redo stays small enough to be worth attempting. · Hattie & Timperley (2007) feedback levels

Try first Task

Teacher “What is one thing you notice about the first part? Anything you see counts.”

• A noticing question has no wrong answer, so the student cannot fail by responding — which keeps them in the conversation and gives you something real to teach from. · Black & Wiliam (1998) formative assessment

Say next Self-regulation

Teacher Count a full three to five silent seconds before you rephrase, hint, or move on — the pause is much shorter for the student than it feels to you.

• Most “I don’t know” answers really mean “I have not finished thinking yet,” and the extra seconds are often the only thing that was missing. · Rowe (1986) wait time

If it persists Self-regulation

Teacher “I am asking you because I think you can get there. Start with the part you do know, and we will work out from that part together.”

• A high standard plus a plain statement that you believe the student can meet it re-engages someone who has learned to opt out — reassurance alone lowers the bar. · Yeager et al. (2014) wise feedback

Try first Process

Teacher “What made you land on that answer? Talk me through your thinking.”

• Asking for the thinking behind the choice makes the reasoning the work rather than the answer — without saying “wrong,” so the student stays in long enough to explain. · Chi et al. (1994) self-explanation

Say next Process

Teacher Teach elimination with a worked example in front of the class: read every choice, cross off the two that cannot be true and say why each is out, then choose between what is left.

• A student guesses because they have no process, not because they are careless — a modeled strategy gives them something to do instead of picking at random. · Rosenshine (2012)

If it persists Process

Teacher Require a one-sentence reason with every answer before it counts as final — “I picked C because…” — and hold that line for a full week until it is the routine.

Student Attaches the because-sentence to every answer, spoken or written.

• When the reason is part of the answer, the reasoning becomes the work — and a random guess stops being a shortcut that pays anything. · Hattie & Timperley (2007) feedback levels

Try first Self-regulation

Teacher Ask the question, then wait a full three to five seconds — count silently — before you rephrase, prompt, or call on someone else.

• A slow processor needs the time, not an easier question — most teachers move on after about one second, cutting the student off before they have begun. · Rowe (1986) wait time

Say next Task

Teacher Give directions one step at a time, and have the student say the first step back to you before you give them the second step.

Student Repeats the current step back, then carries that step out before hearing the next.

• A multi-step instruction must be held in working memory while being carried out — splitting the steps removes the exact part the student was failing at. · precorrection (Colvin, Sugai & Patching, 1993)

If it persists Self-regulation

Teacher Preview the steps while the room is still settling — walk the student through what is coming — then use quiet proximity at the start instead of a spoken prompt.

• Previewing moves the processing off the moment of the request, so the student begins from a plan they already have instead of building one under pressure. · precorrection (Colvin, Sugai & Patching, 1993)

Try first Task

Teacher Move toward the desk and keep teaching: make eye contact, hold it for a beat, and say nothing.

• The behavior is aimed at an audience — a silent redirect ends it without the class reaction the student was after, and without stopping the lesson for everybody else. · active supervision (De Pry & Sugai, 2002)

Say next Task

Teacher “That is pulling the room off track. Turn back to your page, and I will come check on you.”

• A quiet redirect that names the effect on the room and gives one concrete action ends the behavior without handing over an audience — the return promise keeps it a check-in. · Simonsen et al. (2008) classroom management

If it persists Process

Teacher Take it out of the room — a brief reset in the hall while the class works — and reteach the expectation one-to-one, without heat: what it looks like, and what to do instead next time.

• Private reteaching keeps the student’s standing with their peers intact — removing the reason to perform — and replaces the behavior instead of just forbidding it. · precorrection (Colvin, Sugai & Patching, 1993)

Try first Task

Teacher Use a non-verbal cue without breaking stride — eye contact, a small hand signal, a tap on the desk as you pass — and keep teaching straight through it.

• Stopping the lesson to address a whisper costs the other twenty-nine students more than the whisper did — a cue fixes it without the interruption. · active supervision (De Pry & Sugai, 2002)

Say next Task

Teacher Walk over and teach the next thirty seconds standing beside that desk, saying nothing at all about the talking.

• Proximity reliably raises on-task behavior, and it corrects the moment without singling the student out in front of the whole class. · Simonsen et al. (2008) classroom management

If it persists Task

Teacher “That conversation can keep until lunch. Right now I need your eyes on the board.”

• Naming what to do next plus a real later home for the conversation lets the student stop talking without conceding anything in front of the room. · Simonsen et al. (2008) classroom management

Try first Task

Teacher Point to the phone parking spot you taught at the start of the year — no conversation about the phone, no debate about the screen, just the signal you both already agreed on.

• A routine taught in advance can be cued with one gesture — without one, every single incident becomes a negotiation in front of the class. · precorrection (Colvin, Sugai & Patching, 1993)

Say next Task

Teacher “Screen face down and eyes back to the page with me. We can leave the phone there for now.”

• Asking for one physical action instead of an explanation of the screen removes the thing there is to argue about — and keeps this from becoming a power struggle with an audience. · Simonsen et al. (2008) classroom management

If it persists Self-regulation

Teacher Offer a limited choice quietly, out of earshot: park the phone here for the period, or move to the focus seat away from the temptation — either answer must be one you can live with.

Student Picks one of the two options — control comes back, and resisting loses its point.

• A choice between two acceptable options gives the student back a sense of control, which removes most of the reason to keep resisting. · choice-making (Kern et al., 1998)

Try first Process

Teacher Have the student write their own attempt first — even a wrong one — then compare with a partner, and say why out loud: comparing after you try is learning; comparing instead of trying skips the learning.

• Comparing answers is a legitimate study strategy once an honest attempt exists — the problem is the missing attempt, not the comparison. · Black & Wiliam (1998) formative assessment

Say next Task

Teacher “I noticed your page and the one next to you look close. Talk me through your first step so I can see how you got there.”

• Describing what you saw and asking for the reasoning holds the standard without delivering a verdict to defend against. The study behind this one tested a line added to written critical feedback — naming the high standard AND your belief the student can meet it — and that is the principle borrowed here, not a finding about copied work. · Yeager et al. (2014) wise feedback

If it persists Task

Teacher Change the seating quietly for a stretch — never announced as a punishment — and check in on the student’s own attempt with feedback on their process, not their score.

• Removing the opportunity while putting attention on their own work redirects the student toward learning — moving the seat alone just relocates the problem. · Simonsen et al. (2008) classroom management

Try first Task

Teacher Circulate past the desk with a soft non-verbal redirect — a tap on the page, a finger on the next problem — without naming it to the room.

• A student who has drifted out on their own is not seeking attention — a quiet cue brings them back without turning it into an event for everybody. · active supervision (De Pry & Sugai, 2002)

Say next Task

Teacher “What is the next step on this page? Start with just that one step, and I will come back around.”

• “Get back on task” is not an instruction a drifting student can act on — one named next step gives them a specific place to re-enter the work. · Rosenshine (2012)

If it persists Task

Teacher Give a short movement break with a job attached — deliver this to the office, hand these out — then return the student to one specific task, named before they go.

Student Does the errand, then re-enters the work through the one task named in advance.

• A brief break with a defined return point resets attention — an open-ended break just extends the drift and makes coming back harder. · choice-making (Kern et al., 1998)

Try first Task

Teacher Lower your voice, step slightly back, and turn your body so the exchange stops being a performance for the room. Say less than you want to.

• Defiance escalates in front of witnesses — shrinking the audience and the volume takes the fuel out of it before anything else has a chance to work. · Simonsen et al. (2008) classroom management

Say next Self-regulation

Teacher “You can start now or take a minute first — your call. I will check the other tables and come back.”

Student Complies on their own terms while nobody is watching them back down.

• A choice between two options you can both live with returns a sense of control while the expectation itself stays exactly where it was. · choice-making (Kern et al., 1998)

If it persists Task

Teacher Drop it in the moment and pick it up privately after class, opening with two or three easy requests — sit here, take a look at this — before returning to the original one.

• Continuing the fight in front of the class guarantees somebody loses — a run of easy agreements later raises the odds the harder request gets accepted. · high-probability request sequences (Mace et al., 1988)