I am an educator who, during grad school (early 2000s), fell in love with Lesson Study as both a professional development model and a way to thoughtfully design lessons that maximize student participation. Over the last 20+ years, I’ve used that same approach: I focus on creating the conditions for students to show up as they are ready and able to participate.
Not every class will look as though I’m engaging everyone—and teachers, in my opinion, are often not great at discerning real engagement in the moment. Very few teachers shift their metric (whether formally written or simply held in mind) for what engagement looks like from lesson to lesson.
I actually value silence in the classroom. I also know I’m working with—and sometimes against—the adolescent brain (primarily as a high school educator). I often name my expectations at the start of class and use a range of strategies to draw students into discussion, including cold calling, having students popcorn call, having students use "talking pieces" for participation, or just seeing what happens. I have always let students know ahead of time, though, so it never feels like a “gotchya.”
For me, authenticity means modeling what is genuinely true: I am an educator who loves teaching and… doesn’t particularly enjoy public speaking. Naming that honestly has helped me create spaces that feel both structured and student/human centered.
As someone who would go shaky-knees if I had to speak in front of a group until the middle of college, I very much relate to this and I think you're right: being authentic is very much about being honest/open about ourselves, particularly when facilitating a conversation.
And you're right: having a more nuanced understanding of "engagement" (that word! so many thoughts) is imperative—it shouldn't just be measured by talking, as activities like John Spencer's "Silent Discussion" that is 100% writing based can be just as rigorous and affirming of student voice in a different way.
Also really love this phrase: "creating the conditions for students to show up as they are ready and able to participate."
Thanks for this response and of course that wonderful piece yesterday, too!
Yom... your reply connects to my thinking since reading Quiet by Susan Cain. I have become more aware of how easily we design classrooms for the quick, verbal processors and mistake that for engagement. I appreciate your emphasis on creating conditions where students can show up as they are ready, and your valuing of silence as a legitimate form of participation. For me, the ongoing work is designing spaces that feel comfortable for both introverts and extroverts, so that engagement is not a single "thing" but a range of authentic responses.
Don-, thanks for sharing the title, I will add this to my TBR list! With more students needing classroom accommodations, I found that over the course of a week, month, etc. if I taught in a way that showcased that there were multiple paths to understanding/mastery… then I could create many opportunities for students to learn and then demonstrate their learning that acknowledge that the classroom could handle and respect a range of responses.
I empathize with the tension between design and leaning towards the originality/genius/spontaneity that inherently IS %-more student-driven (over %-more teacher-designed) discussion. I always lean towards teacher-design because I care (too much) about hitting the objective. I miss a lot as a result -- and I am not sure how to resolve for this. I hear about other discussions happening when other English teachers are talking, and I worry I over-design a lot... there are costs. I do a HUGE variety of discussion models to compensate / balance, but all of those are pretty teacher-objective/ minutes-on-the-clock driven. I worry about what I lose in hitting other priorities. This is a great post, as always. I really appreciate everything you do.
All concerns I've felt as well! I love your point about designing for different models—as I think no single model works well for everyone, and it also can be a great push for those who might confident with one format to grow/learn from another!
I really appreciate these two posts. What struck me most is how you named what so many of us did instinctively. When I was in the classroom, I felt pretty confident getting discussions going and keeping them moving, but I do not know that I always paused to think about exactly what I was doing in those moments. You are helping make that invisible work visible.
I also value your honesty about cold calling. The backward planning lens is so important. If we want students to participate confidently, we have to build toward that. That is where the SEL piece comes in for me. The stronger the relationships in the room, the more options we have as educators. When students trust you and each other, you can lean into more strategies. Without that foundation, even a well designed move can fall flat.
One "vote with your feet" strategy I used was a number line on the floor. Students would physically place themselves along the continuum in response to a question. From there, I could ask what it would take to move from one number to another, or have students pose questions to classmates standing at a different number. It worked especially well when we were discussing historical decisions and weighing whether something was justified or not. It made students' choices visible and gave the conversation somewhere to go.
Now, as a coach, we often model the micro lab protocol from EMC2 in professional learning. Participants first think silently about a prompt for 1 minute. Then, in groups of three or four, each person has an uninterrupted one minute to speak while the others just listen. Only after everyone has shared do they open it up for dialogue. It is simple, but it builds confidence and reinforces that every voice has space. The more comfortable the students get, the more time can be added.
There is a lot here that connects to culture, belonging, and intentional design. I would honestly love to talk more about this with you. Thanks for continuing to push the thinking forward.
Oh, I appreciate that micro lab—as I've done better at times of holding kids accountable to not moving onto the next person until they've gotten their full time (ex: Partner A is talking for 60 seconds, Partner B can ask questions/can't jump in until timer is off) and now I am making a note-to-self to be better with that going forward.
And always open to more conversation! Appreciate this response in many ways.
I am an educator who, during grad school (early 2000s), fell in love with Lesson Study as both a professional development model and a way to thoughtfully design lessons that maximize student participation. Over the last 20+ years, I’ve used that same approach: I focus on creating the conditions for students to show up as they are ready and able to participate.
Not every class will look as though I’m engaging everyone—and teachers, in my opinion, are often not great at discerning real engagement in the moment. Very few teachers shift their metric (whether formally written or simply held in mind) for what engagement looks like from lesson to lesson.
I actually value silence in the classroom. I also know I’m working with—and sometimes against—the adolescent brain (primarily as a high school educator). I often name my expectations at the start of class and use a range of strategies to draw students into discussion, including cold calling, having students popcorn call, having students use "talking pieces" for participation, or just seeing what happens. I have always let students know ahead of time, though, so it never feels like a “gotchya.”
For me, authenticity means modeling what is genuinely true: I am an educator who loves teaching and… doesn’t particularly enjoy public speaking. Naming that honestly has helped me create spaces that feel both structured and student/human centered.
As someone who would go shaky-knees if I had to speak in front of a group until the middle of college, I very much relate to this and I think you're right: being authentic is very much about being honest/open about ourselves, particularly when facilitating a conversation.
And you're right: having a more nuanced understanding of "engagement" (that word! so many thoughts) is imperative—it shouldn't just be measured by talking, as activities like John Spencer's "Silent Discussion" that is 100% writing based can be just as rigorous and affirming of student voice in a different way.
Also really love this phrase: "creating the conditions for students to show up as they are ready and able to participate."
Thanks for this response and of course that wonderful piece yesterday, too!
Yom... your reply connects to my thinking since reading Quiet by Susan Cain. I have become more aware of how easily we design classrooms for the quick, verbal processors and mistake that for engagement. I appreciate your emphasis on creating conditions where students can show up as they are ready, and your valuing of silence as a legitimate form of participation. For me, the ongoing work is designing spaces that feel comfortable for both introverts and extroverts, so that engagement is not a single "thing" but a range of authentic responses.
Don-, thanks for sharing the title, I will add this to my TBR list! With more students needing classroom accommodations, I found that over the course of a week, month, etc. if I taught in a way that showcased that there were multiple paths to understanding/mastery… then I could create many opportunities for students to learn and then demonstrate their learning that acknowledge that the classroom could handle and respect a range of responses.
I empathize with the tension between design and leaning towards the originality/genius/spontaneity that inherently IS %-more student-driven (over %-more teacher-designed) discussion. I always lean towards teacher-design because I care (too much) about hitting the objective. I miss a lot as a result -- and I am not sure how to resolve for this. I hear about other discussions happening when other English teachers are talking, and I worry I over-design a lot... there are costs. I do a HUGE variety of discussion models to compensate / balance, but all of those are pretty teacher-objective/ minutes-on-the-clock driven. I worry about what I lose in hitting other priorities. This is a great post, as always. I really appreciate everything you do.
All concerns I've felt as well! I love your point about designing for different models—as I think no single model works well for everyone, and it also can be a great push for those who might confident with one format to grow/learn from another!
I really appreciate these two posts. What struck me most is how you named what so many of us did instinctively. When I was in the classroom, I felt pretty confident getting discussions going and keeping them moving, but I do not know that I always paused to think about exactly what I was doing in those moments. You are helping make that invisible work visible.
I also value your honesty about cold calling. The backward planning lens is so important. If we want students to participate confidently, we have to build toward that. That is where the SEL piece comes in for me. The stronger the relationships in the room, the more options we have as educators. When students trust you and each other, you can lean into more strategies. Without that foundation, even a well designed move can fall flat.
One "vote with your feet" strategy I used was a number line on the floor. Students would physically place themselves along the continuum in response to a question. From there, I could ask what it would take to move from one number to another, or have students pose questions to classmates standing at a different number. It worked especially well when we were discussing historical decisions and weighing whether something was justified or not. It made students' choices visible and gave the conversation somewhere to go.
Now, as a coach, we often model the micro lab protocol from EMC2 in professional learning. Participants first think silently about a prompt for 1 minute. Then, in groups of three or four, each person has an uninterrupted one minute to speak while the others just listen. Only after everyone has shared do they open it up for dialogue. It is simple, but it builds confidence and reinforces that every voice has space. The more comfortable the students get, the more time can be added.
There is a lot here that connects to culture, belonging, and intentional design. I would honestly love to talk more about this with you. Thanks for continuing to push the thinking forward.
Oh, I appreciate that micro lab—as I've done better at times of holding kids accountable to not moving onto the next person until they've gotten their full time (ex: Partner A is talking for 60 seconds, Partner B can ask questions/can't jump in until timer is off) and now I am making a note-to-self to be better with that going forward.
And always open to more conversation! Appreciate this response in many ways.