Teach Something Complex Until It Clicks

Proof required

Share: (1) the date, subject, and student or participant group of the observed session, (2) the name and role of your observer, (3) your pre-observation self-assessment naming two specific weaknesses, and (4) a summary of the observer's written or verbal feedback covering at least three specific observations.

What gets checked

• Observer is named with a role that establishes their credibility — a colleague who also teaches, a department head, a coach, or a mentor with teaching experience; a friend who attended the session as a participant does not meet the standard
• Observer feedback contains at least three specific observations — not 'good energy' but named moments: 'when you asked the whole class a question without waiting, only the same three students answered'
• Pre-observation self-assessment was written before the observation, not after — the gap between prediction and feedback is the diagnostic; writing both at the same time defeats the purpose

Common mistakes

• Choosing an observer who will only give positive feedback — a colleague who is also a close friend, or a student who admires you, will not give the honest critical observations that make an observation useful
• Writing the self-assessment after seeing the feedback — the self-assessment is only useful as a baseline if it predates the observation; write it the day before
• Treating the observation as a performance rather than a diagnostic — the goal is to see your real teaching, not a prepared showpiece; teach a routine session, not a specially rehearsed one

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask for the observer's name and role and confirm they have genuine teaching or facilitation experience — a student or a peer who has never taught does not provide a qualifying observation
• Ask to see the pre-observation self-assessment with its date stamp — if the file creation date is later than the observation date, the self-assessment was written retrospectively
• Ask the submitter to name the most surprising thing their observer said — a genuine observation almost always contains something the teacher did not expect to hear

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Share: (1) the two specific techniques you implemented (named, if possible — e.g. 'cold call for equitable participation' or 'no hands up during questioning'), (2) a brief description of how you applied each technique across at least four sessions, (3) evidence that each technique had a measurable effect — student work samples, observation notes from a second session, or feedback data, and (4) one thing that did not work as expected and what you tried instead.

What gets checked

• Two techniques are named specifically enough that another teacher could replicate them — 'I asked better questions' is not a technique; 'I wrote three higher-order questions before each session and waited 8 seconds after asking before taking responses' is
• Evidence of effect is from an external source or from student output — self-reported impressions without supporting data are the weakest form of evidence; student work samples or a second observation are the strongest
• One failure or unexpected outcome is described honestly — a professional development narrative with no failures is either incomplete or dishonest

Common mistakes

• Choosing too broad a technique — 'be more engaging' cannot be measured; 'increase the percentage of students who answer questions by using cold call rather than hands up' can be tracked in a simple tally
• Implementing a technique for one session and claiming mastery — the proof requires at least four sessions; teaching habits take weeks of deliberate repetition to change
• Collecting only satisfaction data as evidence — 'students said they enjoyed the lesson more' is not evidence that a specific technique improved learning; work quality, quiz results, or observation notes are stronger

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to name the two techniques specifically and explain how they applied one in a concrete session moment — a vague description ('I tried to ask better questions') indicates the practice was not deliberate enough
• Review the evidence section: student work samples and second observations are stronger than self-assessment; if only self-assessment is provided, ask whether any external evidence was collected
• Ask about the thing that did not work — a genuine practitioner who tried something new across four sessions will have a clear answer about what went wrong

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Share: (1) the date and observer for the second observation (note if it is the same observer as M1 or a different person), (2) a summary of the M3 observer feedback on the two specific areas from M1, (3) a direct comparison between M1 and M3 feedback on those two areas showing what changed, and (4) one aspect of your teaching that you know is still a development area beyond this outcome.

What gets checked

• Second observation covers the same two specific areas targeted in M2 — a general 'you're doing well' observation without reference to the M1 targets does not meet the standard
• Comparison between M1 and M3 feedback is explicit and shows at least one specific change — not 'I improved overall' but 'in M1 the observer noted that I only took responses from the front rows; in M3 the observer noted that I used cold call across all rows and waited for the student to formulate a full answer'
• One remaining development area is named — teaching is never finished; naming an honest remaining gap is more credible than claiming the process is complete

Common mistakes

• Re-observation by an observer who did not see the M1 session and has not been briefed on the M1 feedback — without that context, the M3 observation cannot assess whether the specific targets improved
• Comparison that describes overall improvement without connecting to the two specific M1 targets — the value of the milestone is the targeted comparison, not a general impression
• Omitting the remaining development area — a reflection that presents teaching practice as complete is implausible; honest professionals always have ongoing development areas

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask for the M3 observer's name and confirm they were briefed on the M1 targets before the session — an unbriefed observer cannot assess progress against specific targets
• Review the M1 vs. M3 comparison section: ask the submitter to read out the specific change in one of their two areas — the comparison should be concrete and cite the observer's words, not the submitter's self-impression
• Ask what the remaining development area is — a teacher who cannot name one ongoing development target either has not reflected seriously or is not being honest about their practice

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.