Wayfinder Learning Lab

"Learning is about living, and as such is lifelong." Elkjaer.


Making Feedback Visible: Four Levels Experiment

This quick brain-dump is based on ideas from Hattie’s Visible Learning for Teachers, Wiliam’s Embedded Formative Assessment and the pdf of The Power of Feedback (Hattie & Timperley) linked below. 

I spent much of today trying to grade a large project (Describing the Motion of the Rokko Liner, our local train), which was assessed for MYP Sciences criteria D, E, F. Based on some of our Student Learning Goal work on helping students cope with data presentation and interpretation, the lab had been broken into stages (almost all completed in-class), spread across A4 and A3 paper and GoogleDocs in Hapara.

Hattie & Timperley, Four Levels of Feedback. Click for the pdf of 'The Power of Feedback.'

Hattie & Timperley, Four Levels of Feedback. Click for the pdf of ‘The Power of Feedback.’ The image is on the page numbered 87.

The result: a lot of visible learning in that I could keep track of each student, see their work in progress and comment where needed. A lotof verbal feedback was given along the way, with some worked examples for students. Breaking the large assignment into stages helped keep it authentic and manageable for students, with some days dedicated to individual strands of the assessment criteria.

The challenge: a Frankenstein’s monster of a grading pile, part paper, part digital and all over the place. After trying to put comments on the various bits of paper and Google Docs I gave up, realising that I would be there for many hours and that potentially very little would be read carefully be students or actioned in the next assignment. I turned to Hattie (and Wiliam). Visible Learning for Teachers has a very useful section on Feedback (d=0.73, though formative assessment is d=0.9) and so I spent some time making up the following document, with the aim of getting all the feedback focused and in one place for students.

It is based on the four levels of feedback: task-level, process-level, self-regulation and self. In each of the first three sections I have check-boxed a few key items, based on things I am looking for in particular in this task and the common advice that I will give based on a first read through the pile. A couple of boxes will be checked for each student as specific areas for improvement, with the ‘quality’ statements explained in person. There is space under each for personal comments where needed. I fudged the ‘self’ domain a bit for the purpose of student synthesis of the feedback they are given – really making it a reflective space, geared towards the positive after the preceding three sections of constructive commentary.

Once I got the sheets ready, I chugged through the grading, paying attention most closely to the descriptors in the rubric, the task-specific instructions to students and then the points for action. However, I put very little annotation directly on the student work, instead focusing on this coversheet. It was marginally quicker to grade overall than the same task would have been normally, but the feedback this time is more focused. The double-sided sheet was given to them in class, attached to the paper components of their work, with the feedback facing out and the rubrics with grades hidden behind. This is a deliberate attempt to put feedback first. We spent about 25 minutes explaining and thinking through this in class.

Importantly, students were given time to think carefully about why certain notes had been made and boxes checked on their sheet. I asked them to respond to the feedback in the ‘self’ section, and make additional notes in the three sections of task-level, process-level and self-regulation. In discussion with individual students, we identified which were most pertinent – for some higher-achieving students they can take action in more detail at the task level, whereas others need to focus more on self-regulation. At the end of the lesson, the sheets and work were collected back, so I can read the feedback and use this to inform next teaching of lab skills.

The purpose of all this is to make it explicit where they need to focus their efforts for the next time, without having to wade through pages of notes. It hopefully serves to make the “discrepancy between the current and desired” performance manageable, and a sea of marking on their work will not help with this. I will need to frame this carefully with students – some need work on many elements, but I will not check or note them, instead focusing on the few that are most important right now. Incidentally, it also allows me to more quickly spot trends and potentially form readiness groupings based on clusters of students needing work on individual elements in the following lab.

At the end of the task I asked students for feedback on the process. They generally found the presentation of feedback in this way easier to manage than sifting through multiple multimedia components, and will keep this document as a reference for next time. A couple of higher-achieving students asked for more detailed feedback by section in their work, which is somthing I can do at request, rather than perhaps by default; I know these students will value and take action on it.

Here’s the doc embedded. If it looks as ugly on your computer as it does mine, click here to open it.

If you’ve used something like this, or can suggest ways to improve it without taking it over one side per section, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments or on Twitter. I’ll add to the post once I’ve done the lesson with the students.

UPDATE (2 December): Feedback-first, peer-generated

Having read that adding grades to feedback weakens the effect of the feedback, I’ve been thinking about ways to get students to pay more attention to the feedback first. For this task, a pretty basic spring extension data-processing lab, I checked the labs over the weekend and wrote down the scores on paper. In class I put students in groups of three and asked them to share the GoogleDoc of the lab with their partners. They then completed a feedback circle, using the coversheet below to identify specific areas for improvement and checking them. If they could suggest an improvement (e.g. a better graph title), they could add this as a comment.

This took about 15-20 minutes, after which students completed the process-level and self-regulation sections and returned the form to me, before continuing with the day’s tasks. Before the next class, I’ll add their grades to the form (rubrics are on the reverse of the copy I gave students) and log them in Powerschool. Delaying communication of the grade this way should, I hope, have helped students engage more effectively with the feedback – I learned last week that making changes in Powerschool resulted in automatic emails to students.

I was wary of doing this first thing on a Monday, but the kids were great and enjoyed giving and receiving feedback from peers. Of course some goofed off a little, but they were easy to get back on track. For the high-flyers who enojoyed the method less the first time, this gave them a chance to really pick through each others’ work to give specific feedback for improvement.

Here is the document:



The Power of Feedback (pdf). John Hattie & Helen Timperley, University of Auckland. DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487

1 Comment

First Unit Reflections: Is It Working?

Today we took the opportunity in the IBBio class to reflect on the unit we have just completed, including the tasks and assessment. As always with CA students, the results were constructive, positive and useful, with a general affirmation of the value of what we are doing as a class. The feedback included our personal GoogleSites project, with most students keen on continuing and feeling it helped them learn and with some interesting alternatives for those that it is not.

This kind of feedback is really useful once the class has settled in. They are open enough to be able to be honest, but it is early enough to change practices where needed. We will make some adjustments, though we are generally on the right track with this group. I’m really looking forward to seeing the process and products of the students who have elected to become science writers instead of GoogleSiters.

Here are the results in a summary presentation.


You Can’t Differentiate Mediocrity.

Good teaching is differentiation: knowing our students, knowing our curriculum, knowing and using a range of strategies and finding opportunities to give students what they need. It is knowing who is learning what and how and it is knowing our impact as the teacher in the classroom. An excellent differentiated curriculum and classroom needs to be first excellent, then differentiated: you can’t differentiate mediocrity. Differentiation depends on effective collaboration between teachers and between students and faculty. It needs an atmosphere of respect and inclusion and a common goal of student learning. 


A concept map for differentiating instruction, from Leadership for Differentiating Schools & Classrooms by Carol Ann Tomlinson and Susan Demirsky Allan.

Over this week at CA we have had Sandra Page come back in from ASCD to help teachers level-up from last year’s work, which was largely and introduction to differentiation and establishing a common language and set of strategies around it. Then  over the weekend I attended a separate JCIS weekend workshop at Osaka International School, led by Naomi Nelson (part of Bill and Ochan Powell’s Education Across Frontiers), on ‘Differentiation: Making Inclusion Happen.’ It was a powerful week of PD, with Naomi’s weekend sessions being particularly useful as a coordinator. With so much professional learning taking place – as MYP Co, science teacher and HOD Science – it will be a challenge to summarise this all into one post and you will likely recognise much of the ideas here.

An Overview

The differentiation content in each session was largely based on the work of Carol Ann Tomlinson, with the common language of differentiating Product, Process, Content (and Affect) by Readiness, Interest and Learning Profile. As a focus at the school we have been working mainly on building teachers’ readiness in Readiness, Process and – to a much lesser extent – Product (assessment).  The work we have been doing has been supported by resources on the school’s faculty guide and in the ATLAS planners, as well as department-based sessions with Sandra.

The Curriculum-Students Balance

Naomi did an great job of crystallizing the connections between an excellent concept-based curriculum with the practices of teaching in the differentiated classroom. Building on Tomlinson’s work, the mantra became an excellent differentiated classroom is first excellent, then differentiated. We need to build on a strong knowledge of an excellent curriculum, and the process of building and articulating that excellent curriculum is the foundation of progress. As part of this curriculum, we need to be aware of the greater conceptual understandings of our unit and the minimum acceptable evidence of understanding of our students to be successful in the unit. We must know where we need to go, and then think about how we might bring in readiness and interest to get there.

Screen Shot 2013-09-23 at 9.31.55 PMA strong curriculum doesn’t, however, mean a slavish devotion to content over all else. We are educators, not fact transmitters, and must ensure that the students remain in the balance. By knowing our students – their interests and readiness as a group and as individuals and what makes a successful learning environment – we can start to meet their needs as learners. We should use formative and summative assessment data as a regular part of our own teaching feedback cycle.  A differentiated classroom is responsive; the opportunities to respond are planned.

A good differentiated classroom encourages inquiry, but does not lose the curriculum in the balance: a classroom too student-oriented doesn’t easily help progression or maintain ‘standards’ (and as a result, open inquiry as curriculum ranks pretty low on Hattie’s impacts). However, if we focus only on the content, insisting that all students must meet our personal standards at the same time in the same way in order to be ‘successful’, then we are doing our learners a huge disservice.

“Differentiate Up”

A successful differentiated classroom does not sacrifice standards or make things ‘easier’ for students. We don’t give everyone an undeserving top grade because they worked hard or we feel bad for them. We certainly don’t adjust our grading fairness. Instead, we ‘differentiate up’ by making clear our expectations of all students and providing extension that takes the most ready to the next level. We do not differentiate the significant concepts, unit questions or key content by readiness – instead we make it clear how students can go beyond, to extend themselves. We ensure that students sit in the zone of proximal development, an area of tension where they are forced to learn not through giant leaps but through an invitation to challenge and to flow. For those less ready we can provide more process support, scaffolding, coaching and clarification. When all students are clear on what they are required to understand, know and do then we have a solid foundation for differentiation.

By differentiating up, we avoid dumbing down.


Developing a Repertoire of Strategies for Effective Differentiation

Strategies for differentiation might be a good entry point for teachers who want to see it in action, and to learn to see the benefit of putting the learner at the centre of learning, though they can only go so far if we are not also thinking critically about curriculum development. Both Sandra and Naomi had plenty of strategies to share – here are a few that I have tried and know to be effective in my own classes, which largely hinge on formative assessment, feedback and adjusting my practice, student groupings or learning processes. If you have read this far, you might want to put some of your favourites in the comments.

  • Exit Tickets
    • 1-minute essay (summary of learning)
    • 3,2,1 (3 things I learned, 2 I will practice, 1 question I have)
    • Response to a conceptual or challenge question
  • Socrative Space Races
    • Usually used as a warmer to get groups working together
  • Quia Quizzes
    • Strictly formative, these are for practice and immediate feedback
    • Based on content or skills of the lesson/ subtopic
    • Results help me decide – before class – who needs what help and who needs extension
  • Think-Pair-Share, Headlines, and other Making Thinking Visible Routines
  • Drafting stages of assignments (and feedback, through GoogleDocs and Hapara), to differentiate assignment-based lessons by readiness in terms of completion, skills to develop further or content-based understandings
  • Interest-based choices for students in topics for assignments, essays, research questions

Some strategies I want to try more: 

  • “Tell Me Something” paired reading
  • Cognitive Coaching in classes
  • Round Robin Reflections
  • More effective use of different ‘entry points’ to units as part of the tuning-in process

Respectful Tasks ≠ Labeling Students

A differentiated classroom feels like a community of learners, rather than rows of pupils. With flexible grouping and respectful tasks built on a supportive learning environment and a genuine care for students we can differentiate to meet students’ needs. It is often raised in differentiation sessions that teachers are wary of stigmatising students with the label of being ‘needy’ – and ‘not labeling students’ is a high-impact strategy on Hattie’s meta-analysis. However, giving students that they need, in a manner that encourages growth is not the same as permanently or obviously labeling a student. If we manage students effectively in a caring environment, we can ensure that students are given an appropriate level of challenge (and they will appreciate it).

If we differentiate by readiness only, all the time, we run the risk of creating a ‘tracking’ system in the class – but there are many ways to keep the groups flexible – by interest, level of completion of a task, preference of style (where appropriate, such as direct instruction, reading, problem-solving) or just simply through random groupings.

Students like to know why they have been grouped and in a supportive learning environment, it is OK to share our reasoning. Teacher-student relationships are high-impact on Hattie’s scale, and effort spent in cultivating them is energy well spent.

Differentiation as a Collaborative Process

One of the strengths of Naomi’s workshop was the focus on collaboration as a foundation of effective differentiation. We spent time looking at student responses in groups, trying to deduce students’ thought processes and it was a really useful task to look at the problems from others’ perspectives. She gave an overview of and time to practice Cognitive Coaching techniques, as well as an opportunity to use case studies in  groups to think about the seven norms of collaborative work:

  • pausing (the ‘gift of time’)
  • paraphrasing (“So you’re saying…”)
  • putting inquiry at the centre (of the issue)
  • probing for specificity (“Tell me more about…”)
  • putting ideas on the table (and knowing when to take them off)
  • paying attention to self and others
  • presuming positive intentions (one of my favourites and one if which we must always be mindful)

I wonder what the novice differentiators made of these sessions that were a step away from the direct student-teacher practice of differentiation, but I could really see the value of them as an MYPCo and HOD.  I think we could use up-skilling as HODs in thee practices in order to run more effective, supportive and collaborative meetings in our departments.

Where Would I Like to Go Next?

As a coordinator in the school, I tend to see lots of opportunities for development. A small breakthrough for me over the last couple of weeks (and in part due to attending IB School Visiting Team Member Training) is how we can develop the practices of differentiation and collaboration in-step with curriculum review and strengthening. I would like to have sessions and differentiated PD that build on our work on ATLAS to really connect curriculum to practice through strengthening our curriculum and assessment while developing strategies for formative assessment and differentiation. I really want to open up classrooms, build a stronger community around professional learning and peer-support. We should form vertical curriculum groups, including elementary teachers, to look critically at the standards underlying our curriculum.

I think if we were to have Naomi come to the school next year, she could work with the whole faculty on differentiation strategies and student learning goals and with the HODs on collaboration, cognitive coaching and leading effective meetings. In ongoing Wednesday-afternoon PD we can continue to focus on practices and building an excellent, concept-based, rigorous curriculum and careful collaborative moderation of student work.

I really want to develop our ties with local IB schools more carefully – a shared PD day with OIS would give an opportunity to have day-long jobalikes and a keynote, and if we go a step further we can implement the model we used in IBDunia in Indonesia for the IB teachers’s conference, drawing on the wealth of talent our community has in the classrooms to teach the teachers.


We’ve come a long way as a school over the last few years – we’re ready to really level-up and MYP: Next Chapter is the perfect opportunity to do this by thinking carefully about who we are, what we teach and how we get there. Finally, the graphic below is an attempt to communicate (in a single slide) how we can use readiness and interest most easily in MYP and DP.

An attempt to capture how we can differentiate by readiness and interest in the MYP and DP. This is in repsonse to teachers' concerns about how we get started and avoid 'dumbing down' or work within the boundaries of our curriculum framework and assessment regulations.

An attempt to capture how we can differentiate by readiness and interest in the MYP and DP. This is in repsonse to teachers’ concerns about how we get started and avoid ‘dumbing down’ or work within the boundaries of our curriculum framework and assessment regulations.

Using personal GoogleSites for learning, assessment & feedback in #IBBio

Click to see an example of how the GoogleSite was set up.

This is reposted from my i-Biology.net blog. To comment, please go there.


Over the last two years, My IB Bio class have been keeping individual GoogleSites as records and reflections of their learning. Based on this experience and their feedback, I have tweaked the project to try to make it more effective as a learning tool.


With the bulk of our resources online (here on i-Biology.net, Slideshare and elsewhere), as well as a 1:1 laptop and GoogleApps environment, it doesn’t make much sense to be using too much paper. The aim of this project was to empower students to build skills and knowledge connected to the IB Biology course, whilst making their thinking visible to me as a teacher. Through this process, students are able to track their progress, stay on top of their grades and prepare at their own pace (especially if they are working ahead).

Continue reading

1 Comment

How much should homework count?

I saw this on Twitter via @Mr_Abud, and it got me thinking: What is the role of homework in my class? Years ago I read Alfie Kohn’s (@AlfieKohn) Homework Myth and adjusted my practices (I think) accordingly. This tweet from Gary was timely as we’d just had a PD session on differentiation with Sandra Page, in which she played a video of Rick Wormeli (@RickWormeli) in one of his classes.

Here is Rick Wormeli on “How much should homework count?

There are more similar videos on the Stenhouse Publishers YouTube Channel.

Some key points from the video: 

  • Homework could be referred to as ‘practice’.
  • Homework, if given, should be differentiated.
  • Homework should be a ‘safe place’.
  • Homework is formative# in nature, so it is not appropriate to give a ‘homework’ report.
  • A student who aces assignments without doing homework still deserves the top grades for the criteria they are being assessed against. If they know it and can demonstrate this, why do they need to do the homework?
  • Weaving homework into a grade for an assignment or class is knowingly falsifying the grade.
  • Homework (incorporated into the grade) dilutes grade accuracy.


What is my philosophy? 

I don’t like homework for homework’s sake and try to make sure that what is assigned in my class is achievable, engaging and useful*. I ask students if they found a task worthwhile and how long it took**. There is a sign in my room that states “This is your office, these are your office hours,” with the understanding that we will do most of our work in the school day. 35 hours a week in school (plus extra-curriculars, plus travel) should be enough!

If a significant number of students are struggling to get their work up to standard – despite class and homework time – then that is more likely a reflection on me as their teacher.

  • Have I underestimated the time it would take?
  • Is there a problem in the instructions?
  • Is there, as can often be the case, a tech-related issue such as with Excel, blogs or other tools that needs to be remedied?

If so, we discuss it as a group and if needed re-set the deadline.

From cheezburger.com

There is still a need for (some? all?) students to work at home. This is often finishing an assignment, although some do come to work in my lab at lunch or after school. More recently ‘home-work’ has included reading resources, a video to watch or pre-question to prepare for class (a bit flippy). Pre-assessment of this can help in grouping for the lesson, or to see where the focus of our efforts needs to be. Homework is also consolidation – updating a GoogleSite page for IB Bio or completing a short formative Quia quiz – as a way of keeping track of where the student is with regard to the content, skill or concept.

The homework itself is checked but not graded (as in ‘counted for the final semester grade’). I do include scores for formative tasks such as Quia quizzes in PowerSchool as way of communicating with students (and their calendars), as well as admin and parents. We report ‘Learning Attitudes‘ in our school as descriptors separate from numerical achievement grades – keeping track of how self-directed a student is helps in writing this part of the report. I look for correlations between completion of formative ‘practice’ tasks and achievement in summative tasks when writing these Learning Attitudes comments.

If a student works well in class, is a good scientist, respects others, achieves highly in summative assessments but does not do the homework then the homework was probably no use to them. Why penalise?

Some students like to work at home, in their own space, making sense of the work in their own way. Others prefer to check out when they walk out. We try to make tasks engaging and differentiated, though we do need to meet the requirements of the criteria and prepare them well for IBDP or their terminal assessments. Some students get fed up of lab reports even if the lab itself was exciting – to what extent do they complete this at home or at school? How do we get the most ‘bang for our buck’ with instructional time?

Again, more questions than answers.


Some notes

*Emphasis on “try”. It doesn’t always work.

**Yup – some take ages on short tasks and a few really go to town on the biggies. Some students are true perfectionists or stressers and need coaching to stop burying themselves in work. They need to sleep! Others get so engaged in a project that they want to spend the time on it. I often find the learning resources teacher (SEN) a useful barometer for the students who need support and check up with him too.


#Check this out, too:


EDIT, Jun 10 2013

Here’s a vRant from Tom Stelling on Homework, and why he’ll give it but not grade it.

Also, here’s a interesting graphic based on reading Hattie’s Visible Learning. Overall, homework has an impact of d=0.29: pretty pointless. However, this is a mean impact; when the homework for elementary-aged students (d=0.15) is factored out, we are left with d=0.64 in secondary. This is an enhanced effect. Find out more about this with Tom Sherrington’s post: Great Teachers Give Great Homework.

Hattie Barometer: Homework. The notes underneath are for a #PYPChat session. There is no need to give homework in elementary, so why do it? As the father of a 6yo, I dread the day she comes home with a worksheet… unless she really wants to do it!


Differentiation through a ‘Readiness Filter’?

Carrying on from my last reflection on the differentiation workshops here this week…

Some subjects have a great freedom of curriculum and are natural fits for student-driven inquiry all the way through to MYP 5 (and beyond if they exist as part of our IBDP). In their cases, one might put readiness, interest and learning profile on an equal footing. The path a student takes through the subject could be very different to their peers (with different outcomes), based on the ways in which differentiation is implemented.

Others, such as Science (my own subject) and Maths, feed into quite prescriptive Diploma Programme courses. All paths lead to the same destination – the examination room and assessment of defined outcomes. Clearly there is minimal scope for differentiation of product or content, but plenty of room for differentiation of process. This led our discussions into whether we should be using readiness as a filter* for differentiation in our classes in MYP 4-5 and IBDP.

With clearly-defined command terms linked closely to assessment rubrics and eventually grades, should we (or could we) first use readiness to pitch lessons at the right level for each student and to ensure that they are making those incremental steps towards progress?

I would love to get to the point where I am using readiness and data in most planning decisions, with learning profile and interest to differentiate further within those levels. Flexible grouping tasks would be used to make sure the same kids aren’t always stuck with each other. Lofty ideals, eh?

I’ll let this diagram I cobbled together explain the rest…


*Thanks @LizDK for the word – it fits the idea perfectly!

Leave a comment

Differentiating… differently.

Long time no post! The school year is well underway and a ton of topics are on my mind, but things have been chugging along busily. Without the MA assignment to procrastinate, there’s been a little less motivation to blog, too! I’ll try to post a few shorter sets of thoughts based on our recent PD on Differentiation. 


Differentiation is a philosophy of teaching

That much I’ve had confirmed by an excellent few days’ PD with Sandra Page*, from ASCD, here at CA. It niggles at me that at times (or perhaps even often), I should be doing more to meet the individual learning needs of students. We all know that we should differentiate, and maybe we think we do so effectively, but it takes a real effort to want to make changes to the way we ‘teach’. Over the last few years I’ve been removing myself from the stage and trying to get the focus of learning on what the students can do and understand, and this opportunity to spend some time thinking about it and gathering more tools and practices has been welcome and invigorating.

What is DI? From DifferentiationCentral. Click to go there and find out more – it’s good stuff!

We took the time to focus on why we differentiate and how, thinking carefully about the general principles of differentiation (link to DifferentiationCentral overview). From a practical perspective there was a focus on differentiation of process by readiness, interest and learning profile.

As you can see from Tomlinson’s diagram of DI, it is a much more in-depth approach to planning and teaching. However by choosing to focus on process differentiation, everyone in the room, regardless of their own readiness level as a differentiator, was able to get something to take away and put into action immediately. A few colleagues and I had some great conversation as part of our Digital Bytes Friday yesterday on some of the practices she suggested and what tech tools exist to effect them in our 1-1 environment.

I realised early on that I’ve been using some of these techniques with some success for years, but my planning and implementation of really effective DI lessons (and units) could definitely do with being ‘beefed up’. I’ve taken a lot away from this experience, much of which will help me work towards my differentiation goal at school of better extending the more advanced students.

Some plans to put into action:

  • Make more effective use of the wealth of pre- and ongoing assessment data we generate in my classes to better inform DI lesson plans and the direction and style of lessons and units.
  • Establish more fluent routines to facilitate flexible grouping.
  • Find out more about Making Thinking Visible for ongoing formative assessment.
  • Use readiness as a filter for differentiation in the high-stakes classes, then develop DI lessons for different interest and learning profiles as they are appropriate.
  • Really clearly communicate KUD’s and make use of formative and ongoing assessment with various groups and students to check that we are making the right progress.
  • Develop and curate more resources for teachers to put to use in our connected, 1-1, international MYP environment.
  • Maybe even get some chat going on #MYPChat about differentiation!


The Penny Drops: Differentiated Instruction and the MYP Planner

Sandra emphasised the importance of a solid ‘Know Understand Do‘ (KUD) for a DI lesson plan, which immediately made me think of the link between the Significant Concept(s) in Stage 1 of a unit planner and their relationship with the Knowledge and Skills in Stage 2. Of course we plan lessons to work towards larger unit goals. A good DI lesson will therefore act as a stepping stone towards those learning goals, tailored to meet the needs of the students.

I quickly put together this diagram to communicate this relationship to colleagues.


Some useful Differentiation links:


*I can totally recommend her to lead PD on differentiation. We’re always wary as teachers of someone coming in to ‘tell us how to do our jobs’, but she was excellently prepared, clear, very knowledgable and supportive. This session was focused on MS/HS teachers and was tailored as such, with examples from across the disciplines. She worked with the school beforehand to discuss our needs and acted upon them. Here’s her page on LinkedIn.