The framework for intentional and targeted teaching®—or fit

The Framework for Intentional and Targeted Teaching® —or
FIT
Teaching®—is a research-based, field-tested, and experience-
honed process that captures the essentials of the best
educational
environments. In contrast to restrictive pedagogical
prescriptions
or formulas, FIT Teaching empowers teachers to adapt the most
effective planning, instructional, and assessment practices to
their particular context in order to move their students’ learning
from where it is now to where it should be. To be a FIT Teacher
is
to make a heroic commitment to learning—not just to the
learning
of every student in the classroom, but to the professional
learning
necessary to grow, inspire, and lead.
What is FIT Teaching?
What is a FIT Teacher?
This book introduces the powerful FIT Teaching Tool, which
harnesses the FIT Teaching approach and presents a
detailed continuum of growth and leadership. It’s a close-up
look at what intentional and targeting teaching is and what
successful teachers do to
• Plan with purpose
• Cultivate a learning climate
• Instruct with intention
• Assess with a system
• Impact student learning

Designed to foster discussion among educators about what
they are doing in the classroom, the FIT Teaching Tool can
be used by teachers for self-assessment; by peers for
collegial feedback in professional learning communities; by
instructional coaches to focus on the skills teachers need
both onstage and off; and by school leaders to highlight their
teachers’ strengths and value. Join authors Douglas Fisher,
Nancy Frey, and Stefani Arzonetti Hite for an examination of
what makes great teachers great, and see how educators
at all grade levels and all levels of experience are taking
intentional steps toward enhanced professional practice.
$29.95
STUDY
GUIDE
ONLINE
Browse excerpts from ASCD books: ww.ascd.org/books
Many ASCD members received this book as
a member benefit upon its initial release.
Learn more at: www.ascd.org/memberbooks
EDUCATION
Alexandria, VA USA
INTENTIONAL AND TARGETED
TEACHING
FISHER | FREY
| HITE

Targeted Teaching
A Framework for Teacher
Growth and Leadership
Intentional and
T H E F I T T E A C H I N G A P P R O A C H
Douglas FISHER | Nancy FREY | Stefani Arzonetti HITE
IntentionalTargetedTeaching_Covers_Fpp.indd All Pages
4/1/16 9:22 AM
Targeted Teaching
Intentional and
IntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd
iIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd i 3/31/16 4:24 PM3/31/16
4:24 PM
iiIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd ii 4/11/16 11:07
AM4/11/16 11:07 AM
www.ascd.org/memberbooks
Targeted Teaching

Intentional and
Alexandria, VA USA
iiiIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd iii 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
http://www.ascd.org
1703 N. Beauregard St. • Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 USA
Phone: 800-933-2723 or 703-578-9600 • Fax: 703-575-5400
Website: www.ascd.org • E-mail: [email protected]
Author guidelines: www.ascd.org/write
Deborah S. Delisle, Executive Director; Robert D. Clouse,
Managing Director, Digital Content & Publications; Stefani
Roth,
Publisher; Genny Ostertag, Director, Content Acquisitions;
Julie Houtz, Director, Book Editing & Production; Katie Martin,
Editor; Donald Ely, Senior Graphic Designer; Mike Kalyan,
Manager, Production Services; Cynthia Stock, Typesetter;
Kyle Steichen, Senior Production Specialist
Copyright © 2016 ASCD. All rights reserved. It is illegal to
reproduce copies of this work in print or electronic format
(including reproductions displayed on a secure intranet or
stored in a retrieval system or other electronic storage device
from which copies can be made or displayed) without the prior
written permission of the publisher. By purchasing only
authorized electronic or print editions and not participating in
or encouraging piracy of copyrighted materials, you support

the rights of authors and publishers. Readers who wish to
reproduce or republish excerpts of this work in print or
electronic
format may do so for a small fee by contacting the Copyright
Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA
01923, USA (phone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-646-8600; web:
www.copyright.com). To inquire about site licensing options or
any other reuse, contact ASCD Permissions at
www.ascd.org/permissions, or [email protected], or 703-575-
5749. For
a list of vendors authorized to license ASCD e-books to
institutions, see www.ascd.org/epubs. Send translation inquiries
to
[email protected]
All referenced trademarks are the property of their respective
owners. FRAMEWORK FOR INTENTIONAL AND
TARGETED TEACHING® and FIT TEACHING® are
trademarks of ASCD.
All web links in this book are correct as of the publication date
below but may have become inactive or otherwise modifi ed
since that time. If you notice a deactivated or changed link,
please e-mail [email protected] with the words “Link Update”
in the subject line. In your message, please specify the web
link, the book title, and the page number on which the
link appears.
PAPERBACK ISBN: 978-1-4166-2111-9 ASCD product
#116008
PDF E-BOOK ISBN: 978-1-4166-2113-3; see Books in Print for
other formats.
Quantity discounts: 10–49, 10%; 50+, 15%; 1,000+, special
discounts (e-mail [email protected] or call 800-933-2723,
ext. 5773, or 703-575-5773). For desk copies, go to
www.ascd.org/deskcopy.

ASCD Member Book No. FY16-7 (May 2016, P). ASCD
Member Books mail to Premium (P), Select (S), and
Institutional
Plus (I+) members on this schedule: Jan, PSI+; Feb, P; Apr,
PSI+; May, P; Jul, PSI+; Aug, P; Sep, PSI+; Nov, PSI+; Dec, P.
For current details on membership, see
www.ascd.org/membership.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Fisher, Douglas, 1965-, author. | Frey, Nancy, 1959-
author. | Hite,
Stefani Arzonetti, author.
Title: Intentional and targeted teaching : a framework for
teacher growth and
leadership / Douglas Fisher, Nancy Frey, Stefani Arzonetti
Hite.
Description: Alexandria, VA : ASCD, 2016. | Includes
bibliographical
references and index.
Identifi ers: LCCN 2015049292 (print) | LCCN 2016010993
(ebook) | ISBN
9781416621119 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781416621133 (ebook) | ISBN
9781416621133
(PDF)
Subjects: LCSH: Eff ective teaching. | Classroom environment. |
Educational
leadership.
Classifi cation: LCC LB1025.3 .F575 2016 (print) | LCC
LB1025.3 (ebook) | DDC
371.102--dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015049292
_____________________________________________________
__________________
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ivIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd iv 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
http://www.ascd.org
http://www.ascd.org
http://www.copyright.com
http://www.ascd.org/permissions
http://www.ascd.org/epubs
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.ascd.org/deskcopy
http://www.ascd.org/membership
http://www.ascd.org/write
http://lccn.loc.gov/2015049292
Introduction: Becoming a FIT Teacher
...................................................... 1
1. Planning with Purpose
.............................................................................15
2. Cultivating a Learning Climate
..............................................................45
3. Instructing with Intention
.......................................................................81
4. Assessing with a System
........................................................................115
5. Impacting Student Learning
.................................................................142

Conclusion: Taking Up the Challenge
....................................................165
Acknowledgments
.......................................................................................166
Appendix: Th e FIT Teaching Growth and Leadership Tool
.............167
References
...............................................................................................
......181
Index
...............................................................................................
................185
About the Authors
......................................................................................190
Targeted Teaching
Intentional and
vIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd v 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
1
Introduction

Becoming a FIT Teacher
Recently we hosted a guest speaker for an evening gathering at
a local hotel. It
was a great event, with stimulating conversations about teaching
and learning
and hors d’oeuvres for the 160 or so people who attended. Th e
speaker had used
Nancy’s computer and cables to share his stories, and one of the
participants
helped pack up at the end of the evening so that we could thank
our guest.
When we got to the car, Nancy realized that she did not have
the connector that
allows her computer to communicate with the projector. We
went back inside
the hotel to retrieve it.
When we entered the room, we saw the catering manager, the
banquet
manager, and a person wearing a chef ’s hat standing at the food
table. One was
literally counting tomatoes that had been left on a tray, while
another counted
fruit sticks. Th ey stopped when they saw us, but Nancy had to
ask what they
were doing.
Th e banquet manager responded fi rst, saying, “We always do a
postmortem
after an event like yours. We have diff erent things we look for
so that we can
make changes for future events. I’m looking at the places trash
was left and the
number of remaining utensils. See right here, there’s a pile of
trash. Th at tells

me that we need to put some sort of receptacle there, because
that’s where
people are going to put their trash. We didn’t make it obvious
enough where
they could dispose of things.”
Th e catering manager added, “We’re also counting leftover
food. We look
for trends and then make decisions about how much of what to
off er groups.
Your group didn’t eat much of the desserts, but they demolished
the hummus
1IntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd 1 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
2 | Intentional and Targeted Teaching
and fi nger sandwiches. Th ere are more than 20 tomatoes left.
We used them
for decoration, but obviously there were too many, and we don’t
need to waste
money on extra tomatoes in the future.”
Th e person in the chef ’s hat chimed in, “It’s all part of our
self-evaluation
process. We learn from every group we host, and we make it
better for the next
time. If people leave hungry, they tell other people, who then
don’t want to
have their events here. When our boss comes around, he wants
to see a clean
environment, so this little pile of trash is a problem, and we can

address it the
next time we set up the room this way. And see the utensils? Th
ere aren’t any
forks left, so some people probably had to use a spoon instead.
Th at’s a problem.
Th e silverware plan wasn’t matched very well to the type of
food served. We will
defi nitely fi x that for next time.”
We looked at one another, silently making the same
connections. Although
not having a fork for one’s hors d’oeuvres isn’t too big a
problem in the larger
scheme of things, not reaching students is. Not getting them to
grasp algebra is.
Not engaging them in the subject matter you love is. Not
preparing them to be
critical thinkers and strong citizens is. You get the point.
Th e three people in this hotel spent time collecting and
analyzing data
because they wanted to improve the experience their guests had.
Th e same
should be true for teachers, coaches, and administrators. We
certainly care
as much about our students’ learning as the catering manager,
the banquet
manager, and the chef care about the food they serve and the
environment they
create. But do we routinely invest in the same kind of analysis
of our practices,
situations, and outcomes? Are these based in the same kind of
collaborative
and dialogic problem solving? Th e hotel team’s process wasn’t
about fi lling out
forms; it was about communicating with one another to reach

solutions. But, as
we saw, what made this possible was a conversation and a set of
processes that
helped the hotel staff resolve missteps and identify successes.
In this spirit, we embarked on defi ning the centerpiece of this
book: the
FIT Teaching Growth and Leadership Tool, which harnesses the
FIT Teaching
process and presents a detailed continuum of teacher growth and
leadership.
We off er it to teachers as guidance they can use to self-assess
and chart a path
forward. We also share this with those who support and lead
teachers as a way
to highlight the eff ectiveness of teachers’ work and ground
conversations in
helping teachers achieve even greater success. After all,
teachers are lifelong
learners, dedicated to continually improving their craft.
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
Introduction | 3
What Is FIT Teaching?
Th e Framework for Intentional and Targeted Teaching®, or FIT
Teaching®, is a
process that evolved over the past 15 years. It began as a way of
identifying the
fundamental components that make up a productive educational
environment

for facilitating literacy development. We wanted to know: What
did the most
eff ective teachers do in order to promote successful learning?
How did they
plan, how did they instruct, how did they assess? What specifi c
practices could
we isolate as making the most diff erence?
Let’s start with the words we selected as the name for this
approach.
Th e fi rst is framework. We do not believe that exceedingly
scripted or highly
prescriptive approaches are the way to go, because they de-skill
the teacher
and assume that a curriculum can teach. Th ey typically leave
little room for
diff erentiation or adjustment to the learning environment as
teachers march
through lessons one after another. We remember meeting a
teacher who got
a red card from her principal for not being on the same page in
the textbook
as the other 4th grade teachers. As she explained it, “We have fi
delity checks
every few days, and if we’re behind, we’re in trouble. But I had
to stop because
the lesson was confusing and my students didn’t get it. Th ere
just isn’t much
wiggle room, and the district requires us to move on, even if
some students
don’t get it.”
Having said that, we’re not advocating for an “anything goes”
approach
to curriculum and instruction. We do believe that teachers
should have

a framework for their lessons. As you will read in the chapters
ahead, we
are interested in instructional approaches that shift the
responsibility for
learning from teachers to students in an ongoing and iterative
cycle. Th e
framework we propose includes clear learning intentions,
teacher modeling,
guided instruction, collaborative learning, and independent
learning tasks.
Importantly, teachers mix and match these components in an
instructional
sequence designed to impact learning. Th ey may model several
times in a given
lesson, or they may start a lesson with collaborative learning
and then move on
to modeling. Th e order doesn’t matter, but the components of
the framework
do. We see a diff erence between teachers internalizing a
framework for their
lessons and them being told what to teach every minute of the
day.
Intentional is the second word in this model, and we selected it
because
teachers’ actions matter. Th e planning teachers do as well as
the instructional
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM

decisions they make should be purposeful. High-quality
instruction starts with
knowing what students need to learn, then moves on to creating
a wide range of
learning situations in which students can engage. Intentional
says that teachers
are deliberate and that learning is expected.
Targeted, the third word, is there to stress that teachers must
consider the
current performance of students as well as how these students
respond to the
instruction. Th ere is no reason to teach things students already
know. At the same
time, it’s important to monitor students’ learning to determine if
the class needs
to accelerate or slow down. When teaching is targeted, that
means teachers are
working to close the gap between what students already know
and what they are
expected to learn.
Two of us (Doug and Nancy) are teachers and leaders,
researchers and
practitioners, and we subjected the components of FIT Teaching
to the best test
we know: teaching them in our own classrooms and
collaborating with talented
colleagues in their classrooms. Th e framework developed
further through trial
and revision. As we learned more about what worked and what
didn’t, we
honed and improved the components until they defi ned a
coherent process
that includes the essentials of eff ective teaching while avoiding
a restrictive

prescription or formula. After all, a healthy organization must
be free to adapt
processes to meet the needs of its particular context.
As FIT Teaching evolved, it became clear that these components
can
have great value to both individual teachers and teams of
teachers, particularly
in organizations that are inundated with multiple (and often
competing)
initiatives. Th e overarching philosophy of FIT Teaching is that
it is not “one
more thing” for teachers and leaders to do but a method for
creating coherence
and improvements to the complex jobs that schools undertake.
Together,
purposeful planning, a well-designed assessment system, and
strong instruction
make a diff erence.
Overall, FIT Teaching is a process that organizes and refi nes
the hard work
of professional growth that school leaders and dedicated
teachers already seek.
We all know that we can get better, no matter how good our
lessons already
are. As we have noted many times in our careers, there is no
perfect lesson,
and there is no one “right way” to teach. (Th ere are wrong
ways, but not one
right way.) Th e FIT Teaching model is designed to keep
student learning central
while ensuring that teachers are empowered to make
professional decisions in
the best interests of their students.

PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
Introduction | 5
The Five Interrelated Components of the FIT Teaching Tool
Th e FIT Teaching Growth and Leadership Tool—the FIT
Teaching Tool, for
short—is based on decades of research and practice. It relies on
a thoughtful
and intentional implementation of the work of teachers and of
students, as well
as the collaborative work necessary for deep learning. Th e
instructional process
it captures represents the tangible interactions of teachers and
students in their
learning environment, whether it consists of brick-and-mortar
classrooms, a
blend of virtual and face-to-face instruction, or instruction off
ered completely
online. Irrespective of the instructional mode, teachers should
plan lessons,
create a productive learning climate, provide learning
opportunities, assess
student performance, and monitor student learning. Th ese fi ve
components are
illustrated in Figure I.1.
Th e fi rst component, Planning with Purpose, highlights the
work that
teachers do to prepare lessons as they analyze the standards for
their grade level
or content area, identify learning targets and success criteria,

and sequence
learning. Cultivating a Learning Climate involves creating a
welcoming
classroom that also is effi cient and allows for students’
continuous growth and
Figure I.1 | Components of the FIT Teaching Tool
1. Planning
with Purpose
2. Cultivating
a Learning
Climate
3. Instructing
with Intention
4. Assessing
with a System
5. Impacting
Student Learning
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM

development. Instructing with Intention highlights the
experiences that students
have in the classroom as they learn. Th e fourth component,
Assessing with a
System, targets the formative assessment work that teachers do
as they collect
information about students’ understandings and then take action
to close any
gaps that exist. And fi nally, the fi fth component, Impacting
Student Learning,
focuses on the short- and long-term outcomes from the
instruction—namely,
whether or not students learned anything.
We include evidence of student learning in the FIT Teaching
Tool because
we think that it is important to recognize that teachers’ eff orts
should have an
infl uence on students’ understanding. As we explain further in
Chapter 5, with
our tool, “student performance” is not limited to results on
standardized or
standards-based formal assessments. It includes evidence of
student learning
in the short term—as might be the case when a group of
kindergarten students
have mastered naming all of the letters in the alphabet or
students in a chemistry
class can successfully balance molar equations—and evidence
of student
learning in the long term, which could be measured on formal
assessments,
including state exams or other end-of-course and end-of-
semester measures.
Teachers can assess students’ long-term learning in a number of
ways, so this

aspect needs to be negotiated, at either the state, district, or site
level, depending
on where the FIT Teaching Tool is used. In other words, we
should not be afraid
of considering student performance —the impact or outcomes of
teaching—as
we learn and grow as teachers.
The Structure of the FIT Teaching Tool
Th e full FIT Teaching Tool is presented in this book’s
Appendix and is also
available online at
www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/books/FITTeachingTool.pdf. Each
of the tool’s fi ve components includes a number of factors (see
Figure I.2), and
most of the factors include a number of ingredients. For
components 1–4, we
provide ingredient-level rubrics for teachers and others to use to
identify areas
of success and areas for growth. Component 5’s rubrics focus
on its two factors.
Th e preceding paragraph makes a point so important that we
need to say
it again. Th is tool is for identifying areas of success as well as
areas for growth.
If we, as teachers, don’t highlight our successes, how will our
administrators
and colleagues know we’re capable of providing mentoring
support to our
colleagues? If we don’t seek frequent feedback, how will we
know where to
focus our future learning?

PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/books/FITTeachingTool.pdf
Introduction | 7
Using any tool for infrequent classroom observations and a
once-a-year
summative conference is woefully inadequate and will not likely
provide the
growth opportunities all teachers deserve. Imagine if we all ran
our classrooms
in a similar fashion, with a single hour of testing serving as the
only guide we
had to assess an entire year of learning. Yet, too often, the
results of a single
observation are the only information school leaders rely on to
evaluate teachers,
or worse, student performance on a summative test is the only
thing used to
determine the success of the teacher.
The Purpose of the FIT Teaching Tool
Th e FIT Teaching Tool is designed to foster discussion among
educators
about our practices and to strengthen those practices through
collaborative
interactions. It is meant to be used by teachers for self-
assessment, by teachers’
trusted peers for collegial feedback, and by instructional
coaches and leaders to
develop the skills teachers need both onstage and off stage.
Formative assessment
of teachers has a signifi cant eff ect on student learning at .90.
It’s high on the

list of Hattie’s (2012) meta-analysis of eff ective practices, yet
it is frequently
overlooked in favor of other classroom teaching practices and
behaviors.
We have identifi ed key behaviors and practices that,
collectively, are
manageable without being reductive. After all, no one is going
to use these criteria
routinely if the instrument is too cumbersome. Many of the
criteria require
Figure I.2 | Components and Factors of the FIT Teaching Tool
1.1: Learning Intentions and Progressions
1.2: Evidence of Learning
1.3: Meaningful Learning
2.1: Welcoming
2.2: Growth Producing
2.3: Effi cient
3.1: Focused Instruction
3.2: Guided Instruction
3.3: Collaborative Learning
4.1: Assessment to Support Learners
4.2: Assessment to Monitor Learning
4.3: Assessment to Inform Learning
5.1: Short-Term Evidence of Learning

5.2: Long-Term Evidence of Learning
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
conversation and discussion. You won’t fi nd a checklist, as we
have learned that
checking off boxes limits the focus to obvious items while
overlooking those
that are better determined through discussion, such as what the
teacher noticed
about a specifi c student or how the teacher planned to modify
learning for
another student.
We think that the more often educators use and reference the
tool—during
professional learning, for coaching conversations, and in
professional learning
communities (PLCs)—the more likely it is that teachers will
internalize the items
within the tool and continue to grow and develop as
professional educators. For
example, a group of 4th grade teachers focused on one
ingredient, checking for
understanding. Th ey read various articles and information on
websites to fi nd
ideas, and they planned opportunities to integrate checking for
understanding
in their classrooms. Th ey also observed one another and
provided feedback

about the ways in which checks for understanding were used.
Over time,
their repertoires of strategies and techniques for checking for
understanding
expanded signifi cantly, and their principal noted that they had
developed a level
of expertise in this area.
Assumptions Underlying the FIT Teaching Tool
Th e most important assumption we made in creating the FIT
Teaching Tool
relates to the rating scale. Th e tool has four levels, with a Not
Applicable option
for those rare situations in which an indicator (which we call an
ingredient)
could not possibly be demonstrated by a given teacher. For
example, one
ingredient focuses on the classroom environment. Teachers who
travel from
room to room each period may not have an opportunity to infl
uence the
physical aspects of the various rooms they use throughout the
day. Having
said that, we realize that some traveling teachers have created
amazing spaces
for their students’ learning. For example, a fi tness teacher we
know brings her
own supplies, including mats, battery-operated candles, and
lavender spray, to
create a conducive environment in any room she uses. We
caution users of the
FIT Teaching Tool to reserve Not Applicable for very rare
situations.
Th e four growth levels are as follows:
• Not Yet Apparent—Th is level is indicated only when there is

a
complete lack of evidence that the teacher has considered a
necessary
aspect of instruction and incorporated it into practice. Th is
level should be
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
Introduction | 9
diff erentiated from Not Applicable, which indicates the very
rare situation
when the ingredient is not expected as part of the teacher’s
practice.
• Developing—Most typical with teachers new to the profession
or
new to a grade level, subject area, or curriculum
implementation, this level
is marked by inconsistency of practice. It is selected when it is
clear that a
teacher understands the criteria, but implementation is falling
short of a
desired level of success.
• Teaching—Most typical with teachers experienced in
implementing
criteria with fi delity, this level is selected when it is clear that
the teacher’s
practice is intentional, solidly implemented, and resulting in
success

for students.
• Leading—Most typical with seasoned teachers, this level is
selected
for an individual who has embraced a particular aspect of the
criterion
at its highest level and is providing support, guidance, and
resources for
colleagues. Leading teachers develop learning opportunities for
adults
that respect individual levels of personal practice and focus on
extending
collective growth. Teachers at this level …
The Framework for Intentional and Targeted Teaching®—or
FIT
Teaching®—is a research-based, field-tested, and experience-
honed process that captures the essentials of the best
educational
environments. In contrast to restrictive pedagogical
prescriptions
or formulas, FIT Teaching empowers teachers to adapt the most
effective planning, instructional, and assessment practices to
their particular context in order to move their students’ learning
from where it is now to where it should be. To be a FIT Teacher
is
to make a heroic commitment to learning—not just to the
learning
of every student in the classroom, but to the professional
learning
necessary to grow, inspire, and lead.
What is FIT Teaching?
What is a FIT Teacher?

This book introduces the powerful FIT Teaching Tool, which
harnesses the FIT Teaching approach and presents a
detailed continuum of growth and leadership. It’s a close-up
look at what intentional and targeting teaching is and what
successful teachers do to
• Plan with purpose
• Cultivate a learning climate
• Instruct with intention
• Assess with a system
• Impact student learning
Designed to foster discussion among educators about what
they are doing in the classroom, the FIT Teaching Tool can
be used by teachers for self-assessment; by peers for
collegial feedback in professional learning communities; by
instructional coaches to focus on the skills teachers need
both onstage and off; and by school leaders to highlight their
teachers’ strengths and value. Join authors Douglas Fisher,
Nancy Frey, and Stefani Arzonetti Hite for an examination of
what makes great teachers great, and see how educators
at all grade levels and all levels of experience are taking
intentional steps toward enhanced professional practice.
$29.95
STUDY
GUIDE
ONLINE
Browse excerpts from ASCD books: ww.ascd.org/books
Many ASCD members received this book as
a member benefit upon its initial release.

Learn more at: www.ascd.org/memberbooks
EDUCATION
Alexandria, VA USA
INTENTIONAL AND TARGETED
TEACHING
FISHER | FREY
| HITE
Targeted Teaching
Intentional and
T H E F I T T E A C H I N G A P P R O A C H
IntentionalTargetedTeaching_Covers_Fpp.indd All Pages
4/1/16 9:22 AM
Targeted Teaching
Intentional and
iIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd i 3/31/16 4:24 PM3/31/16
4:24 PM

iiIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd ii 4/11/16 11:07
AM4/11/16 11:07 AM
www.ascd.org/memberbooks
Targeted Teaching
Intentional and
Alexandria, VA USA
iiiIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd iii 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
http://www.ascd.org
1703 N. Beauregard St. • Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 USA
Phone: 800-933-2723 or 703-578-9600 • Fax: 703-575-5400
Website: www.ascd.org • E-mail: [email protected]
Author guidelines: www.ascd.org/write
Deborah S. Delisle, Executive Director; Robert D. Clouse,
Managing Director, Digital Content & Publications; Stefani
Roth,
Publisher; Genny Ostertag, Director, Content Acquisitions;
Julie Houtz, Director, Book Editing & Production; Katie Martin,

Editor; Donald Ely, Senior Graphic Designer; Mike Kalyan,
Manager, Production Services; Cynthia Stock, Typesetter;
Kyle Steichen, Senior Production Specialist
Copyright © 2016 ASCD. All rights reserved. It is illegal to
reproduce copies of this work in print or electronic format
(including reproductions displayed on a secure intranet or
stored in a retrieval system or other electronic storage device
from which copies can be made or displayed) without the prior
written permission of the publisher. By purchasing only
authorized electronic or print editions and not participating in
or encouraging piracy of copyrighted materials, you support
the rights of authors and publishers. Readers who wish to
reproduce or republish excerpts of this work in print or
electronic
format may do so for a small fee by contacting the Copyright
Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA
01923, USA (phone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-646-8600; web:
www.copyright.com). To inquire about site licensing options or
any other reuse, contact ASCD Permissions at
www.ascd.org/permissions, or [email protected], or 703-575-
5749. For
a list of vendors authorized to license ASCD e-books to
institutions, see www.ascd.org/epubs. Send translation inquiries
to
[email protected]
All referenced trademarks are the property of their respective
owners. FRAMEWORK FOR INTENTIONAL AND
TARGETED TEACHING® and FIT TEACHING® are
trademarks of ASCD.
All web links in this book are correct as of the publication date
below but may have become inactive or otherwise modifi ed
since that time. If you notice a deactivated or changed link,
please e-mail [email protected] with the words “Link Update”
in the subject line. In your message, please specify the web

link, the book title, and the page number on which the
link appears.
PAPERBACK ISBN: 978-1-4166-2111-9 ASCD product
#116008
PDF E-BOOK ISBN: 978-1-4166-2113-3; see Books in Print for
other formats.
Quantity discounts: 10–49, 10%; 50+, 15%; 1,000+, special
discounts (e-mail [email protected] or call 800-933-2723,
ext. 5773, or 703-575-5773). For desk copies, go to
www.ascd.org/deskcopy.
ASCD Member Book No. FY16-7 (May 2016, P). ASCD
Member Books mail to Premium (P), Select (S), and
Institutional
Plus (I+) members on this schedule: Jan, PSI+; Feb, P; Apr,
PSI+; May, P; Jul, PSI+; Aug, P; Sep, PSI+; Nov, PSI+; Dec, P.
For current details on membership, see
www.ascd.org/membership.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Fisher, Douglas, 1965-, author. | Frey, Nancy, 1959-
author. | Hite,
Stefani Arzonetti, author.
Title: Intentional and targeted teaching : a framework for
teacher growth and
leadership / Douglas Fisher, Nancy Frey, Stefani Arzonetti
Hite.
Description: Alexandria, VA : ASCD, 2016. | Includes
bibliographical
references and index.
Identifi ers: LCCN 2015049292 (print) | LCCN 2016010993
(ebook) | ISBN
9781416621119 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781416621133 (ebook) | ISBN
9781416621133

(PDF)
Subjects: LCSH: Eff ective teaching. | Classroom environment. |
Educational
leadership.
Classifi cation: LCC LB1025.3 .F575 2016 (print) | LCC
LB1025.3 (ebook) | DDC
371.102--dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015049292
_____________________________________________________
__________________
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
ivIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd iv 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
http://www.ascd.org
http://www.ascd.org
http://www.copyright.com
http://www.ascd.org/permissions
http://www.ascd.org/epubs
http://www.ascd.org/deskcopy
http://www.ascd.org/membership
http://www.ascd.org/write
http://lccn.loc.gov/2015049292
Introduction: Becoming a FIT Teacher
...................................................... 1
.............................................................................15

..............................................................45
.......................................................................81
........................................................................115
.................................................................142
Conclusion: Taking Up the Challenge
....................................................165
Acknowledgments
.......................................................................................166
Appendix: Th e FIT Teaching Growth and Leadership Tool
.............167
References
...............................................................................................
......181
Index
...............................................................................................
................185
About the Authors
......................................................................................190
Targeted Teaching
Intentional and

vIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd v 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
1
Introduction
Becoming a FIT Teacher
Recently we hosted a guest speaker for an evening gathering at
a local hotel. It
was a great event, with stimulating conversations about teaching
and learning
and hors d’oeuvres for the 160 or so people who attended. Th e
speaker had used
Nancy’s computer and cables to share his stories, and one of the
participants
helped pack up at the end of the evening so that we could thank
our guest.
When we got to the car, Nancy realized that she did not have
the connector that
allows her computer to communicate with the projector. We
went back inside
the hotel to retrieve it.
When we entered the room, we saw the catering manager, the
banquet
manager, and a person wearing a chef ’s hat standing at the food
table. One was
literally counting tomatoes that had been left on a tray, while
another counted

fruit sticks. Th ey stopped when they saw us, but Nancy had to
ask what they
were doing.
Th e banquet manager responded fi rst, saying, “We always do a
postmortem
after an event like yours. We have diff erent things we look for
so that we can
make changes for future events. I’m looking at the places trash
was left and the
number of remaining utensils. See right here, there’s a pile of
trash. Th at tells
me that we need to put some sort of receptacle there, because
that’s where
people are going to put their trash. We didn’t make it obvious
enough where
they could dispose of things.”
Th e catering manager added, “We’re also counting leftover
food. We look
for trends and then make decisions about how much of what to
off er groups.
Your group didn’t eat much of the desserts, but they demolished
the hummus
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
and fi nger sandwiches. Th ere are more than 20 tomatoes left.
We used them
for decoration, but obviously there were too many, and we don’t

need to waste
money on extra tomatoes in the future.”
Th e person in the chef ’s hat chimed in, “It’s all part of our
self-evaluation
process. We learn from every group we host, and we make it
better for the next
time. If people leave hungry, they tell other people, who then
don’t want to
have their events here. When our boss comes around, he wants
to see a clean
environment, so this little pile of trash is a problem, and we can
address it the
next time we set up the room this way. And see the utensils? Th
ere aren’t any
forks left, so some people probably had to use a spoon instead.
Th at’s a problem.
Th e silverware plan wasn’t matched very well to the type of
food served. We will
defi nitely fi x that for next time.”
We looked at one another, silently making the same
connections. Although
not having a fork for one’s hors d’oeuvres isn’t too big a
problem in the larger
scheme of things, not reaching students is. Not getting them to
grasp algebra is.
Not engaging them in the subject matter you love is. Not
preparing them to be
critical thinkers and strong citizens is. You get the point.
Th e three people in this hotel spent time collecting and
analyzing data
because they wanted to improve the experience their guests had.
Th e same
should be true for teachers, coaches, and administrators. We

certainly care
as much about our students’ learning as the catering manager,
the banquet
manager, and the chef care about the food they serve and the
environment they
create. But do we routinely invest in the same kind of analysis
of our practices,
situations, and outcomes? Are these based in the same kind of
collaborative
and dialogic problem solving? Th e hotel team’s process wasn’t
about fi lling out
forms; it was about communicating with one another to reach
solutions. But, as
we saw, what made this possible was a conversation and a set of
processes that
helped the hotel staff resolve missteps and identify successes.
In this spirit, we embarked on defi ning the centerpiece of this
book: the
FIT Teaching Growth and Leadership Tool, which harnesses the
FIT Teaching
process and presents a detailed continuum of teacher growth and
leadership.
We off er it to teachers as guidance they can use to self-assess
and chart a path
forward. We also share this with those who support and lead
teachers as a way
to highlight the eff ectiveness of teachers’ work and ground
conversations in
helping teachers achieve even greater success. After all,
teachers are lifelong
learners, dedicated to continually improving their craft.
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM

Introduction | 3
What Is FIT Teaching?
Th e Framework for Intentional and Targeted Teaching®, or FIT
Teaching®, is a
process that evolved over the past 15 years. It began as a way of
identifying the
fundamental components that make up a productive educational
environment
for facilitating literacy development. We wanted to know: What
did the most
eff ective teachers do in order to promote successful learning?
How did they
plan, how did they instruct, how did they assess? What specifi c
practices could
we isolate as making the most diff erence?
Let’s start with the words we selected as the name for this
approach.
Th e fi rst is framework. We do not believe that exceedingly
scripted or highly
prescriptive approaches are the way to go, because they de-skill
the teacher
and assume that a curriculum can teach. Th ey typically leave
little room for
diff erentiation or adjustment to the learning environment as
teachers march
through lessons one after another. We remember meeting a
teacher who got
a red card from her principal for not being on the same page in
the textbook
as the other 4th grade teachers. As she explained it, “We have fi
delity checks

every few days, and if we’re behind, we’re in trouble. But I had
to stop because
the lesson was confusing and my students didn’t get it. Th ere
just isn’t much
wiggle room, and the district requires us to move on, even if
some students
don’t get it.”
Having said that, we’re not advocating for an “anything goes”
approach
to curriculum and instruction. We do believe that teachers
should have
a framework for their lessons. As you will read in the chapters
ahead, we
are interested in instructional approaches that shift the
responsibility for
learning from teachers to students in an ongoing and iterative
cycle. Th e
framework we propose includes clear learning intentions,
teacher modeling,
guided instruction, collaborative learning, and independent
learning tasks.
Importantly, teachers mix and match these components in an
instructional
sequence designed to impact learning. Th ey may model several
times in a given
lesson, or they may start a lesson with collaborative learning
and then move on
to modeling. Th e order doesn’t matter, but the components of
the framework
do. We see a diff erence between teachers internalizing a
framework for their
lessons and them being told what to teach every minute of the
day.
Intentional is the second word in this model, and we selected it

because
teachers’ actions matter. Th e planning teachers do as well as
the instructional
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
decisions they make should be purposeful. High-quality
instruction starts with
knowing what students need to learn, then moves on to creating
a wide range of
learning situations in which students can engage. Intentional
says that teachers
are deliberate and that learning is expected.
Targeted, the third word, is there to stress that teachers must
consider the
current performance of students as well as how these students
respond to the
instruction. Th ere is no reason to teach things students already
know. At the same
time, it’s important to monitor students’ learning to determine if
the class needs
to accelerate or slow down. When teaching is targeted, that
means teachers are
working to close the gap between what students already know
and what they are
expected to learn.
Two of us (Doug and Nancy) are teachers and leaders,
researchers and

practitioners, and we subjected the components of FIT Teachi ng
to the best test
we know: teaching them in our own classrooms and
collaborating with talented
colleagues in their classrooms. Th e framework developed
further through trial
and revision. As we learned more about what worked and what
didn’t, we
honed and improved the components until they defi ned a
coherent process
that includes the essentials of eff ective teaching while avoiding
a restrictive
prescription or formula. After all, a healthy organization must
be free to adapt
processes to meet the needs of its particular context.
As FIT Teaching evolved, it became clear that these components
can
have great value to both individual teachers and teams of
teachers, particularly
in organizations that are inundated with multiple (and often
competing)
initiatives. Th e overarching philosophy of FIT Teaching is that
it is not “one
more thing” for teachers and leaders to do but a method for
creating coherence
and improvements to the complex jobs that schools undertake.
Together,
purposeful planning, a well-designed assessment system, and
strong instruction
make a diff erence.
Overall, FIT Teaching is a process that organizes and refi nes
the hard work
of professional growth that school leaders and dedicated
teachers already seek.

We all know that we can get better, no matter how good our
lessons already
are. As we have noted many times in our careers, there is no
perfect lesson,
and there is no one “right way” to teach. (Th ere are wrong
ways, but not one
right way.) Th e FIT Teaching model is designed to keep
student learning central
while ensuring that teachers are empowered to make
professional decisions in
the best interests of their students.
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
Introduction | 5
The Five Interrelated Components of the FIT Teaching Tool
Th e FIT Teaching Growth and Leadership Tool—the FIT
Teaching Tool, for
short—is based on decades of research and practice. It relies on
a thoughtful
and intentional implementation of the work of teachers and of
students, as well
as the collaborative work necessary for deep learning. Th e
instructional process
it captures represents the tangible interactions of teachers and
students in their
learning environment, whether it consists of brick-and-mortar
classrooms, a
blend of virtual and face-to-face instruction, or instruction off
ered completely
online. Irrespective of the instructional mode, teachers should

plan lessons,
create a productive learning climate, provide learning
opportunities, assess
student performance, and monitor student learning. Th ese fi ve
components are
illustrated in Figure I.1.
Th e fi rst component, Planning with Purpose, highlights the
work that
teachers do to prepare lessons as they analyze the standards for
their grade level
or content area, identify learning targets and success criteria,
and sequence
learning. Cultivating a Learning Climate involves creating a
welcoming
classroom that also is effi cient and allows for students’
continuous growth and
Figure I.1 | Components of the FIT Teaching Tool
1. Planning
with Purpose
2. Cultivating
a Learning
Climate
3. Instructing
with Intention
4. Assessing
with a System

5. Impacting
Student Learning
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
development. Instructing with Intention highlights the
experiences that students
have in the classroom as they learn. Th e fourth component,
Assessing with a
System, targets the formative assessment work that teachers do
as they collect
information about students’ understandings and then take action
to close any
gaps that exist. And fi nally, the fi fth component, Impacting
Student Learning,
focuses on the short- and long-term outcomes from the
instruction—namely,
whether or not students learned anything.
We include evidence of student learning in the FIT Teaching
Tool because
we think that it is important to recognize that teachers’ eff orts
should have an
infl uence on students’ understanding. As we explain further in
Chapter 5, with
our tool, “student performance” is not limited to results on
standardized or
standards-based formal assessments. It includes evidence of
student learning

in the short term—as might be the case when a group of
kindergarten students
have mastered naming all of the letters in the alphabet or
students in a chemistry
class can successfully balance molar equations—and evidence
of student
learning in the long term, which could be measured on formal
assessments,
including state exams or other end-of-course and end-of-
semester measures.
Teachers can assess students’ long-term learning in a number of
ways, so this
aspect needs to be negotiated, at either the state, district, or site
level, depending
on where the FIT Teaching Tool is used. In other words, we
should not be afraid
of considering student performance —the impact or outcomes of
teaching—as
we learn and grow as teachers.
The Structure of the FIT Teaching Tool
Th e full FIT Teaching Tool is presented in this book’s
Appendix and is also
available online at
www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/books/FITTeachingTool.pdf. Each
of the tool’s fi ve components includes a number of factors (see
Figure I.2), and
most of the factors include a number of ingredients. For
components 1–4, we
provide ingredient-level rubrics for teachers and others to use to
identify areas
of success and areas for growth. Component 5’s rubrics focus
on its two factors.
Th e preceding paragraph makes a point so important that we
need to say

it again. Th is tool is for identifying areas of success as well as
areas for growth.
If we, as teachers, don’t highlight our successes, how will our
administrators
and colleagues know we’re capable of providing mentoring
support to our
colleagues? If we don’t seek frequent feedback, how will we
know where to
focus our future learning?
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/books/FITTeachingTool.pdf
Introduction | 7
Using any tool for infrequent classroom observations and a
once-a-year
summative conference is woefully inadequate and will not likely
provide the
growth opportunities all teachers deserve. Imagine if we all ran
our classrooms
in a similar fashion, with a single hour of testing serving as the
only guide we
had to assess an entire year of learning. Yet, too often, the
results of a single
observation are the only information school leaders rely on to
evaluate teachers,
or worse, student performance on a summative test is the only
thing used to
determine the success of the teacher.
The Purpose of the FIT Teaching Tool

Th e FIT Teaching Tool is designed to foster discussion among
educators
about our practices and to strengthen those practices through
collaborative
interactions. It is meant to be used by teachers for self-
assessment, by teachers’
trusted peers for collegial feedback, and by instructional
coaches and leaders to
develop the skills teachers need both onstage and off stage.
Formative assessment
of teachers has a signifi cant eff ect on student learning at .90.
It’s high on the
list of Hattie’s (2012) meta-analysis of eff ective practices, yet
it is frequently
overlooked in favor of other classroom teaching practices and
behaviors.
We have identifi ed key behaviors and practices that,
collectively, are
manageable without being reductive. After all, no one is going
to use these criteria
routinely if the instrument is too cumbersome. Many of the
criteria require
Figure I.2 | Components and Factors of the FIT Teaching Tool
1.1: Learning Intentions and Progressions
1.2: Evidence of Learning
1.3: Meaningful Learning
2.1: Welcoming
2.2: Growth Producing
2.3: Effi cient

3.1: Focused Instruction
3.2: Guided Instruction
3.3: Collaborative Learning
4.1: Assessment to Support Learners
4.2: Assessment to Monitor Learning
4.3: Assessment to Inform Learning
5.1: Short-Term Evidence of Learning
5.2: Long-Term Evidence of Learning
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
conversation and discussion. You won’t fi nd a checklist, as we
have learned that
checking off boxes limits the focus to obvious items while
overlooking those
that are better determined through discussion, such as what the
teacher noticed
about a specifi c student or how the teacher planned to modify
learning for
another student.
We think that the more often educators use and reference the
tool—during
professional learning, for coaching conversations, and in
professional learning

communities (PLCs)—the more likely it is that teachers will
internalize the items
within the tool and continue to grow and develop as
professional educators. For
example, a group of 4th grade teachers focused on one
ingredient, checking for
understanding. Th ey read various articles and information on
websites to fi nd
ideas, and they planned opportunities to integrate checking for
understanding
in their classrooms. Th ey also observed one another and
provided feedback
about the ways in which checks for understanding were used.
Over time,
their repertoires of strategies and techniques for checking for
understanding
expanded signifi cantly, and their principal noted that they had
developed a level
of expertise in this area.
Assumptions Underlying the FIT Teaching Tool
Th e most important assumption we made in creating the FIT
Teaching Tool
relates to the rating scale. Th e tool has four levels, with a Not
Applicable option
for those rare situations in which an indicator (which we call an
ingredient)
could not possibly be demonstrated by a given teacher. For
example, one
ingredient focuses on the classroom environment. Teachers who
travel from
room to room each period may not have an opportunity to infl
uence the
physical aspects of the various rooms they use throughout the
day. Having
said that, we realize that some traveling teachers have created

amazing spaces
for their students’ learning. For example, a fi tness teacher we
know brings her
own supplies, including mats, battery-operated candles, and
lavender spray, to
create a conducive environment in any room she uses. We
caution users of the
FIT Teaching Tool to reserve Not Applicable for very rare
situations.
Th e four growth levels are as follows:
• Not Yet Apparent—Th is level is indicated only when there is
a
complete lack of evidence that the teacher has considered a
necessary
aspect of instruction and incorporated it into practice. Th is
level should be
IntentionalTargetedTeachi ng.indd
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
Introduction | 9
diff erentiated from Not Applicable, which indicates the very
rare situation
when the ingredient is not expected as part of the teacher’s
practice.
• Developing—Most typical with teachers new to the profession
or
new to a grade level, subject area, or curriculum
implementation, this level

is marked by inconsistency of practice. It is selected when it is
clear that a
teacher understands the criteria, but implementation is falling
short of a
desired level of success.
• Teaching—Most typical with teachers experienced in
implementing
criteria with fi delity, this level is selected when it is clear that
the teacher’s
practice is intentional, solidly implemented, and resulting in
success
for students.
• Leading—Most typical with seasoned teachers, this level is
selected
for an individual who has embraced a particular aspect of the
criterion
at its highest level and is providing support, guidance, and
resources for
colleagues. Leading teachers develop learning opportunities for
adults
that respect individual levels of personal practice and focus on
extending
collective growth. Teachers at this level …
12 AmERIcAN EdUcATOR | SPRING 2012
Principles of Instruction
Research-Based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know
By Barak Rosenshine
T

his article presents 10 research-based principles of
instruction, along with suggestions for classroom prac-
tice. These principles come from three sources: (a)
research in cognitive science, (b) research on master
teachers, and (c) research on cognitive supports. Each is briefly
explained below.
A: Research in cognitive science: This research focuses on how
our brains acquire and use information. This cognitive research
also provides suggestions on how we might overcome the
limita-
tions of our working memory (i.e., the mental “space” in which
thinking occurs) when learning new material.
B: Research on the classroom practices of master teacher s: Mas-
ter teachers are those teachers whose classrooms made the high-
est gains on achievement tests. In a series of studies, a wide
range
of teachers were observed as they taught, and the investigators
coded how they presented new material, how and whether they
checked for student understanding, the types of support they
provided to their students, and a number of other instructional
activities. By also gathering student achievement data, research-
ers were able to identify the ways in which the more and less
effec-
tive teachers differed.
C: Research on cognitive supports to help students learn
complex
tasks: Effective instructional procedures—such as thinking
aloud,
providing students with scaffolds, and providing students with
models—come from this research.
Even though these are three very different bodies of research,

there is no conflict at all between the instructional suggestions
that come from each of these three sources. In other words,
these
three sources supplement and complement each other. The fact
that the instructional ideas from three different sources supple -
ment and complement each other gives us faith in the validity of
these findings.
Education involves helping a novice develop strong, readily
accessible background knowledge. It’s important that
background
knowledge be readily accessible, and this occurs when
knowledge
is well rehearsed and tied to other knowledge. The most
effective
teachers ensured that their students efficiently acquired,
rehearsed, and connected background knowledge by providing
a good deal of instructional support. They provided this support
by teaching new material in manageable amounts, modeling,
guiding student practice, helping students when they made
errors,
and providing for sufficient practice and review. Many of these
teachers also went on to experiential, hands-on activities, but
they
always did the experiential activities after, not before, the basic
material was learned.
The following is a list of some of the instructional principles
that have come from these three sources. These ideas will be
described and discussed in this article:
• Begin a lesson with a short review of previous learning.1
• Present new material in small steps with student practice
after
each step.2

• Ask a large number of questions and check the responses
of all
students.3
• Provide models.4
• Guide student practice.5
• Check for student understanding.6
• Obtain a high success rate.7
• Provide scaffolds for difficult tasks.8
• Require and monitor independent practice.9
• Engage students in weekly and monthly review.10
Barak Rosenshine is an emeritus professor of educational
psychology in the
College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
A distinguished researcher, he has spent much of the past four
decades
identifying the hallmarks of effective teaching. He began his
career as a
high school history teacher in the Chicago public schools. This
article is
adapted with permission from Principles of Instruction by Barak
Rosen-
shine. Published by the International Academy of Education in
2010, the
original report is available at
www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/
Publications/Educational_Practices/EdPractices_21.pdf.ILL

U
ST
R
A
T
IO
N
S
B
Y
J
A
m
E
S
Y
A
N
G
www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Educat
ional_Practices/EdPractices_21.pdf
AmERIcAN EdUcATOR | SPRING 2012 13
1. Begin a lesson with a short review of previous

learning: Daily review can strengthen previous
learning and can lead to fluent recall.
Research findings
Daily review is an important component of instruction. Review
can help us strengthen the connections among the material we
have learned. The review of previous learning can help us recall
words, concepts, and procedures effortlessly and automatically
when we need this material to solve problems or to understand
new material. The development of expertise requires thousands
of hours of practice, and daily review is one component of this
practice.
For example, daily review was part of a successful experiment
in elementary school mathematics. Teachers in the experiment
were taught to spend eight minutes every day on review.
Teachers
used this time to check the homework, go over problems where
there were errors, and practice the concepts and skills that
needed
to become automatic. As a result, students in these classrooms
had higher achievement scores than did students in other
classrooms.
Daily practice of vocabulary can lead to seeing each practiced
word as a unit (i.e., seeing the whole word automatically rather
than as individual letters that have to be sounded out and
blended). When students see words as units, they have more
space available in their working memory, and this space can
now
be used for comprehension. Mathematical problem solving is
also
improved when the basic skills (addition, multiplication, etc.)
are
overlearned and become automatic, thus freeing working-mem-
ory capacity.

In the classroom
The most effective teachers in the studies of classroom
instruction
understood the importance of practice, and they began their les -
sons with a five- to eight-minute review of previously covered
material. Some teachers reviewed vocabulary, formulae, events,
or previously learned concepts. These teachers provided addi-
tional practice on facts and skills that were needed for recall to
become automatic.
Effective teacher activities also included reviewing the con-
cepts and skills that were necessary to do the homework, having
students correct each others’ papers, and asking about points on
which the students had difficulty or made errors. These reviews
ensured that the students had a firm grasp of the skills and con-
cepts that would be needed for the day’s lesson.
Effective teachers also reviewed the knowledge and concepts
that were relevant for that day’s lesson. It is important for a
teacher
to help students recall the concepts and vocabulary that will be
relevant for the day’s lesson because our working memory is
very
limited. If we do not review previous learning, then we will
have
to make a special effort to recall old material while learning
new
material, and this makes it difficult for us to learn the new
material.
Daily review is particularly important for teaching material that
will be used in subsequent learning. Examples include reading
sight words (i.e., any word that is known by a reader automati -
cally), grammar, math facts, math computation, math factoring,

and chemical equations.
When planning for review, teachers might want to consider
which words, math facts, procedures, and concepts need to
become automatic, and which words, vocabulary, or ideas need
to be reviewed before the lesson begins.
In addition, teachers might consider doing the following dur-
ing their daily review:
• Correct homework.
• Review the concepts and skills that were practiced as part
of
the homework.
• Ask students about points where they had difficulties or
made
errors.
• Review material where errors were made.
• Review material that needs overlearning (i.e., newly
acquired
skills should be practiced well beyond the point of initial mas -
tery, leading to automaticity).
2. Present new material in small steps with student
practice after each step: Only present small amounts
of new material at any time, and then assist students
as they practice this material.
Research findings
Our working memory, the place where we process information,
is small. It can only handle a few bits of information at once—
too

much information swamps our working memory. Presenting too
much material at once may confuse students because their work-
ing memory will be unable to process it.
Therefore, the more effective teachers do not overwhelm their
students by presenting too much new material at once. Rather,
The most effective teachers ensured
that students efficiently acquired,
rehearsed, and connected knowledge.
many went on to hands-on activities,
but always after, not before, the basic
material was learned.
these teachers only present small amounts of new material at
any
time, and then assist the students as they practice this material.
Only after the students have mastered the first step do teachers
proceed to the next step.
The procedure of first teaching in small steps and then guiding
student practice represents an appropriate way of dealing with
the limitation of our working memory.
In the classroom
The more successful teachers did not overwhelm their students
by presenting too much new material at once. Rather, they pre-
sented only small amounts of new material at one time, and they
taught in such a way that each point was mastered before the
next
point was introduced. They checked their students’ understa nd-

ing on each point and retaught material when necessary.
Some successful teachers taught by giving a series of short
presentations using many examples. The examples provided
concrete learning and elaboration that were useful for
processing
new material.
Teaching in small steps requires time, and the more effective
teachers spent more time presenting new material and guiding
student practice than did the less effective teachers. In a study
of
mathematics instruction, for instance, the most effective math-
ematics teachers spent about 23 minutes of a 40-minute period
in lecture, demonstration, questioning, and working examples.
In contrast, the least effective teachers spent only 11 minutes
presenting new material. The more effective teachers used this
extra time to provide additional explanations, give many exam-
ples, check for student understanding, and provide sufficient
instruction so that the students could learn to work
independently
without difficulty. In one study, the least effective teachers
asked
only nine questions in a 40-minute period. Compared with the
successful teachers, the less effective teachers gave much
shorter
presentations and explanations, and then passed out worksheets
and told students to solve the problems. The less successful
teach-
ers were then observed going from student to student and having
to explain the material again.
Similarly, when students were taught a strategy for summariz-
ing a paragraph, an effective teacher taught the strategy using
small steps. First, the teacher modeled and thought aloud as she
identified the topic of a paragraph. Then, she led practice on

iden-
tifying the topics of new paragraphs. Then, she taught students
to
identify the main idea of a paragraph. The teacher modeled thi s
step and then supervised the students as they practiced both
find-
ing the topic and locating the main idea. Following this, the
teacher taught the students to identify the supporting details in a
paragraph. The teacher modeled and thought aloud, and then the
students practiced. Finally, the students practiced carrying out
all
three steps of this strategy. Thus, the strategy of summarizing a
paragraph was divided into smaller steps, and there was
modeling
and practice at each step.
3. Ask a large number of questions and check the
responses of all students: Questions help students
practice new information and connect new material
to their prior learning.
Research findings
Students need to practice new material. The teacher’s questions
and student discussion are a major way of providing this neces-
sary practice. The most successful teachers in these studies
spent
more than half of the class time lecturing, demonstrating, and
asking questions.
Questions allow a teacher to determine how well the material
has been learned and whether there is a need for additional
instruction. The most effective teachers also ask students to
explain the process they used to answer the question, to explain
how the answer was found. Less successful teachers ask fewer
questions and almost no process questions.

In the classroom
In one classroom-based experimental study, one group of teach-
ers was taught to follow the presentation of new material with
lots
of questions.11 They were taught to increase the number of
factual
questions and process questions they asked during this guided
practice. Test results showed that their students achieved higher
scores than did students whose teachers did not receive the
training.
Imaginative teachers have found ways to involve all students
in answering questions. Examples include having all students:
• Tell the answer to a neighbor.
• Summarize the main idea in one or two sentences, writing
the
summary on a piece of paper and sharing this with a neighbor,
or repeating the procedures to a neighbor.
• Write the answer on a card and then hold it up.
• Raise their hands if they know the answer (thereby
allowing
the teacher to check the entire class).
• Raise their hands if they agree with the answer that
someone
else has given.
Across the classrooms that researchers observed, the purpose
of all these procedures was to provide active participation for
the
students and also to allow the teacher to see how many students

were correct and confident. The teacher may then reteach some
material when it was considered necessary. An alternative was
for
students to write their answers and then trade papers with each
other.
Other teachers used choral responses to provide sufficient
practice when teaching new vocabulary or lists of items. This
made the practice seem more like a game. To be effective, how -
ever, all students needed to start together, on a signal. When
students did not start together, only the faster students
answered.
In addition to asking questions, the more effective teachers
facilitated their students’ rehearsal by providing explanations,
giving more examples, and supervising students as they
practiced
the new material.
The following is a series of stems12 for questions that teachers
might ask when teaching literature, social science content, or
sci-
ence content to their students. Sometimes, students may also
develop questions from these stems to ask questions of each
other.
How are __________ and __________ alike?
What is the main idea of __________?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of __________?
In what way is __________ related to __________?
Compare __________ and __________ with regard to

__________.
What do you think causes __________?
How does __________ tie in with what we have learned before?
Which one is the best __________, and why?
What are some possible solutions for the problem of
__________?
Do you agree or disagree with this statement: __________?
What do you still not understand about __________?
4. Provide models: Providing students with
models and worked examples can help them
learn to solve problems faster.
Research findings
Students need cognitive support to help them learn to solve
prob-
lems. The teacher modeling and thinking aloud while
demonstrat-
ing how to solve a problem are examples of effective cognitive
support. Worked examples (such as a math problem for which
the
teacher not only has provided the solution but has clearly laid
out
each step) are another form of modeling that has been developed
by researchers. Worked examples allow students to focus on the
specific steps to solve problems and thus reduce the cognitive
load on their working memory. Modeling and worked examples
have been used successfully in mathematics, science, writing,
and
reading comprehension.
In the classroom
Many of the skills that are taught in classrooms can be
conveyed
by providing prompts, modeling use of the prompt, and then
guid-

ing students as they develop independence. When teaching read-
ing comprehension strategies, for example, effective teachers
provided students with prompts that the students could use to
ask
themselves questions about a short passage. In one class,
students
were given words such as “who,” “where,” “why,” and “how” to
help them begin a question. Then, everyone read a passage and
the teacher modeled how to use these words to ask questions.
Many examples were given.
Next, during guided practice, the teacher helped the students
practice asking questions by helping them select a prompt and
develop a question that began with that prompt. The students
practiced this step many times with lots of support from the
teacher.
Then, the students read new passages and practiced asking
questions on their own, with support from the teacher when
needed. Finally, students were given short passages followed by
questions, and the teacher expressed an opinion about the
quality
of the students’ questions.
This same procedure—providing a prompt, modeling, guiding
practice, and supervising independent practice—can be used for
many tasks. When teaching students to write an essay, for exam-
ple, an effective teacher first modeled how to write each para-
graph, then the students and teacher worked together on two or
more new essays, and finally students worked on their own with
supervision from the teacher.
Worked examples are another form of modeling that has been
used to help students learn how to solve problems in

mathematics
and science. A worked example is a step-by-step demonstration
of how to perform a task or how to solve a problem. The
presenta-
tion of worked examples begins with the teacher modeling and
explaining the steps that can be taken to solve a specific
problem.
The teacher also identifies and explains the underlying
principles
for these steps.
Usually, students are then given a series of problems to com-
plete at their desks as independent practice. But, in research
car-
ried out in Australia, students were given a mixture of problems
to solve and worked examples. So, during independent practice,
students first studied a worked example, then they solved a
prob-
lem ; then they studied another worked example and solved
another problem. In this way, the worked examples showed stu-
dents how to focus on the essential parts of the problems. Of
course, not all students studied the worked examples. To correct
many of the skills taught in classrooms
can be conveyed by providing prompts,
modeling use of the prompt, and then
guiding students as they develop
independence.
this problem, the Australian researchers also presented partially
completed problems in which students had to complete the miss-
ing steps and thus pay more attention to the worked example.

5. Guide student practice: Successful teachers
spend more time guiding students’ practice
of new material.
Research findings
It is not enough simply to present students with new material,
because the material will be forgotten unless there is sufficient
rehearsal. An important finding from information-processing
research is that students need to spend additional time rephras -
ing, elaborating, and summarizing new material in order to store
this material in their long-term memory. When there has been
sufficient rehearsal, the students are able to retrieve this
material
easily and thus are able to make use of this material to foster
new
learning and aid in problem solving. But when the rehearsal
time
is too short, students are less able to store, remember, or use the
material. As we know, it is relatively easy to place something in
a
filing cabinet, but it can be very difficult to recall where exactly
we
filed it. Rehearsal helps us remember where we filed it so we
can
access it with ease when needed.
A teacher can facilitate this rehearsal process by asking ques -
tions; good questions require students to process and rehearse
the
material. Rehearsal is also enhanced when students are asked to
summarize the main points, and when they are supervised as
they
practice new steps in a skill. The quality of storage in long-term
memory will be weak if students only skim the material and do

not
engage in it. It is also important that all students process the
new
material and receive feedback, so they do not inadvertently
store
partial information or a misconception in long-term memory.
In the classroom
In one study, the more successful teachers of mathematics spent
more time presenting new material and guiding practice. The
more successful teachers used this extra time to provide addi -
tional explanations, give many examples, check for student
under-
standing, and provide sufficient instruction so that the students
could learn to work independently without difficulty. In
contrast,
the less successful teachers gave much shorter presentations and
explanations, and then they passed out worksheets and told stu-
dents to work on the problems. Under these conditions, the stu-
dents made too many errors and had to be retaught the lesson.
The most successful teachers presented only small amounts of
material at a time. After this short presentation, these teachers
then guided student practice. This guidance often consisted of
the
teacher working the first problems at the blackboard and
explain-
ing the reason for each step, which served as a model for the
students. The guidance also included asking students to come to
the blackboard to work out problems and discuss their proce-
dures. Through this process, the students seated in the
classroom
saw additional models.
Although most teachers provided some guided practice, the

most successful teachers spent more time in guided practice,
more time asking questions, more time checking for understand-
ing, more time correcting errors, and more time having students
work out problems with teacher guidance.
Teachers who spent more time in guided practice and had
higher success rates also had students who were more engaged
during individual work at their desks. This finding suggests
that,
when teachers provided sufficient instruction during guided
practice, the students were better prepared for the independent
practice (e.g., seatwork and homework activities), but when the
guided practice was too short, the students were not prepared
for
the seatwork and made more errors during independent
practice.
6. Check for student understanding: Checking
for student understanding at each point can help
students learn the material with fewer errors.
Research findings
The more effective teachers frequently checked to see if all the
students were learning the new material. These checks provided
some of the processing needed to move new learning into long-
term memory. These checks also let teachers know if students
were developing misconceptions.
In the classroom
Effective teachers also stopped to check for student understand-
ing. They checked for understanding by asking questions, by
ask-
ing students to summarize the presentation up to that point or to
repeat directions or procedures, or by asking students whether
they agreed or disagreed with other students’ answers. This
check-

ing has two purposes: (a) answering the questions might cause
the students to elaborate on the material they have learned and
augment connections to other learning in their long-term mem-
ory, and (b) alerting the teacher to when parts of the material
need
to be retaught.
In contrast, the less effective teachers simply asked, “Are there
any questions?” and, if there were no questions, they assumed
the
students had learned the material and proceeded to pass out
worksheets for students to complete on their own.
Another way to check for understanding is to ask students to
think aloud as they work to solve mathematical problems, plan
an essay, or identify the main idea in a paragraph. Yet another
check is to ask students to explain or defend their position to
oth-
ers. Having to explain a position may help students integrate
and
elaborate their knowledge in new ways, or may help identify
gaps
in their understanding.
Another reason for the importance of teaching in small steps,
guiding practice, and checking for understanding (as well as
obtaining a high success rate, which we’ll explore in principle
7)
comes from the fact that we all construct and reconstruct knowl -
edge as we learn and use what we have learned. We cannot
simply
repeat what we hear word for word. Rather, we connect our

under-
standing of the new information to our existing concepts or
“schema,” and we then construct a mental summary (i.e., the
gist
of what we have heard). However, when left on their own, many
students make errors in the process of constructing this mental
summary. These errors occur, particularly, when the informati on
is new and the student does not have adequate or well -formed
background knowledge. These constructions are not errors so
much as attempts by the students to be logical in an area where
their background knowledge is weak. These errors are so
common
that there is a research literature on the development and
correc-
tion of student misconceptions in science. Providing guided
practice after teaching small amounts of new material, and
check-
ing for student understanding, can help limit the development of
misconceptions.
7. Obtain a high success rate: It is important
for students to achieve a high success rate
during classroom instruction.
Research findings
In two of the major studies on the impact of teachers, the
investi-
gators found that students in classrooms with more effective
teachers had a higher success rate, as judged by the quality of
their
oral responses during guided practice and their individual work.
In a study of fourth-grade mathematics, it was found that 82
per-
cent of students’ answers were correct in the classrooms of the
most successful teachers, but the least successful teachers had a

success rate of only 73 percent. A high success rate during
guided
practice also leads to a higher success rate when students are
working on problems on their own.
The research also suggests that the optimal success rate for
fostering student achievement appears to be about 80 percent. A
success rate of 80 percent shows that students are learning the
material, and it also shows that the students are challenged.
In the classroom
The most effective teachers obtained this success level by
teaching
in small steps (i.e., by combining short presentations with
super-
vised student practice), and by giving sufficient practice on
each
part before proceeding to the next step. These teachers
frequently
checked for understanding and required responses from all
students.
It is important that students achieve a high success rate during
instruction and on their practice activities. Practice, we are told,
makes perfect, but practice can be a disaster if students are
prac-
ticing errors! If the practice does not have a high success level,
there is a chance that students are practicing and learning
errors.
Once errors have been learned, they are ver y difficult to
overcome.
As discussed in the previous section, when we learn new mate-
rial, we construct a gist of this material in our long-term
memory.

However, many students make errors in the process of
construct-
ing this mental summary. These errors can occur when the
infor-
mation is new and the student did not have adequate or
well-formed background knowledge. These constructions are not
errors so much as attempts by the students to be logical in an
area
where their background knowledge is weak. But students are
more
likely to develop misconceptions if too much material is
presented
at once, and if teachers do not check for student understanding.
Providing guided practice after teaching small amounts of new
material, and checking for student understanding, can help limit
the development of misconceptions.
I once observed a class where an effective teacher was going
from desk to desk during independent practice and suddenly
realized that the students were having difficulty. She stopped
the
work, told the students not to do the problems for homework,
and
said she would reteach this material the next day. She stopped
the
work because she did not want the students to practice errors.
Unless all students have mastered the first set of lessons, there
is a danger that the slower students will fall further behind
when
the next set of lessons is taught. So there is a need for a high
suc-
cess rate for all students. “Mastery learning” is a form of
instruc-
tion where lessons are organized into short units and all

students
are required to master one set of lessons before they proceed to
the next set. In …
Meta-Analytic Synthesis of Studies Conducted at
Marzano Research Laboratory on Instructional Strategies
By
Mark W. Haystead
&
Dr. Robert J. Marzano
Marzano Research Laboratory
Englewood, CO
August, 2009

i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
...............................................................................................
.............................. i
Executive Summary
...............................................................................................
......................... ii
Introduction
...............................................................................................
...................................... 1
Action Research Projects
...............................................................................................
................. 1
The Use of Meta-Analysis
...............................................................................................
............... 2
The Sample
...............................................................................................
...................................... 3
Data Analysis and Findings
...............................................................................................
............. 3

Question 1: What effect does the utilization of instructional
strategies have on students’
achievement regarding the subject matter content taught by their
teachers? .............................. 4
Question 2: Does the effect of instructional strategies differ
between school levels? ................ 7
Question 3: Does the effect of instructional strategies differ
from strategy to strategy? ........... 8
Interpretation
...............................................................................................
.................................. 12
Summary
...............................................................................................
........................................ 14
Technical Notes
...............................................................................................
............................. 15
Appendix A: Instructions for Action Research
............................................................................. 19
Appendix B: Independent studies
...............................................................................................
.. 25
References
...............................................................................................
...................................... 38

ii
Executive Summary
This report synthesizes a series of quasi-experimental studies
conducted as action research
projects regarding the extent to which the utilization of selected
instructional strategies enhances
the learning of students. Over 300 volunteer teachers conducted
independent studies at 38
schools in 14 school districts between fall 2004 and spring
2009. The data used for analysis can
be found in Marzano Research Laboratory’s Meta-Analysis
Database (see
marzanoresearch.com).
The independent studies involved 7,872 students in the
experimental groups and 6,415 students
in the control groups. Participating teachers selected two groups
of students both of which were
being taught the same unit or set of related lessons. However, in
one group (the “experimental”
group) a specific instructional strategy was used (e.g., graphic
organizers), whereas in the other
group (the “control” group) the instructional strategy was not
used. Because students could not
be randomly assigned to experimental and control groups, all
studies employed a quasi-
experimental design, referred to as a pretest-posttest non-
equivalent groups design. The pretest

scores were used as a covariate to partially control for differing
levels of background knowledge
and skill.
The following questions were considered through a meta-
analysis of the 329 independent
studies:
1. What effect does the utilization of instructional strategies
have on students’ achievement
regarding the subject matter content taught by their teachers?
2. Does the effect of instructional strategies differ between
school levels?
3. Does the effect of instructional strategies differ from strategy
to strategy?
The average effect size for all 329 independent studies was
statistically significant (p < .0001).
When corrected for attenuation, the percentile gain associated
with the use of the instructional
strategies is 16 ( ). This means that on the average, the
strategies used in the
independent studies represent a gain of 16 percentile points over
what would be expected if
teachers did not use the instructional strategies.
1
Introduction

This report synthesizes a series of quasi-experimental studies
conducted as action research
projects regarding the extent to which the utilization of selected
instructional strategies enhances
the learning of students. Over 300 volunteer teachers conducted
independent studies at 38
schools in 14 school districts between fall 2004 and spring
2009. The data used for analysis can
be found in Marzano Research Laboratory’s Meta-Analysis
Database (see
marzanoresearch.com).
Action Research Projects
Participating teachers selected two groups of students both of
which were being taught the same
unit or set of related lessons. However, in one group (the
“experimental” group) a specific
instructional strategy was used (e.g., advance organizers),
whereas in the other group (the
“control” group) the instructional strategy was not used.
Because students could not be randomly
assigned to experimental and control groups, all studies
employed a quasi-experimental design,
referred to as a pretest-posttest non-equivalent groups design.
These groups are considered to be
non-equivalent, because it is unlikely that two intact groups
would be as similar as would be the
case if randomly assigned.
A pretest and posttest was administered to students in both
groups. The pretest scores were used
to statistically “adjust” the posttest scores using a technique

referred to as analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA). In basic terms, the adjustment translates the
posttest scores into those that would be
expected if students in both groups started with the same scores
on the pretest. In effect, it is a
way of controlling for students’ differences in what they know
about a topic prior to the
beginning of instruction on the topic. ANCOVA is commonly
used when random assignment is
not possible (see Technical Note 1). Although ANCOVA was
used to statistically equate
students in terms of prior academic knowledge, arguments about
causal relationships are not as
strong as they would be when group members are assigned
through a random lottery.
Again, teachers were instructed to teach a short unit on a topic
of their choice to two groups of
students—one experimental and one control. Instructional
activities in both groups were to be as
similar as possible except for the fact that the instructional
strategy was used in one group only
(i.e., the experimental group). Directions provided to teachers
are reported in Appendix A.
2
The Use of Meta-Analysis

Meta-analytic techniques (see Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Lipsey &
Wilson, 2001; Cooper, 2009)
were used to aggregate the findings from the independent
studies using the statistical software
package Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA, Version 2). In
general, meta-analytic techniques
are used when the results of independent studies on a common
topic are combined. For example,
assume 25 studies were conducted in various sites on the effects
of a specific instructional
technique on student achievement. The studies were different in
terms of the subject areas that
were addressed. Consequently, different assessments of student
achievement were used to reflect
the different subject areas. This is the classic scenario requiring
the use of meta-analytic
techniques—independent studies on a common topic (i.e., a
common instructional technique) but
with different dependent measures.
To combine studies that used different dependent measures, the
results of each study are
translated into an effect size. While there are many types of
effect sizes, the one used in this
meta-analysis is the standardized mean difference. In very
general terms, a standardized mean
difference is the difference in the average score of the control
group and the experimental group
stated in standard deviation units. Thus, an effect size of 1.00
would indicate that the average
score in the experimental group is one standard deviation higher
than the average score in the
control group. Conversely, an effect size of -1.00 would
indicate that the average score in the
experimental group is one standard deviation lower than the
average score in the control group.

The present meta-analysis is analogous to this situation. A
common class of interventions was
used in all experimental classes (i.e., use of selected
instructional strategies), but the independent
studies employed teacher designed assessments of student
academic achievement across various
grade levels and subject areas requiring different dependent
measures.
Meta-analytic findings are typically reported in two ways, 1)
findings based on the observed
effect sizes from each independent study (see Appendix B), and
2) findings based on a correction
for attenuation due to lack of reliability in the dependent
measure (i.e., teacher designed
assessments of student academic achievement). Technical Note
2 explains the method used to
correct for attenuation and an interpretation of such corrections.
Briefly though, when a
dependent measure is not perfectly reliable it will tend to affect
the strength of observed
relationships between independent and dependent variables.
An independent variable is a factor which is assumed or
hypothesized to have an effect on some
outcome often referred to as the dependent variable. A
dependent variable is an outcome
believed to be influenced by one or more independent variable s.
For this meta-analysis of the
independent studies, the dependent variable was students’
knowledge of academic content
addressed during a unit of instruction and the independent
variable of interest was the use of the
selected instructional strategy (e.g., feedback). It is always
advisable to correct an effect size for

3
attenuation (i.e., decrease in effect size) due to unreliability of
the dependent measure (for a
detailed discussion of attenuation see Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).
In basic terms, every assessment
is imprecise to some extent and this imprecision lowers the
effect size. Throughout this report,
observed and corrected effect sizes are displayed for
comparison. When this is the case, the
discussion of findings is limited to the corrected results only.
The Sample
Figure 1 displays the number of participating sites and
independent studies by school level along
with the number of students in experimental and control groups.
Figure 1. Number of Participating Sites and Independent Studies
by School Level
School Level # of Sites N Cn En Tn
Elementary School
(Grades K-5) 19 55 1,040 1,041 2,081
Middle School
(Grades 6-8) 8 64 1,527 2,710 4,237

High School
(Grades 9-12) 11 210 3,848 4,121 7,969
Total 38 329 6,415 7,872 14,287
In all, this meta-analysis of the 329 independent studies
involved 14,287 students. Of those
students, 2,081 were at 19 sites that teach students at the
elementary school level, 4,237 were at 8
sites that teach students at the middle school level, and 7,969
were at 11 sites that teach students
at the high school level.
Data Analysis and Findings
As mentioned previously, in this meta-analysis one dependent
variable was considered: students’
knowledge of academic content addressed during a unit of
instruction. The independent variable
of interest was the experimental/control condition—whether
students were exposed to an
instructional strategy or not. Also of interest was the difference
in potential effect of the
utilization of instructional strategies at the elementary, middle,
and high school levels.
4
Data from each independent study was first analyzed using the

The framework for intentional and targeted teaching®—or fit

The framework for intentional and targeted teaching®—or fit

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The framework for intentional and targeted teaching®—or fit

Similar to The framework for intentional and targeted teaching®—or fit (20)

More from rock73

More from rock73 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The framework for intentional and targeted teaching®—or fit