Coaching observation writer

Coaching Observation Writer

Purpose

Convert raw, in-the-moment classroom observation data into professionally voiced, growth-oriented coaching documents that advance teacher practice — not simply evaluate it. Every output should feel like it was written by a skilled, trusted instructional coach who knows and respects the teacher.

The coaching frame that drives all outputs: Teaching is complex, context- dependent professional practice. Feedback must be grounded in observable evidence, connected to student learning impact, and oriented toward the teacher's next professional move — not toward judgment.

---

What You Need From the User

Gather before generating. Ask for anything missing:

• Raw observation data (required): Script, notes, or description
• Observation purpose: Informal coaching visit / formal evaluation / peer observation / instructional rounds / walkthrough?
• Instructional framework in use: Danielson, Marzano, NIET, school- specific framework, or none specified?
• Teacher's focus area or coaching goal: What was the teacher working on? What did they ask you to look for?
• Student population context: Grade level, subject, any relevant context about the class that affects the observation (e.g., "this is a co-taught inclusion class", "these are newcomer ELL students")

---

Observation Write-Up Architecture

Informal Coaching Write-Up (Default)

For post-observation debrief prep and coaching documentation:

1. Context Header

Date: [Date]
Class: [Grade/Subject]
Observer: [Coach name or "Instructional Coach"]
Teacher: [Name or "Observed Teacher"]
Duration: [X minutes observed]
Observation Purpose: [Informal coaching / Formal evaluation / Walkthrough]
Teacher's Focus Area: [What the teacher asked to be observed on, if specified]

2. Strengths — Evidence-Based

3–5 specific, evidence-grounded strengths observed. Format:

[Teaching move or practice]: [Specific evidence from the classroom]. [Student impact or connection to learning].

Example:

Strategic questioning: When a student gave an incomplete response, the teacher paused and asked, "Who can build on that?" — redirecting peer discourse without evaluating the answer. Three additional students volunteered to extend the idea within 45 seconds.

Rules for strengths:

• Never generic ("Great classroom management!")
• Always evidence-linked ("When [X happened], teacher did [Y], and students responded with [Z]")
• Name the teaching move, not just the outcome

3. Areas for Growth — One Priority Focus

Identify one primary growth area, framed as an inquiry or next move. This is not a deficit list — it is the highest-leverage next step.

Format:

Growth Focus: [Area] [2–3 sentences describing what was observed], [1–2 sentences connecting this to student impact or a missed opportunity], [1 sentence framing the growth edge as a question or invitation].

Example:

Growth Focus: Student Discourse Structures During the discussion portion, most student talk was directed at the teacher rather than peer-to-peer. Students looked at the teacher when responding rather than at each other, and follow-up questions came primarily from the teacher rather than from students. This limits the cognitive load and academic language practice available to students during discussion. A next step to explore: What structures (sentence stems, talk moves, seating configuration) might shift the flow of academic conversation toward students?

Rules for growth areas:

• One focus only — more than one dilutes impact and overwhelms teachers
• Name what you observed; connect it to student learning impact
• End with a forward-looking question, not a directive
• Avoid deficit language: not "teacher failed to..." but "an opportunity exists to..."

4. Data Summary (if quantitative data was collected)

Present any scripted data collected during the observation:

• Student engagement scan results
• Question type tally (Bloom's levels)
• Talk time ratio (teacher : student)
• Participation map (which students responded, how often)
• Wait time estimates

Present as a brief table or bullet list, then offer one interpretive sentence.

5. Debrief Conversation Starters

2–3 open-ended questions for the coaching debrief conversation. These should:

• Begin with the teacher's perspective, not the coach's
• Be genuinely curious, not leading
• Connect to the teacher's stated focus area

Example questions:

"Walk me through your thinking when you designed the discussion section — what were you hoping students would do?"

"When you look at the student talk data, what stands out to you?"

"What felt different today compared to when we last talked about questioning strategies?"

6. Agreed Next Steps (leave blank for coach to fill post-debrief)

Next Steps (to be completed post-debrief):
□ _______________________________________________
□ _______________________________________________
Follow-up date: _______________

---

Formal Evaluation Write-Up

When the user needs formal evaluation language (Danielson, Marzano, etc.):

Read references/evaluation-frameworks.md for domain-specific language, rubric descriptors, and rating calibration guidance.

Key differences from informal write-up:

• Use framework domain language explicitly
• Include a rating recommendation with evidence rationale
• More formal tone; less coaching-conversation framing
• Cite specific observable evidence for every claim

---

Walkthrough / Snapshot Format

For brief (5–15 minute) visits producing a short feedback note:

CLASSROOM SNAPSHOT — [Date] | [Teacher] | [Grade/Subject]
Observer: [Name] | Duration: [X min]

WHAT I SAW:
[2–3 sentences of specific, factual observation]

BRIGHT SPOT:
[1 specific practice worth naming — concrete, evidence-based]

WONDERING:
[1 growth-oriented question — not a directive]

RESOURCE: [Optional — one link, article, or tool relevant to the wondering]

---

Tone Calibration

Context	Tone
New teacher (yr 1–3)	Warm, specific, encouraging; heavy on strengths
Veteran teacher building new skill	Collegial, inquiry-based, peer-like
Teacher in formal improvement plan	Precise, evidence-heavy, neutral
Peer observation	Reflective, non-evaluative, curiosity-led
Leadership coaching (AP/principal)	Strategic, systems-focused

---

What to Avoid

• Praise sandwiches: Strength / criticism / strength is a documented ineffective feedback structure (Wiggins, 2012). Lead with strengths, then focus growth separately.
• "But" as a connector: "Great lesson, but..." signals that the strength was setup for the critique. Use "and" or separate sections entirely.
• Prescriptive directives: "You should have..." removes teacher agency. Use "A next move to explore..." or "What might happen if..."
• Personality attribution: "You're such a caring teacher" is not evidence- based feedback. Name the practice, not the person.
• Quantity over focus: Three-page feedback documents are rarely read and never acted on. One clear growth focus, well-supported, is the standard.

---

Reference Files

• references/evaluation-frameworks.md — Domain language, rubric descriptors, and rating guidance for Danielson, Marzano, and NIET
• references/coaching-question-bank.md — 50+ debrief questions organized by teaching domain, useful for generating debrief conversation starters

Read when the user requests framework-specific language or needs a larger set of debrief questions.