Home Educational Research
Category:

Educational Research

Explore the latest in educational research. Discover insights, studies, and strategies to inform effective teaching and learning practices.

Elementary school classroom with a teacher pointing at a whiteboard while students sit at desks, several raising their hands, and another adult taking notes
Content AreasEducational ResearchInstructional Coaching

Instructional Coaching: Research-Based Teaching Strategies That Actually Work in Every Classroom

by Dr. Bruce Ellis
written by Dr. Bruce Ellis

If you’re an instructional coach, you already know the pattern.

A new initiative rolls in with big promises and a polished slide deck. Teachers try it with varying levels of buy-in. The data is unclear. And within two years, it’s replaced by the next “next big thing.”

The goal isn’t to try more strategies—it’s to use the ones that actually work, consistently.

Meanwhile, students are still struggling with the same foundational gaps.

Here’s the good news: what actually works in classrooms isn’t a mystery anymore.

In this guide, you’ll see how to apply evidence-based teaching practices across reading, writing, math, and science—so you can support stronger instruction in every classroom you coach.

While this post focuses on reading, writing, math, and science, these same research-based principles apply across all content areas—including social studies.

Why Research-Based Teaching Strategies Matter More Than Ever

Educators today have more resources than ever—curriculum options, technology tools, and professional development.

The problem isn’t access. It’s clarity.

Which practices are actually worth the time?

Evidence-based instruction answers that question. It’s grounded in strategies proven effective through peer-reviewed research—not tradition, preference, or whatever happens to be trending.

That distinction matters in coaching conversations.

When a teacher asks, “Why do we need to change what we’re doing?”
The answer isn’t pressure from above.

It’s evidence.

What It Looks Like in Reading and Literacy

Reading is where the research conversation is loudest right now—and for good reason.

As of 2024, 38 states and the District of Columbia have passed policies tied to evidence-based reading instruction.

The research consistently points to one approach: structured literacy.

Structured literacy is:

  • Explicit
  • Systematic
  • Cumulative
  • Diagnostic

It directly teaches students how to read—rather than assuming they’ll figure it out.

What this means in practice:
Teachers model skills clearly. Students practice with guidance. Feedback is immediate and corrective.

What coaches should look for in walkthroughs:

  • Are phonemic awareness and phonics explicitly taught?
  • Is instruction building on prior knowledge?
  • Is feedback timely and specific?

If the answer is “not consistently,” you’ve found your entry point.

→ A deeper breakdown of what structured literacy looks like in real classrooms (and how to coach it) is coming soon.

What It Looks Like in Writing

Writing instruction is where classrooms often drift furthest from the evidence.

Students are asked to write. But they’re rarely taught how.

That gap matters.

Research shows that strong writing instruction is:

  • Explicit
  • Structured
  • Built from sentences upward

Sentences are the foundation of all writing. When students can’t construct them well, everything else breaks down.

High-impact classrooms don’t assume writing—they teach it.

That includes:

  • Modeling sentence construction
  • Teaching planning and revision strategies
  • Giving specific, actionable feedback

What coaches should look for:

  • Are teachers modeling writing, not just assigning it?
  • Is the process taught step-by-step?
  • Does feedback guide improvement—or just evaluate?

Shifting writing instruction—even slightly—can have a massive impact across all subjects.

→ A guide to research-based writing instruction (with classroom examples and coaching moves) is coming soon.

What It Looks Like in Math

Math instruction often swings between two extremes:

  • Heavy procedural drilling with little understanding
  • Open-ended exploration with little structure

The research supports a balance of both.

Students need:

  • Clear, explicit modeling
  • Structured practice
  • Opportunities to apply learning independently

One of the most effective combinations is:
worked examples + problem-solving practice

This pairing strengthens both retention and transfer.

What coaches should look for:

  • Is the teacher thinking out loud while modeling?
  • Do students get guided practice before working independently?
  • Is academic math language explicitly taught?

When those elements are in place, math instruction becomes both rigorous and accessible.

→ A deeper dive into high-impact, research-based math instruction is coming soon.

What It Looks Like in Science

Science instruction is shifting—from delivering content to building understanding.

At the center of that shift is phenomenon-based learning.

But this is often misunderstood.

It’s not just hands-on activity.

It’s structured inquiry.

Instruction starts with a real-world phenomenon and builds toward explanation through:

  • Observation
  • Questioning
  • Evidence
  • Reasoning

Students don’t just learn science—they do science.

A key part of this is scientific argumentation:
Students make claims, support them with evidence, and evaluate competing ideas.

What coaches should look for:

  • Are phenomena driving instruction—or just serving as a hook?
  • Are students making and defending claims?
  • Is the teacher facilitating thinking, not just delivering answers?

Without that connection to reasoning and evidence, science instruction falls short.

→ A complete guide to phenomenon-based science instruction and classroom implementation is coming soon.

Small, research-based shifts in instruction—applied consistently—create the biggest gains for students.

Coaching Moves That Support the Shift

Knowing the research is one thing.

Helping teachers implement it—without resistance—is another.

Here are four coaching moves that consistently work:

1. Start with observation, not evaluation.
Ground conversations in what’s actually happening. Evidence builds trust.

2. Name the “why” before the “what.”
Teachers are more open to change when they understand the research behind it.

3. Focus on one practice at a time.
Improvement happens through focus, not overload.

4. Use student work as the anchor.
Nothing makes the case for change more clearly than what students can—and can’t—do.

Key Takeaways

  • Research-based strategies aren’t trends—they’re proven over time.
  • Structured literacy, explicit writing instruction, and balanced math practices have strong evidence behind them.
  • Science instruction is most effective when it centers on inquiry and evidence-based reasoning.
  • These same principles extend across all content areas, including social studies.
  • Coaching works best when it starts small, stays focused, and is grounded in real classroom evidence.

The best time to ground your coaching in research was years ago.

The second-best time is your next walkthrough.

Pick one subject.
Focus on one practice.
Start the conversation.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
iPads
Educational ResearchGood TeachingInstructional Coaching

TCEA Responds: Navigating Resistance, Part 1

by Miguel Guhlin
written by Miguel Guhlin

Dear TCEA Responds:

I’m an instructional coach, and lately, I feel like I’m hitting a brick wall. Every time I suggest a high-effect size strategy or mention video coaching, I get “the look.” You know the one: the crossed arms and the “I don’t have time for this” sigh. How can I have these tough conversations without ruining my relationship with my teachers?

Thank you!
-Frustrated in Frisco

Dear Frustrated:

Thanks so much for reaching out. First, take a deep breath. Resistance isn’t a sign that you’re a bad coach. It’s a sign that your teachers are human.

In my blog entry on Coaching for Results, I talk about the “vulnerability gap.” When you ask teachers to change, you are asking them to step out of their comfort zone and into a space where they might fail. That’s terrifying, especially when their professional identity is on the line.

Did You Know?

According to John Hattie’s research, the “hinge point” for instructional strategies is an effect size of 0.40. Anything above that is considered significantly impactful. But here is the catch: no strategy works if the teacher is too defensive to implement it.

The real question isn’t “What strategy should I recommend?” It’s “How do I create the psychological safety needed for that strategy to even have a chance?”

Learn more about TCEA’s Instructional Coaching Certification

The Secret Sauce: The ARC Protocol

To move past the “crossed arms,” we need a communication framework that prioritizes psychological safety. That’s where the ARC Protocol comes in. It’s a three-step process designed to lower the “affective filter” and get to the work that matters.

A – Acknowledge to Make it Safe

Before you can talk about data or strategies, you must validate the person. When people feel heard, their brain’s amygdala (the “fight or flight” center) calms down.

The AMPP Technique:

  • Ask — Open with questions to understand their perspective.
  • Mirror — Reflect their emotions back to show you’re listening.
  • Paraphrase — Restate their concerns in your own words to confirm understanding.
  • Prime — If they’re holding back, offer a guess to get the conversation flowing.

What to say: “I hear how exhausted you are” or “I understand why that feels overwhelming.”

The Goal: Build a “brave space” for dialogue. As the research in Crucial Conversations reminds us, you must lower the emotional temperature first.

R – Reframe the Narrative

Once the teacher feels safe, you shift the perspective. Most resistance comes from a “problem-centered” view. Your job is to pivot to a “growth-oriented” or “solution-focused” view.

The Pivot: Move from “This is a new burden” to “This is a tool to solve the problem you just mentioned.”

The AMPP approach is a Crucial Conversations/Confrontations concept that I’ve relied on often in my own work. Be sure to learn more about it in the book links included in this blog entry.

Example: If they hate the noise of group work, reframe Classroom Discussion (d=0.82) as a way to let students expend that energy productively on the content. Stop arguing about the teacher’s preference and start talking about student data. Connect the strategy to High-Effect Size Instructional Strategies (HESIS) so the conversation shifts from opinion to evidence.

C – Commit to a Micro-Step

This is where many coaching conversations fail: they stay too big. A “Commitment” shouldn’t be a whole new lesson plan. It should be a micro-step.

The Rule: If it takes more than 10 minutes to plan or execute, it’s too big for a first step.

The Goal: Immediate, actionable success. Don’t leave without a date on the calendar. This aligns perfectly with the TCEA EIIR coaching model (Empower & Engage, Investigate & Innovate, Implement & Improve, Reflect & Realize).

Key Idea: Focus on the “Heavy Hitters”

When you use the ARC Protocol, make sure you are leading them toward strategies that actually pay off. Don’t waste your “coaching capital” on low-effect strategies. Refer to the High-Effect Size Instructional Strategies list often. Consider how concepts from Crucial Conversations, Crucial Confrontations are helpful in this.

If you’re going to ask a teacher to take a risk, make sure it’s for a strategy like:

  • Reciprocal Teaching (d=0.74)
  • Jigsaw (d=0.92)
  • Feedback (d=0.92)
  • Video-Based Coaching (d=0.99)
  • Conceptual Mapping (d=0.64)

Wrapping It Up

Coaching is 20% strategy and 80% relationship. The ARC Protocol ensures that the 80% stays intact so the 20% can actually happen.

Your Next Step: What’s one conversation you’ve been putting off? Try applying the ARC steps to your planning today. Remember:

  1. Acknowledge: Lower the emotional temperature first (Crucial Conversations: “Make it Safe”).
  2. Reframe: Stop arguing about teacher preference and start talking about student data (HESIS).
  3. Commit: Don’t leave without a date on the calendar (TCEA EIIR).

The tangled strands of resistance can become a smooth, golden braid of collaborative growth. One conversation at a time. In the second part of this blog entry, you will see five scenarios that illustrate the ARC Protocol in action.

Make a Gen AI Connection

To take this further, consider creating a “Coaching Conversation Generator” prompt:

Using the ARC Protocol (Acknowledge with AMPP, Reframe with HESIS, Commit with micro-steps), generate a coaching conversation for the following scenario: [describe teacher resistance]. Include specific effect sizes for recommended strategies and ensure the micro-step takes less than 10 minutes to implement.

Feel free to use this blog entry to provide context your Gen AI prompt needs to deliver relevant responses. Combine it with part two of this series (to appear soon) to get examples of desired output from your Gen AI tool of choice.

2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Smiling businesswoman in a navy blazer holding printed reports while standing in front of a large screen displaying colorful business analytics charts and graphs in a modern office
AssessmentEducational ResearchGood TeachingLeadership

Measuring the Real ROI (Return on Instruction) of Your Ed Tech Tools

by Dr. Bruce Ellis
written by Dr. Bruce Ellis

You’ve invested in the tools. Teachers are logging in. Students are clicking through activities. Usage reports show green across the board. But in Leadership conversations with board members and parents, one question inevitably surfaces: Is this actually helping students learn? If that question feels difficult to answer with confidence, you’re not alone.

Most campus administrators are sitting on mountains of ed tech usage data and very little outcome data. That gap, between what tools track and what actually matters, is exactly where the ed tech investment can break down. The real measure isn’t return on investment in the financial sense. It’s Return on Instruction (ROI): the degree to which a tool produces measurable gains in student learning. That’s the standard every tech tool on your campus should be held to, and most aren’t being evaluated that way.

This post gives you a practical, vendor-neutral framework to change that. You’ll walk away with three diagnostic questions to apply to every tool in your inventory, a simple audit process you can run with your technology team, and a free worksheet to get started today.

The Problem with Counting Clicks

Usage metrics feel like proof. Login rates, session counts, time-on-task reports: they show up in vendor dashboards as colorful graphs, and they’re easy to present at a budget meeting. The problem is they measure activity, not learning.

Think of it this way. A student can log into a reading platform every day for a semester and show zero growth in reading comprehension. The dashboard says the tool is working. The assessment data tells a different story.

Activity is not evidence. Engagement is not achievement. Until administrators make that distinction clearly, technology budgets will continue to be driven by the loudest vendor pitch rather than the strongest student outcomes.

The good news is that most districts already have the data they need to make better decisions. They just aren’t connecting it to the right questions.

What Real Educational Technology ROI Actually Looks Like

In education, return on investment isn’t just financial. Real ed tech ROI has three dimensions.

Learning gains are the most important. Is there measurable evidence that students using this tool are making academic progress? This can come from benchmark assessments, progress monitoring data, or state assessment trends over time.

Teacher efficiency matters, too. A tool that saves teachers meaningful planning or grading time has real value, as long as it isn’t replacing instructional quality with automated busywork.

Equity of access is the dimension most often skipped. A tool that produces strong average outcomes but leaves your most vulnerable learners behind isn’t delivering full value. It may actually be widening gaps.

When all three dimensions show positive results, you have a tool worth keeping. When one or more falls short, you have a decision to make.

The Three Questions Every Administrator Should Ask

These questions work whether you’re evaluating a tool you’ve had for three years or one you’re considering for a pilot.

Is it being used as intended, and could it be used more effectively?

Most tech tools are designed around a specific usage model: a certain number of minutes per week, a particular sequence of activities, a defined level of teacher facilitation. When students and teachers use tools differently than intended, the outcomes the vendor promises don’t apply.

Before drawing any conclusions about a tool’s effectiveness, verify that it’s being implemented as designed. If adoption is low or inconsistent, the problem may be training, fit, or competing demands on teacher time, not the tool itself. That distinction matters before you renew or cancel.

But implementation fidelity is only the first half of this question. Even when a tool is being used exactly as intended, it’s worth asking whether it’s being used as powerfully as it could be. Many tools have features that go largely untouched: built-in formative assessment functions, collaborative activity modes, real-time feedback loops, or interactive content formats that move students from passive consumption to active engagement. A tool that’s technically in use but limited to low-level tasks, digital worksheets, or independent practice drills may be delivering a fraction of its potential instructional value.

It’s also worth recognizing that the same tool may look very different across content areas and grade levels. A platform used for vocabulary practice in a fourth-grade ELA class may serve an entirely different instructional function in a high school science classroom. That variation isn’t a problem. It’s actually valuable information. Understanding how a tool is being adapted across your campus tells you a great deal about its flexibility and instructional range.

One of the best places to surface these insights is the PLC meeting. Bring the tool into the conversation and ask teachers directly: How is this tool supporting the learning process in your classroom? Where is it working well, and where is it falling short? How could it be used more effectively to engage students, deepen understanding, or support assessment? These conversations often surface instructional strategies and creative uses that never show up in a usage report.

Critically, ask teachers to connect their observations to data. Anecdotal impressions are a starting point, not a conclusion. Encourage teachers to identify what they’re seeing in student work, formative assessment results, or progress monitoring data that supports or challenges what they observe. When teacher insight and classroom data align, you have a much stronger basis for an instructional decision.

The right question isn’t just “Are teachers following the usage model?” It’s “Are students experiencing deeper learning because of this tool than they would without it?”

Is it correlated with measurable outcomes?

This is the core question, and it’s more answerable than most administrators think. Start by identifying what learning goal the tool was purchased to address. Then pull the outcome data most closely tied to that goal: benchmark scores, formative assessment results, attendance trends, or course completion rates.

Look for patterns. Are students who use the tool consistently performing better on that measure than those who don’t? You don’t need a formal research study to spot a meaningful signal in your own campus data. A simple side-by-side comparison, organized by usage level and outcome, will tell you a great deal.

Cross-referencing tool usage reports with your existing assessment data is the single highest-leverage move in an ed tech audit.

Is it working equitably?

Disaggregate your outcome data by student group. Are English learners, students receiving special education services, and economically disadvantaged students experiencing the same benefits as the broader student population? If a tool produces strong average results but underserves specific groups, that’s a significant finding.

Equity analysis doesn’t require sophisticated data infrastructure. It requires the willingness to ask the question and act on what you find.

How to Run a Simple Tool Audit

You don’t need a full semester or a dedicated research team. A focused audit can be completed in a few weeks with your existing technology and instructional leadership staff.

  1. Inventory your tools. List every software program your campus is actively paying for. Include the cost, the intended instructional purpose, and the grade levels or subject areas it serves.
  2. Map each tool to a learning goal. If you can’t articulate what measurable outcome the tool is supposed to support, that’s your first finding.
  3. Pull the data. For each tool, gather usage reports from the vendor and outcome data from your internal systems. Look for correlation between consistent use and the targeted outcome.
  4. Make a decision for each tool. Keep it, cut it, or move it to a structured pilot with clearer success metrics and a defined evaluation timeline.

Download the Ed Tech ROI Evaluation Worksheet to run this process with your team.

Making the Case to Stakeholders

When you present findings to your school board, teachers, or community, lead with outcomes, not features. “This tool is associated with a measurable gain in third-grade math benchmark scores among consistent users” is a far more compelling case than “Students spent 40,000 minutes on the platform last semester.”

Outcome language builds trust. It also sets a standard that vendors will need to meet, which raises the quality of every future purchasing conversation.

Key Takeaways

  • Usage data measures activity. Outcome data measures learning. They are not the same thing.
  • Real ed tech ROI has three dimensions: learning gains, teacher efficiency, and equity of access.
  • Three questions drive every effective ed tech evaluation: Is it used as intended? Is it correlated with outcomes? Is it working equitably?
  • A simple audit, inventory, goal mapping, data review, and decision, can be completed with existing staff and data.
  • Outcome language strengthens every budget and stakeholder conversation.

Tools should earn their place in your campus budget the same way any instructional resource does: by demonstrating measurable value for students. The framework above gives you a starting point to make those evaluations confidently and consistently.

Download the Ed Tech ROI Evaluation Worksheet to begin your audit. And if you’d like deeper support, TCEA offers campus and district-level technology audits that provide personalized insight and recommendations based on the tools you’re using and how they’re actually being used. Reach out to learn more about how we can help by emailing Dr. Bruce Ellis at bellis@tcea.org for details.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Educational Research

How the Latest Educational Research Should Impact Your Classroom

by Macee Hall Greer
written by Macee Hall Greer

If you’ve been in education for any length of time, you know there’s never a shortage of “new” strategies being touted as game changers. The challenge is figuring out which ones are actually grounded in solid research and then translating them into everyday classroom practice. The good news is that recent studies offer some very practical, doable shifts that can make a big difference for your students.​

Make Learning Visible

John Hattie’s work on visible learning reminds us that students should always know what they are learning, why they are learning it, and what success looks like. That means moving beyond “We’re going to work on fractions” to clearly posted goals and simple, student-friendly success criteria. When students can describe what they’re working toward and how they’ll know they’ve gotten there, they begin to take ownership of learning instead of just completing tasks.​

Feedback plays a major role here. Actionable, timely feedback that points students to their next step is far more powerful than a score at the top of the paper. Building in reflection—using questions, prompts, or Project Zero Thinking Routines—helps students become more metacognitive and “their own teachers” over time. A quick example: After a lab or writing task, ask students, “What did you do that helped you learn today, and what will you try differently next time?”​

Develop Brains, Don’t Just Fill Them

Research on expertise shows that complex skills develop through deliberate practice, not just exposure to information. In other words, it’s not about how much content you cover but how intentionally students practice the thinking required in your subject. Tasks should be challenging but doable, with clear models and lots of chances to try, get feedback, and try again.​

This is where you can dial back the “one-and-done” assignment approach. Instead, design sequences of tasks that stretch students just beyond their comfort zone and ask them to reflect on what’s getting easier and what’s still hard. Short conferences, peer feedback, and checklists can help students compare their current work to a standard and plan concrete next steps.​

Rethink Review: Retrieval, Not Rereading

Many students (and adults!) still think that rereading, highlighting, and copying notes equals studying. The research strongly disagrees. Low-stakes, spaced retrieval practice—activities that require students to pull information from memory—beats passive review almost every time. Think quick practice quizzes, brain dumps, short review games, or group problem-solving that revisit key concepts over time, not just before a test.​

The spacing effect tells us that review sessions spread out over days, weeks, and months are far more effective than cramming. You might set a simple goal: “Every week, I’ll bring back two ideas from earlier in the unit or year.” A two-minute warm-up where students list everything they remember about a prior topic or sketch a key process can dramatically strengthen retention.​

Connect to Background Knowledge

Students learn new content more easily when they can connect it to what they already know. Research suggests that background knowledge is most powerful when it’s organized into schemas—mental frameworks that help students slot new information into place. That means we should intentionally design units around a few big, unifying ideas and consistently reinforce how new learning fits into that bigger picture.​

In practice, you might preview a video or reading and ask students to identify new vocabulary and link it to prior topics, experiences, or texts. Simple prompts like “This reminds me of…” or “This is similar to…” can help students see patterns and strengthen their understanding. Over time, they begin to see your course not as isolated lessons but as a connected story.​

Let Students Draw to Learn

One of the more surprising findings from recent studies is how powerful drawing can be for learning. From detailed diagrams to quick sketch notes, drawing boosts both factual recall and comprehension when students use it to represent relationships between ideas. The key is not artistic quality but helping students externalize and organize their thinking visually.​

Try asking students to create a one-page sketch note after a reading, focusing on how concepts connect rather than copying chunks of text. Mind maps, annotated flowcharts, and simple labeled drawings can all serve as visual organizers and “memory facilitators.” Research suggests that drawing by hand (rather than with a device) increases the learning benefits, so keep the tech simple on this one.​

Small Shifts, Big Impact

You don’t have to overhaul your entire curriculum to align with the latest research. Start by choosing one or two strategies—maybe making learning goals more visible and adding a weekly retrieval practice routine—and build from there. Over time, these small shifts can significantly increase engagement, retention, and student ownership of learning in your classroom.

*This blog was written with the help of Perplexity.ai and directly pulls source information from TCEA’s September 2025 Lunch and Learn Webinar of the same title.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Educational ResearchEducational TrendsGood Teaching

Stop Teaching, Start Thinking: Build a Classroom that Prioritizes Deep Thinking, Part Two

by Dr. Bruce Ellis
written by Dr. Bruce Ellis

Picture this: Your brightest student, the one who aces every test, sits frozen when asked to design a solution for reducing food waste in the cafeteria. They know their content areas well—reciting facts about nutrition and waste effortlessly—but can’t connect the dots, question assumptions, or propose creative alternatives.

Sound familiar? You’re not alone. And you’re definitely not failing as a teacher.

NOTE: This is part two of a two-part blog series. Click here for part one, which outlines the author’s recommended strategy for transitioning to a deeper thinking-focused way of teaching.

One Story to Illustrate This Strategy in Action

Four college students engaged in discussion around a table in a bright, modern classroom with laptops, charts, and notebooks in front of them.

At Riverside Middle School, Sarah Chen was frustrated. Her 7th graders could define democracy but couldn’t explain why their school dress code mattered. So she tried something different.

Instead of assigning a chapter on government systems, she posed a challenge: “Our school is considering a new cell phone policy. You’re the advisory committee. What would you recommend and why?”

What followed was three weeks of engaged learning unlike anything Sarah had seen before. Students researched policies, interviewed administrators, surveyed peers, debated trade-offs, and presented thoughtful recommendations that surprised even the principal.

The result? They learned more about democratic processes in those three weeks than in any textbook chapter they’d ever read.

That’s the power of thinking classrooms.

Your 48-Hour Challenge

A teacher sits alone at a wooden desk under a warm lamp, reviewing lesson plans marked with highlights and sticky notes. He holds a pen, his brow furrowed in focused reflection, surrounded by notebooks and a coffee mug.

Pick one lesson you’re teaching this week and examine it closely. Ask yourself some key questions to reorient your approach . First, consider what you’re truly asking students to think about, rather than just what information you’re asking them to recall. Next, evaluate if you are allowing them the necessary space to grapple with ideas and concepts, as growth comes through the struggle to make sense of information. Finally, determine if you are genuinely interested in what their responses might be.

Then make one small change. Replace one recall question with one thinking question. See what happens.

The Leadership Reality Check

If you’re a school leader reading this, here’s your reality: You can’t mandate thinking. You can’t train it in a single workshop. You can’t measure it with standardized tests.

A middle-aged male teacher sits at a wooden desk under warm lamp light, thoughtfully reviewing lesson plans marked with highlights, sticky notes, and revisions. Open notebooks and a cup of coffee are nearby, emphasizing a focused moment of preparation.

But you can celebrate intellectual risk-taking over right answers. You can protect time for deep work instead of covering more content. You can model thinking in your own decision-making processes. You can create conditions where teachers feel safe to experiment and learn from their attempts. When you visit classrooms, ask about the thinking you observed rather than focusing solely on student behavior or lesson pacing. Most importantly, resist the urge to rush implementation—thinking classrooms develop through sustained practice, not quick fixes.

Change happens through renovation, not revolution. Start with teachers who are curious. Support their experiments. Share their successes.

The Question That Changes Everything

Photo of a diverse group of middle school students in a modern, naturally lit classroom actively sketching ideas, discussing in small groups, and organizing thoughts with sticky notes, while a smiling teacher facilitates nearby. Lightbulbs, gears, and a question mark are subtly overlaid to symbolize cognitive engagement.

Here’s what I want you to consider: What if thinking was the curriculum itself?

Not thinking about math, or thinking about history, but thinking as the fundamental skill that transforms how students engage with everything they encounter.

I learned this lesson working with a chief academic officer who had a simple but powerful rule. Whether we were doing staff development with teachers or working directly with students, she would remind us: “Don’t rescue them from their struggle.” She understood that growth came through the struggle to make sense of information and apply it in meaningful ways. When we give students the answer too quickly, we shortcut their learning process.

This principle changes how we see those moments when students look confused or frustrated. Instead of rushing in with explanations, we can ask questions that help them work through their thinking. Instead of providing the solution, we can provide scaffolding that helps them construct their own understanding.

Consider classrooms where students question their own assumptions. Where confusion is celebrated as the beginning of understanding. Where “I don’t know” is the start of inquiry, not the end of discussion. Where learning feels urgent because students see its relevance.

This isn’t wishful thinking. This is what happens when we stop teaching and start facilitating thinking.

Ready to Go Deeper? Your Book Study Guide Awaits

A diverse group of four educators sit around a table in a sunlit classroom or library, actively discussing with open books, tablets, notebooks, sticky notes, pens, highlighters, and coffee cups spread across the table.
Professional learning comes alive when educators connect through shared study and collaboration.

If this post has you thinking “I need to learn more about this,” you’re in luck. I’ve created a comprehensive 10-session book study guide that takes you through “Creating Thinking Classrooms” with practical applications, reflection questions, and accountability built right in.

Perfect for:

  • Teacher teams who want to tackle this together
  • Individual educators who need structure and direction
  • Professional learning communities looking for meaningful work
  • Anyone who learns best with a thinking partner (even if it’s just you and the guide)

What you’ll get:

Minimalist icon of a dark blue open book with simple text lines, overlaid by a glowing yellow magnifying glass, symbolizing detailed study and focused analysis.
  • 10 complete session guides with focused discussion questions and practical applications
  • Pre-study self-assessment and goal-setting activities
  • “Quick win” activities you can try between each session
  • Weekly reflection journal prompts that deepen understanding
  • Detailed 30-60-90 day implementation plan with success metrics
  • T-TESS alignment guidance for professional evaluation support
  • Troubleshooting strategies for common challenges (student resistance, time constraints, parent concerns)
  • Progress monitoring tools and success indicators
  • Implementation tips for starting small and building momentum
  • Final reflection activities including creating your personal teaching manifesto

★📖 Get the complete Book Study Guide here 📖★

Whether you’re going solo or gathering a group, this guide will keep you accountable and help you actually implement what you’re learning (instead of just reading and forgetting).

Your Next Move

Don’t try to transform everything at once. Pick one class, one unit, one lesson. Ask yourself: “How can I make this more about thinking and less about knowing?”

Then try it. Learn from what happens. Adjust. Try again.

Here’s the reality: Our students don’t need more information. They need more opportunities to think deeply about the information they already have access to.

The world doesn’t need better memorizers. It needs better thinkers.

Silhouette of a human head with a brain inside next to two gold speech bubbles, one with a question mark and the other with checkmarks.

Not ready to dive into a book study right now? No problem! You can download my Critical Thinking Prompts by Content Area PDF to help you quickly add deeper thinking to your lessons, no matter what subject you teach.

What’s one thing you’ll try differently this week?

Share your experiments in the comments below. Let’s build a community of educators who prioritize thinking over knowing.

This post was inspired by “Creating Thinking Classrooms: Leading Educational Change for This Century” by Garfield Gini-Newman & Roland Case (Corwin, 2018). You can find the book through your local library, bookstore, or online retailers. Ready to transform your classroom? Grab the book and use the study guide above as your roadmap.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Photo-realistic image of a middle school classroom where a smiling African American girl leads a group discussion. Her classmates and teacher attentively look toward her as lightbulb and gear icons subtly glow on a blurred classroom background, symbolizing creative thinking and collaboration.
Educational ResearchEducational TrendsGood Teaching

Stop Teaching, Start Thinking: Build a Classroom that Prioritizes Deep Thinking, Part One

by Dr. Bruce Ellis
written by Dr. Bruce Ellis

Picture this: Your brightest student, the one who aces every test, sits frozen when asked to design a solution for reducing food waste in the cafeteria. They know their content areas well—reciting facts about nutrition and waste effortlessly—but can’t connect the dots, question assumptions, or propose creative alternatives. They’re missing the critical, deep thinking they need to be successful.

Sound familiar? You’re not alone. And you’re definitely not failing as a teacher.

This is part one of a two-part blog series. Keep an eye out for the second installment, which includes a study guide for the referenced text!

The Problem We Don’t Talk About

A middle school student sits at a desk, looking confused as he examines printed sheets of graphs and a pie chart, while a teacher stands in the background with arms crossed, observing silently from a distance.

Here’s what I’ve been noticing more and more: We’ve become very good at teaching students to be intellectual parrots. They can repeat information accurately, but when you ask them to think critically about that information, the room goes quiet.

The good news? Garfield Gini-Newman and Roland Case tackled this exact problem back in 2018 with “Creating Thinking Classrooms: Leading Educational Change for This Century.” I just discovered this when a presenter at the TCEA AI for Educators conference referenced it, and it’s exactly what so many of us have been looking for. The approach doesn’t require you to throw out everything you know about teaching.

The Three-Shift Solution That Works

Split-frame flat illustration showing a teacher at a chalkboard labeled "Global Issues" on the left, and a diverse group of students discussing global topics with books on the table on the right.

Shift 1: Reorient Your Teaching Lens

From information delivery to thinking facilitation

Instead of asking “Did they get the right answer?” start asking “How are they thinking about this problem?”

This shift changes everything about classroom dynamics. When we focus on right answers, students learn to ask “What does the teacher want?” When we focus on thinking processes, they ask “What do I think and why?”

Here’s what this looks like in practice:

Math class: Instead of “What’s 15% of 240?” try “Show me how you figured out 15% of 240. What if it were 15% of 238—how would your approach change?” You might discover one student visualizes it as money (15 cents per dollar), another uses the decimal method, and a third breaks it into chunks (10% + 5%). All arrive at the same answer, but now you understand their thinking patterns.

History class: Instead of “What caused World War I?” ask “Walk me through how you’re weighing these different factors. Which do you think was most significant and why?” Now you see how they analyze cause and effect, prioritize evidence, and construct arguments.

Science class: Instead of “What happens when you mix baking soda and vinegar?” try “What are you noticing? What do you think is happening here? What makes you think that?” You discover their observation skills, hypothesis formation, and reasoning patterns.

Try this tomorrow: Replace your next “What happened in 1865?” with “Why do you think this event was a turning point?” Watch how the energy in your room changes.

Shift 2: Refocus Your Goals

From shallow wins to deep understanding

We’ve been celebrating the wrong victories. Getting 30 kids to memorize the same facts isn’t success—it’s efficient storage. Real success is watching a student connect historical patterns to current events without being prompted.

The progression that matters:

  • Knowledge → Understanding
  • Skills → Real-world competence
  • Good attitudes → Genuine commitment

Reality check: When was the last time your students surprised you with their thinking? If you can’t remember, it’s time to refocus.

Shift 3: Realign Your Daily Practice

Five principles that transform classrooms

Once you’ve shifted your mindset and refocused your goals, the rubber meets the road in your daily classroom practices. These five principles aren’t about adding more to your plate—they’re about doing what you’re already doing, but with thinking at the center.

  • Engage Students with questions that matter. Replace “What is photosynthesis?” with “Why don’t plants grow in my basement?”
  • Sustain Inquiry beyond single lessons. Turn units into mysteries students want to solve.
  • Nurture Self-Regulated Learners. Teach thinking vocabulary: “I’m questioning…” “My evidence suggests…” “I wonder if…”
  • Create Assessment-Rich Learning. Make feedback so frequent and specific that grades become less important.
  • Enhance Learning Through Digital Tools. Use technology to amplify thinking, not replace it.

This post was inspired by “Creating Thinking Classrooms: Leading Educational Change for This Century” by Garfield Gini-Newman & Roland Case (Corwin, 2018). You can find the book through your local library, bookstore, or online retailers. Ready to transform your classroom? Grab the book and use the study guide (coming soon in part two) as your roadmap.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Educational Research

Seven Research Trends to Keep an Eye On, Part Four

by Dr. Cynthia Sosa
written by Dr. Cynthia Sosa

We all recognize the work of educational theorists whose legacy is imprinted in every educator such as Piaget, Vygotsky or Dewey. Their contributions are undeniable. Their theories have shaped generations of educators for decades. However, education is never static. The dynamic world and society we live in, diverse students, emerging technologies, and varied learning environments are all contributing factors. Yet, there is always new research constantly emerging. This series of posts cuts through the noise to bring you seven current research frameworks to engage learners or drive impactful professional
learning.

Please note that this is part one of a seven-part blog series. Click here to see all available parts, and check back regularly for more research trends to keep an eye on!

#6 Liz Kolb’s Triple E Framework

The Triple E Framework is an educational technology integration model with 3 main focuses. Kolb emphasizes that technology should do 3 things: 1) engage students in learning, 2) enhance the learning experience, and 3) extend learning opportunities beyond traditional classroom boundaries. It moves beyond simply using technology to focusing instead on its pedagogical impact. The framework provides educators with a practical lens to evaluate and implement technology effectively to improve student outcomes.

Figure 1 Kolb’s Triple E Framework

Let’s dive in a little further into the guiding principles. 

  • For engagement, teachers need to consider the impact of what they are using to teach and how they are teaching. Does it promote active learning, focus, and motivation?
  • Considering enhancement, we should intentionally design the learning to go deeper in understanding, scaffolding difficult concepts, and develop authentic and creative assessments for demonstration of learning in innovative ways.
  • In extension, using technology should ‘extend’ thinking and learning by offering a means to learn away from school, connect skills for relevancy.

The beauty of the Triple E Framework lies in its simplicity and its focus on pedagogy first. It’s not about the coolest new gadget, but about thoughtfully considering how technology can amplify good teaching practices. It might just be the framework you need to move from just tech to truly transformative learning experiences.

#7 CAST’s Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

CAST, a non-profit organization, developed the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework as a proactive approach to designing learning environments that are accessible and effective for all students. UDL is rooted in the idea that learner variability is the norm, not an exception. With this in mind, CAST aims to remove barriers to learning from the beginning rather than reacting with accommodations after. This framework emerged from the architectural concept of universal design.

At its core, UDL is guided by three main principles, each corresponding to different brain networks involved in learning. These principles are: 1) multiple means of representation, 2) multiple means of action & expression, and 3) multiple means of engagement. CAST does a fabulous job of developing a matrix with each of these principles listed. Furthermore, the principles are organized into guidelines, which have considerations that provide more information. If you have worked with Tomlinson’s Differentiated Instruction framework, you will find similarities. Let’s look closely at the 3 principles.

  • Multiple means of representation addresses the “what” of learning by providing diverse ways to present information and content
  • Multiple means of action & expression focuses on the “how” of learning by offering varied ways for students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills
  • Multiple means of engagement tackles the “why” of learning by stimulating interest, motivation, and sustained effort.

Figure 2 UDL graph with their focus and principles

The ultimate goal of UDL is to develop “expert learners” who are purposeful and motivated, resourceful and knowledgeable, and capable of self-regulated learning. By intentionally designing curriculum, instruction, and assessment with these principles in mind, educators can empower all students to access, participate in, and make progress. UDL is not about lowering expectations or simplifying content, but rather about providing equitable opportunities for every learner to thrive and reach their full potential.

Now that you have all 7 research trends, which did you gravitate toward? Which one are you going to research more about? Which one is your favorite? Let us know in the comments.

Sosa, C. (2025,Aug. 29). 7 research trends to keep an eye on, part four. [Blog entry]. TCEA TechNotes.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Educational Research

Seven Research Trends to Keep an Eye On, Part Three

by Dr. Cynthia Sosa
written by Dr. Cynthia Sosa

#4 Malcolm Knowles’ Andragogy Framework  

Andragogy has a special place in my heart because this framework was part of my dissertation work. I believe the ideals and concepts in Andragogy are what is missing in our current educational professional development.

Figure 1 – Knowles et al.’s ‘The Adult Learner’

Andragogy is a framework that derives from various other research in teaching, learning, human development, human resource management, and adult learning to name a few. Knowles posited that adults need to be taught differently based on the assumptions that Knowles discovered rather than teaching as we would children, which is pedagogy. Knowles outlined various principles, artifacts, and processes to implement adult learning principles into any learning situation, including professional learning and development. This is important because we know professional development in education is not effective, so why do we keep scheduling and planning for traditional professional development? Why do we keep doing sit ‘n’ gets? 

Andragogy, often defined as the “art and science of helping adults learn,” stands in contrast to pedagogy, which traditionally focuses on the education of children. While pedagogy often adopts a teacher-centered approach, andragogy emphasizes the unique characteristics and needs of adult learners. You can find my lecture notes for a previous presentation with some more information.

In my research, I followed the process model listed below by developing a pre-assessment to assess the skills or knowledge expectations, the learning contract, and the implementation cycle. 

Most importantly, let’s take a look at the assumptions of learning in adults, which can drive teaching and coaching for high school and higher.

  • Self-Concept. Adult learners will be more self-directed in their learning. No longer are they dependent on others. They will want to take responsibility for their own learning AND make their own decisions.
  • Adult Learner Experience. Experience is important as an adult. They are more capable of utilizing the experiences as a rich resource for learning. They connect new information to past experiences and can build upon it.  
  • Readiness to Learn. Maturity leads adult learners to be most motivated to learn when it is relevant to their current life, career, or situation/problem.
  • Orientation to Learning. Maturity shifts learning from subject centered (must learn it) to problem or task-centered and when it is needed. They want to learn things that have immediate relevance and application to their lives.  
  • Motivation to Learn. Adults are motivated intrinsically because they want to learn new information to improve job skills, self-esteem, personal growth, or a better quality of life.
  • Need to Know. Adult learners want to understand the “why” behind their learning. They need to know the benefits of learning something and the consequences of not learning it.  

Figure 2 – Knowles’ Andragogy

The entire framework is quite complex as he developed the assumptions, the andragogical process, and other processes plus learning contracts and an evaluative process. More specifically, the Andragogical Process Model for Learning is what should also be used for instructional design or professional development sessions. In essence, the andragogical process model empowers adult learners to take an active role in their education, recognizing their experience, self-direction, and desire for relevant and practical learning. It shifts the instructor’s role from a traditional lecturer to a facilitator who guides and supports the learning journey. This journey includes providing a conducive learning environment to mutually planning the objectives and plans after diagnosing the learning needs. In addition, the process is evaluated for efficacy.

One concern is if the learners make their own choices on what and how to learn, how is that monitored? So, along with the assumptions and the andragogical process model for learning, I utilized the learning contracts. The learning contracts were the learning plans listed in the process model. The contracts would itemize what the learner wants to learn, the resources they will use, and the evaluation methods to demonstrate their learning. The learning contract or plans provide a documented source for accountability to self or administration.

Overall, Andragogy has so much potential to disrupt and improve traditional professional development that merges a learners’ autonomy and motivation to learn what is needed and the need for accountability in professional learning. Andragogy is a phenomenal framework that will undoubtedly improve professional learning for teachers. 

#5 Seemiller & Grace’s Generation Z Study 

One of the more interesting studies to emerge about generational perspectives is Seemiller and Grace’s (2016) work. In particular, they interviewed 1,100 Generation Z college students from 15 vastly different U.S. higher education institutions. In their book, they include data from other studies they have completed to include more than 150,000 students’ voices reflected in the evidence. The research found a few interesting items about who they are, how they learn, and what they want. 

Figure 3 – Seemiller & Grace’s ‘Generation Z Goes to College’

The qualitative results are a great inspection of who these students are and what the need for learning. Let’s break down the 5 trends that emerged.

  • First, Generation Z are observers. Generation Z prefers to observe others model doing something before trying it themselves.​ I can say that I have noticed an uptick in students asking for a model or example of the assignment tasked. It’s not that the was not the case before, but they are certainly making it known and requesting it more often for most of their work.
  • Next, Generation Z want to learn skills that are applicable and transferable. Generation Z prefer and WANT to learn skills and information that are easily and immediately applicable to real life. This trend directly connects to David Kohl’s Experiential Learning and Love and Wegner’s Situated Learning. 
  • Generation Z feel that it is up to them to make change happen in their community and globally. Now, you may ponder that every generation is involved in making change happen. We have seen volunteering increase. The difference is, as Seemiller and Grace, pointed out, they don’t just want to put some time in volunteering. They want to completely change the system or eradicate the issue. 
  • Did you think about Generation Z as interpersonal learners? Well, that is the next trend discovered.Generation Z prefer to learn by themselves. They want to set up their own schedules and reflect on their learning. 
  • Last, Generation Z sees peers and faculty as resources to further their understanding.They appreciate working together and after want to reflect on their own understanding and perspectives. I have seen this trend in my courses with undergraduate students. They definitely don’t mind collaborating or discussions or activities in class, but ultimately would like to work on their own.

Seemiller and Grace are trailblazers researching vital information that will continue to transform our thoughts and understanding about Gen Z learners and workers.

0 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Educational Research

Seven Research Trends to Keep an Eye On, Part Two

by Dr. Cynthia Sosa
written by Dr. Cynthia Sosa

We all recognize the work of educational theorists whose legacy is imprinted in every educator such as Piaget, Vygotsky or Dewey. Their contributions are undeniable. Their theories have shaped generations of educators for decades. However, education is never static. The dynamic world and society we live in, diverse students, emerging technologies, and varied learning environments are all contributing factors. Yet, there is always new research constantly emerging. This series of posts cuts through the noise to bring you seven current research frameworks to engage learners or drive impactful professional
learning.

Please note that this is part one of a seven-part blog series. Click here to see all available parts, and check back regularly for more research trends to keep an eye on!

2. Sonny Magana’s T3 Framework of Innovation

The T3 Framework of Innovation by Sonny Magana (2017) is a research-based framework that categorizes the way technology can be used for teaching and learning. In his book, Disruptive Classroom Technologies: A Framework for Innovation in Education, Magana calls for the disruption of our ways and this idea is steadily gaining momentum for its simplicity to explain and demonstrate technology use at various levels. There are three domains with two levels within each domain. Each of these domains and levels increase complexity and use and the impact of the digital tools used.

In each of the three domains, Magana has outlined 2 levels of how technology is implemented in the classroom and what he feels is the way students interact with technology. It follows a bit of a hierarchy of technology use from low and simple usage to higher, more intricate and complex usage.

The first domain is Translational. Within this domain are two levels: (1) automation and (2) consumption. In each of these levels within the domain of translational, we see a general usage of technology, one where we use technology to automate tasks that are normally completed in non-tech or non-digital ways. One example is using an app for a quiz instead of a traditional hardcopy.

The second domain is Transformational. Within this domain are two levels: (1) production and (2) contribution. Magana now describes transformational actions as disruptive because it changes the role of person involved, the task itself, or the impact of product.

In this domain, students are now either producing artifacts that exhibit mastery of goals, evidence of knowledge or thinking visibly, or contributing to others’ knowledge growth. It is “doing new things in new ways.”

Moreover, it is the production of artifacts that demonstrate growth and mastery from stated goals and the metacognitive reflection of learning. Example apps for producing and tracking goals are Snorkl, Canva Whiteboard, Google Sheets, or Microsoft Forms.

The third and last domain is Transcendent. Within this domain are two levels: (1) inquiry design and (2) social entrepreneurship. Now, we have heard of using technology in new and innovative ways, something that has never been conceptualized before; however, the problem with that is that it is left open-ended. What does that look like? Magana provides guidance in the last domain of transcendence. It is student-driven, progressive, and has the potential to disrupt and advance learning. While complex, it can still be very attainable. Using inquiry design, students are working mostly on their own to find solutions to particular ‘wicked’ problems. The basis of social entrepreneurship implies that students should be investigating and helping the greater good. Learning, at this stage, is not confined to the four walls of the classroom.

Magana’s T3 Framework of Innovation challenges educators to move beyond simply digitizing old practices, instead aiming for genuine, deep learning. By categorizing technology integration into translational, transformational, and transcendent levels, the framework provides a clear roadmap for fostering student achievement and preparing them for a dynamic future.

3. George Siemens’ Connectivism Theory

The article, Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, Siemens (2005), is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations. New information is continually being acquired. Who knew that Siemens theory would be so relevant 20 years later?

This particular theory is near the top of my list. It is a favorite of mine that I have actively made a more deliberate effort to implement. It is in the same bracket as other philosophies like constructivism or progressivism and goes beyond the seminal research such as constructivism or progressivism to challenge us to rethink learning. Siemens posits that technology and connection are missing in our current understandings.

It is based on the ideas that a dynamic learning environment and the individual is only part of the equation to connecting the dots to new information. The ability to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is vital. Moreover, the ability to recognize when new information alters the landscape based on previous decisions.

Connectivism advocates connection, collaboration, and access to build and find knowledge. This theory sets up the idea that learning is acquired through new, more connected ways. Lifelong learning is a core tenet for continuous adaptation and acquiring new information. Let’s take a look at the principles of Connectivism:

  • Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
  • Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
  • Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
  • Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
  • Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
  • Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
  • Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
  • Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality.

While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.

To break this down a bit more, let’s envision what this may look like in a classroom or for an educator subscribed to this theory. The learner is participating in and connecting to others online in discussion forums and communities of shared interests. By the way, did you know TCEA has an online community with all its members? They may use social media to learn following experts, sharing their own resources, and, again, engaging in discussions.

The learner may go a bit further by collaborating online for the development of documents or projects. The learner may join an online course, learning from the instructors or the other diverse learners. The learner may increase and focus on their PLN [Professional Learning Network] that includes anyone or space that has shared interests to connect with and learn from. Last, the learner will utilize online resources and databases to learn, develop research skills, and synthesize information
for professional growth.

Siemens’ theory offers a timely perspective on learning in this currently connected and digital age. He asserts that knowledge resides in interconnected networks of diverse opinions and information. We should leverage these dynamic networks as the core skill for continuous learning and adaptation in a rapidly evolving world.

Don’t forget to post a comment if you like this post or have a follow-up question. We would love to hear from you!

Sosa, C. (2025, Aug 8). Seven research trends to keep an eye on, part two. [Blog entry]. TCEA TechNotes.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts