3RD EDITION
Learning
Beer
Through Structured Teaching
Better Learning
Through Structured Teaching
A Framework for the
Gradual Release of
Responsibility
DOUGLAS
FISHER
NANCY
FREY
EDUCATION
Now in its third edition, Better Learning Through Structured Teaching is the
denitive guide to the gradual release of responsibility—an instructional
framework any teacher can use to help students be more successful and
self-directed learners.
To gradually release responsibility is to equip students with what they need to
master content and develop new competencies. On a day-to-day basis, it means
delivering lessons intentionally structured to incorporate four interrelated phases:
• Focused Instrucon (“I do it”) that sets students up for cognitive
apprenticeship by establishing lesson purpose, modeling strategies
and skills, and sharing information and insight.
• Guided Instrucon (“We do it together”) that incorporates
targeted prompts, cues, and questions to scaffold understanding.
• Collaborave Learning (“You do it together”) that allows students
to consolidate and extend understanding through accountable
group tasks built on discussion and cooperative problem solving.
• Independent Learning (“You do it alone”) that provides students
opportunities to practice and apply the skills and knowledge
they’ve acquired to create authentic products and ask new questions.
Authors Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey detail the components of each phase,
sharing effective proven strategies and real-life examples. You’ll nd a variety of
tips and tools for classroom implementation, along with new guidance on teacher
credibility, social-emotional learning, and embedding assessment throughout
all four phases. No matter what grade level or subject you teach, Beer Learning
Through Structured Teaching is an essential resource for improving your practice
and empowering your students.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Preface to the Third Edition ................................. vii
1. Learning and the Intentional Act of Teaching ..................1
2. Focused Instruction: Purpose and
Cognitive Apprenticeship ..................................20
3. Guided Instruction: Questions, Prompts, and Cues .............44
4. Collaborative Learning: Creating
Student Learning Communities ............................73
5. Independent Learning: Practicing
and Applying What Has Been Taught .......................103
6. Implementing the Gradual Release
of Responsibility Instructional Framework ..................126
References ...............................................151
Index ....................................................156
About the Authors .........................................162
Beer
Learning
Through Structured Teaching
A Framework for the Gradual
Release of Responsibility
3RD EDITION
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
vii
Preface to the Third Edition
Who would have thought back in 1999, when we resuscitated and
revised the gradual release of responsibility framework, that we
would still be adjusting it more than 20 years later? The foun-
dational truths that anchor the two of us, Doug and Nancy, as
educators still guide us as much today as they did when we rst
set out to dene effective, intentional instruction. Yet the world
continues to change, and we continue to learn, which is why we
decided to revise this book for a third edition.
Those who are familiar with past editions may notice some
changes. We have updated the chapter on focused instruction
based on current thinking about direct instruction and how to
ensure that lectures are meaningful. Of course, teacher model-
ing is still very important, but we know now that there are ways
beyond modeling to focus students and ensure that they have
strong cognitive apprenticeship experiences. Guided instruction,
although far more than simply “telling” or otherwise sharing
information, remains an important part of the learning process.
You’ll nd new information about scaffolds that should shape the
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
viii Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
ways that teachers interact with students to ensure that they are
learning during this phase.
Over the past several years, we have also engaged in a great
deal of thinking about students’ ability to collaborate with their
peers, and we drew on work related to professional learning
communities to develop the concept of and guidelines for stu-
dent learning communities. This edition’s chapter on collabora-
tion has a great deal of new information on what students gain
from working with one another—not just deeper learning and
enhanced social-emotional competency but also the awareness
that people really do learn more, and learn better, when we learn
with others. This chapter also looks at ways that students can
collaborate from a distance as they work to negotiate meaning,
problem solve, or reach consensus.
In terms of independent learning, we highlight the role of
practice much more than we have before. As you will see, prac-
tice makes learning permanent, and the evidence on deliberate
practice can guide the ways in which students are tasked with
completing work. If we can use independent learning for stu-
dents to preview and review, we might just accelerate their learn-
ing and help them reach new levels of success.
New and old readers alike may notice that the examples
woven through the chapters include distance and blended learn-
ing, informed by lessons learned from teaching during the COVID-
19 pandemic. Many of the experiences educators had during this
period of mandatory distance learning will serve us well going
forward, irrespective of the format of schooling. We have seen
the value, for example, in creating interactive videos that pro-
vide students information and vocabulary in advance of a lesson.
But the biggest change in this edition is in our approach to
assessment—specically, the point that assessment cannot be
“left until the end” of a lesson. Teachers should be adjusting their
lessons in real time as they collect and analyze the data that they
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Preface ix
get from students, whether that be during focused, guided, col-
laborative, or independent learning. Assessment is the engine
that drives instructional decisions; it’s what allows teachers to
know if we are having an impact. When we are not achieving the
desired impact—learning—we have to change course and try
something else.
Finally, as we launch into this revised articulation of the grad-
ual release of responsibility framework, we want to remind you
just how much teaching matters. The decisions teachers make to
structure students’ encounters with learning have consequences
powerful enough to change lives. Never forget the inuence
you have on the young people in your classroom. Choose your
actions with care. And thank you for all you do, and all you will
continue to do, to ensure that learning happens for every stu-
dent, every day.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
1
1
Learning and the Intentional
Act of Teaching
As many have noted, teaching is both an art and a science. On
the “science” side, there is considerable evidence about the
measures proven to support learning that educators can use to
inform instructional decisions. We ignore that evidence to our,
and our students’, peril. Aspects of teaching that fall under the
“art” heading include healthy teacher–student relationships, the
classroom learning climate, and teachers’ passion for the work
and their students’ learning. This book focuses more on the
science of teaching than the art, but you’ll read examples that
clearly mobilize both art and science.
What’s most important is that teaching lead to learning—that
it develop in students the knowledge, skill, and condence they
need to learn deeply, think critically and creatively, and be able
to apply learning strategies to meet new challenges. If what we
are doing is not having that effect, we need to change what we
are doing.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
2 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
The Case for Instructional Frameworks
There is a difference between being prescriptive about instruc-
tion and being intentional about it. The purpose of instructional
frameworks is not to undercut teacher expertise or profession-
alism or to tell teachers what to say and how to say it; it’s to
provide a system of expectations for how students might be
taught. Instructional frameworks are a tool that teachers can use
to design learning and make informed decisions about the spe-
cic strategies that will best support their students’ success. In
addition, instructional frameworks create a shared vocabulary
so that members of teacher teams can communicate more effec-
tively when they interact with one another. Instructional frame-
works make it easier to discuss instruction across platforms
(face-to-face, distance learning, blended, or hybrid variants). Fur-
ther, they help teachers identify professional learning opportu-
nities. For example, if one aspect of an instructional framework
focuses on student-to-student interaction, teachers might want
to learn new ways to enhance this in their classrooms.
Essentially, an instructional framework is a way to organize
strategies and deploy them to create cohesive learning experi-
ences for students. It’s a defense against the all-too-common and
frankly exhausting “buffet model” of professional learning, where
teachers are prompted to keep adding to their plates without
any idea of where they’re going to “put” it all.
A number of instructional frameworks have been developed
over the years, but the one we’ll be focusing on is called the
gradual release of responsibility.
The Gradual Release of Responsibility:
A Structure for Supporting Learning
The gradual release of responsibility instructional framework
is based on the belief that teachers can intentionally increase
students’ ownership of learning over time. The framework is
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Learning and the Intentional Act of Teaching 3
informed by several complementary theories, including the
following:
• Piaget’s (1952) work on cognitive structures and schemata
• Vygotsky’s (1962, 1978) work on zones of proximal
development
• Bandura’s (1965, 2006) work on attention, efcacy, reten-
tion, reproduction, and motivation
• Wood, Bruner, and Ross’s (1976) work on scaffolded
instruction
Taken together, these theories suggest that learning occurs
through interactions with others, and being intentional in these
interactions allows for specic learning to occur. The mechanism
behind the gradual release of responsibility is purposefully shift-
ing the cognitive load from teacher-as-model to joint responsi-
bility of teacher and learner, and then to independent practice
and application by the learner (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). This
gradual decrease of teacher responsibility and parallel increase
in student responsibility may occur over a single lesson, a day, a
week, a month, or a year.
In the past, interpretations of the gradual release of responsi-
bility limited these interactions to adult and student exchanges: I
do it; We do it together; You do it. But that three-part model omits
a truly vital component of learning: students’ collaboration with
their peers—the You do it together phase. Thus, our interpreta-
tion of the gradual release of responsibility framework includes
four major phases. In Figure 1.1, we map out these phases of
learning, indicating the share of responsibility that students and
teachers have in each.
We are not suggesting that every lesson must always start
with focused instruction (goal setting and modeling) before
progressing to guided instruction, then to collaborative learn-
ing, and nally to independent tasks. Teachers can and often
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
4 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
do reorder the phases—for example, beginning a lesson with an
independent task, such as bell work or a quick-write, or engaging
students in collaborative peer inquiry prior to providing teacher
modeling. As we stress throughout this book, what is important
and necessary for deep learning is that students experience all
four phases of learning when encountering new content. We will
explore the four phases in greater detail in subsequent chapters,
but let’s proceed now with an overview of each.
“I do it”
“You do it together”
“We do it”
Focused Instruction
Guided Instruction
Collaborative
Learning
Independent
Learning
TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
“You do it alone”
Focused Instruction
This phase includes two components: establishing the purpose
for learning—that is, setting learning intentions and success
criteria—and providing cognitive apprenticeship opportunities
through modeling and demonstration. In focused instruction
(which, as noted, does not have to come at the beginning of a les-
son), students get to know what they are learning and see exam-
ples of the type of thinking that they are expected to do. Here
Figure 1.1 A Structure for Instruction That Works
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Learning and the Intentional Act of Teaching 5
are some examples of what teachers and learners might be doing
during the focused instruction phase:
Teacher Actions Student Actions
• Describing the learning intentions and
success criteria
• Noting the relevance of the lesson
• Thinking aloud, demonstrating, or providing
direct instruction
• Listening and making connections
• Taking notes or talking with a partner about
what the class is learning
• Developing a mental model of expertise
Focused instruction is typically done with the whole class
and usually lasts 15 minutes or less—long enough to clearly
establish purpose and ensure that students have a model from
which to work. Bear in mind, too, that there is no reason to limit
focused instruction to once per lesson. The gradual release of
responsibility instructional framework is recursive, and a teacher
might reassume responsibility several times during a lesson to
reestablish the lesson purpose and provide additional examples
of expert thinking.
Guided Instruction
The guided instruction phase is an opportunity to scaffold stu-
dents’ understanding. Through the use of questions, prompts,
and cues, teachers can support student learning without telling
them answers or simply providing them with information. Guided
instruction can be done with a whole class, but many teachers
are more effective when they guide small, purposeful groups that
have been composed based on assessment data. Here are some
examples of what teachers and learners might be doing during
the guided instruction phase:
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
6 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
Teacher Actions Student Actions
• Asking questions
• Scaffolding with prompts, cues, and direct
explanations
• Meeting with intentionally selected groups
of students
• Monitoring progress and documenting
learning
• Responding to the teacher’s questions
• Thinking and noticing, based on the
scaffolds
• Experiencing productive success with the
support of the teacher
Guided instruction is an ideal time to differentiate learning
experiences by varying the instructional materials used, the
level of prompting or questioning employed, and the products
expected. A single guided instructional event won’t translate
into all students developing the content knowledge or skills they
are lacking, but a series of guided instructional events can. Over
time and with cues, prompts, and questions, teachers can guide
students to increasingly complex thinking. Guided instruction is,
in part, about establishing high expectations and providing stu-
dents with the support they need to reach those expectations.
Collaborative Learning
The collaborative learning phase of instruction is too often
neglected. If used at all, it tends to be a “special event” rather
than an established instructional routine. When done right, col-
laborative learning is a way for students to consolidate their
thinking and expand their understanding. Negotiating with peers,
discussing ideas and information, problem solving, and engaging
in inquiry with others give students the opportunity to use what
they have learned during focused and guided instruction. Here
are some examples of what teachers and learners might be doing
during the collaborative learning phase:
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Learning and the Intentional Act of Teaching 7
Teacher Actions Student Actions
• Developing complex tasks
• Forming groups purposefully
• Assigning roles
• Monitoring progress
• Using academic language in interactions
with peers
• Sharing opinions, ideas, and thoughts
• Problem solving and using argumentation
• Working to achieve consensus
Because collaborative learning situations help students think
through key ideas, they are a natural opportunity for inquiry and
a way to promote engagement with the content. As such, they are
critical to the successful implementation of the gradual release
of responsibility instructional framework. Note, though, that col-
laborative learning is not the time to introduce new information
to students. This phase of instruction is a time for students to
apply what they already know in novel situations or engage in a
spiral review of previous knowledge.
Independent Learning
The ultimate goal of instruction is that students be able to inde-
pendently apply information, ideas, content, skills, and strate-
gies in unique situations. We want to create learners who are not
reliant on others for information and ideas. As such, students
need practice completing independent tasks and learning from
those tasks. Overall and across time, the school and instruc-
tional events must be “organized to encourage and support a
continued, increasingly mature and comprehensive acceptance
of responsibilities for one’s own learning” (Kesten, 1987, p. 15).
The effectiveness of independent learning, however, depends on
students’ readiness to engage in it; too many students are asked
to complete independent tasks without having received the
focused or guided instruction they need to do so successfully.
Here are some examples of what teachers and learners might be
doing during the independent learning phase:
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
8 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
Teacher Actions Student Actions
• Developing practice and application tasks
• Monitoring student progress
• Completing assignments
• Planning and monitoring their own efforts
• Reflecting on their own successes
When students are ready to apply skills and knowledge, there
is a range of independent tasks that might be used. Our experi-
ence suggests that the more authentic a task is, the more likely
the student is to complete it. For example, a kindergarten teacher
might ask a student to read a familiar book to three adults, a 6th
grade science teacher might ask a student to predict the out-
come of a lab based on the previous three experiments, and a
high school art teacher might ask a student to incorporate light
and perspective into a new painting. What’s essential for an inde-
pendent learning task is that it clearly relate to the instruction
each student has received yet also provide the student an oppor-
tunity to apply the resulting knowledge in a new way.
Structures That Don’t Support Learning
With this effective approach to instruction fresh in mind, let’s
look at some structures that don’t support learning nearly as
well. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of classrooms in which
responsibility for learning is not being transferred from knowl-
edgeable others (teachers, peers, parents) to students. Although
they may feature some of the phases of instruction we have
described, the omission of other phases derails learning in sig-
nicant ways.
For example, in some classrooms, teachers provide expla-
nations and then skip straight to asking students to complete
independent tasks—an approach graphically represented in Fig-
ure 1.2. This situation is very familiar. A teacher demonstrates
how to approach a particular kind of algebra problem and then
asks students to solve the odd-numbered problems in the back
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Learning and the Intentional Act of Teaching 9
of the book. A teacher reads a text aloud and then asks students
to complete a comprehension worksheet based on the reading.
In both cases, the teacher fails to develop students’ understand-
ing of the content through the purposeful interaction of guided
instruction. This is a sudden release of responsibility, not a grad-
ual one. It’s a structure that favors students who arrive already
knowing the content. Students who are not yet procient with
the content suffer in this environment, because they lack suf-
cient scaffolding to learn.
Sadly, there is a classroom model even worse than this, at
least in terms of instructional development. It’s the one in which
students are asked to learn everything on their own, depicted in
Figure 1.3. The structure of these classes is depressingly uniform.
Students complete the prepared study packet of photocopied
worksheets or online tasks, or they read the assigned pages and
then answer the questions at the back of the textbook. Then
“I do it”
“You do it alone”
Focused Instruction
Independent
Learning
TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
Figure 1.2 In Some Classrooms . . .
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
10 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
they follow this pattern over and over again, day after day. There
really isn’t much teaching going on in these classrooms; it’s
mostly assigning or causing work. This is do-it-yourself school,
and frankly, we’d be embarrassed to accept our paychecks if we
“taught” like this.
“You do it alone”
Independent
Learning
TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
There are days at school when students do need to spend
signicant amounts of time working independently—completing
projects, writing essays, and the like. However, this should not be
happening every day, and on the days it does happen, students
need to be reminded of the purpose of the lesson, experience a
brief episode of expert thinking, and interact with their peers.
Even in classrooms that most people would consider “good”
or “good enough,” the gradual release of responsibility instruc-
tional framework is seldom fully operationalized. As noted, the
most frequent omission is the collaborative learning phase, lead-
ing to the instructional approach represented in Figure 1.4.
Figure 1.3 In Some Classrooms . . .
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Learning and the Intentional Act of Teaching 11
In these classrooms, the teacher provides modeling and then
meets with small groups of students. But students don’t have
the opportunity to collaborate, as they are all required to com-
plete independent tasks while waiting their turn to meet with the
teacher. For example, the teacher might model comprehension
strategies useful in understanding scientic texts (I do it) and
then meet with two or three small groups of students to guide
their understanding (We do it together). As this is going on, the
rest of the students are more likely to be assigned independent
reading from a textbook (You do it alone) than they are to work in
collaborative learning groups (You do it together).
We believe that all four phases of the gradual release of
responsibility framework—focused instruction, guided instruc-
tion, collaborative learning, and independent learning—are nec-
essary if we want students to learn deeply, think critically and
creatively, and be able to mobilize learning strategies.
“I do it”
“You do it alone”
“We do it”
Focused Instruction
Guided Instruction
Independent
Learning
TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
Figure 1.4 In Some Classrooms . . .
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
12 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
Attending to the Social and
Emotional Dimensions of Learning
Learning isn’t strictly an intellectual enterprise. The dispositions
of the learner and that learner’s investment in learning also play
a powerful role in learning success. The extensive research on
motivation in learning has demonstrated that self-determination
matters a great deal. In fact, motivation is a stronger predictor of
achievement than intelligence (Kriegbaum et al., 2018). However,
motivation isn’t monolithic, and people’s reasons for engaging
in behaviors can include both internal and external motivations
(Howard et al., 2017). For example, individuals on a group bike
ride are likely to represent a range of these internal motivations,
even though their actions appear to be the same:
• “I have to do this.” (I exercise because my doctor says I must.)
• “I can do this.” (I am capable of riding a bike for 40 miles.)
• “I want to do this.” (I like the way bike riding makes me feel
physically and mentally.)
Our classrooms are likewise lled with students possess-
ing a range of motivations. Because of motivation’s complexity,
we’ve found it helpful to think of a learner’s motivation as being
informed by three factors: identity, agency, and self-regulation.
Identity as a learner. Identity is an understanding of who
we are. Our attributes, which is to say our characteristics, are
informed by the way the world reacts to us. Young children learn
about themselves relative to their interactions with others and
align their responses to be consistent with those of their care-
givers. A young child encounters a strange dog and looks to the
adult holding his hand to see whether he should be afraid or not.
This experience becomes a story he can tell about himself: “I saw
a big dog, but Mama said I was brave because I didn’t act scared.”
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Learning and the Intentional Act of Teaching 13
A person’s identity is further informed by xed and uid
structures such as gender, race, sexual orientation, culture, and
socioeconomic status. Societal messages can both enhance and
inhibit a child’s learning. Consider that the phenomenon of ste-
reotype threat has a documented negative inuence, with a mea-
sured effect equivalent to a year’s loss of learning. A learning
environment in which students perceive that a negative perfor-
mance on their part will reinforce a negative stereotype about
an afliated group puts these students at risk. Their anxiousness
about doing well actually reduces their performance. Stereotype
threat has been documented in children as young as 1st grade
(Désert et al., 2009). However, classroom instruction that incor-
porates exposure to positive messages about afliated groups
can help to create “stereotype boost” in these same children,
enhancing their performance (Shih et al., 2012). We would be
remiss if this book about instruction overlooked the importance
of culturally relevant and culturally sustaining pedagogies in the
learning lives of students.
Agency in learning. A person’s sense of agency is closely
linked to personal identity. Agency is one’s perceived capacity
to take action in the world. It is socially constructed and inu-
enced by the network of relationships a child has at home and at
school.
It’s fair to say that agency is at the heart of the gradual
release of responsibility instructional framework; after all, the
framework is constructed to ensure that students have frequent
opportunities to take calculated learning risks as they continu-
ally try on new knowledge and skills. Students with a higher
degree of agency have the condence necessary to step beyond
reception and toward action, working through problems alone
and with others, testing solutions, and reecting on their results
in order to innovate and improve on their attempts. At the same
time, it is by successfully assuming responsibility, within the
guardrails of the framework, that students build greater agency.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
14 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
Of course, successful assumption of responsibility depends
on the teacher’s successful release of it. A teacher who overes-
timates the value of telling and fails to provide chances for stu-
dents to try on new thinking thwarts their ability to develop
agency in their learning. That teacher breeds a dependency and
signals to children that learning is a one-way proposition: I tell,
and you listen. This sets up learning as a passive experience
rather than one that requires action and effort. Under these cir-
cumstances, is it any wonder that many students fail to recognize
their own motivation as a critical part of the learning equation?
Self-regulation in learning. Self-regulation is a collective term
that describes the habits, dispositions, and skills students need
to “learn how to learn.” Individuals who can self-regulate are able
to direct their attention, organize their thinking, and make deci-
sions about what they need to do next.
One important dimension of self-regulation is metacognition,
which is thinking about one’s thinking. It was once assumed that
only older children could engage in metacognitive thinking. We
know now that children as young as age 3 can reect on a task
and tell you what steps they must take to complete it. Further,
they can describe, after the task is over, what actions would have
made it easier (Marulis et al., 2016). Metacognitive abilities are
accelerated when students have opportunities to reect on their
learning, which is required in all phases of the gradual release of
responsibility instructional framework.
Persistence in tasks is another disposition important in the
development of self-regulation. The ability to stick with a task
even when it is difcult has a developmental component to it,
but like metacognition, we see evidence of this at a surprisingly
early age. Students who have strong persistence can direct, and
redirect, their attention. They decide to continue working and
thinking, in part because they have experienced success doing
so in the past, and in part because others have recognized their
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Learning and the Intentional Act of Teaching 15
efforts to stay focused on the learning. They also grasp the
restorative value of taking a little break before returning to a vex-
ing task.
The X Factor in Instructional
Success: Teacher Credibility
There is plenty of evidence about what works best to ensure aca-
demic learning and social-emotional development. But the same
strategies can get different outcomes, based on the credibility the
teacher has established with students.
The research points to four components of teacher credibil-
ity that play a signicant role in students’ growth: trust, compe-
tence, dynamism, and immediacy. Thankfully, there are specic
actions teachers can take to increase personal credibility in each
of these areas.
Trust
Students want to know that their teachers really care about them
as individuals and have their best academic and social interests
at heart. Students also want to know that their teachers are reli-
able and true to their word. First, a few general points about
trust:
• If you make a promise, work to keep it, or explain why you
could not.
• Tell students the truth about their performance; they know
when their work is below standard and wonder why you
are telling them otherwise.
• Don’t spend all your time trying to catch students in “bad
behavior,” yet be honest about the impact that their behav-
ior has on you as an individual.
• Examine any negative feelings you have about specic stu-
dents; they sense it, and it compromises the trust within
the classroom.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
16 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
Competence
This aspect of teacher credibility is the main focus of this book.
Students expect an appropriate level of expertise from their
teachers in terms of delivery and accuracy of information. In
other words, they want teachers to know their stuff and know
how to teach that stuff. Students expect lessons to be well paced
and effective, and they expect the information you provide to be
accurate. To build recognizable competence . . .
• Make sure you know the content well; this kind of prepara-
tion requires advance planning. Be honest when a question
arises that you are not sure how to answer.
• Organize lesson delivery in a cohesive and coherent way.
• Consider how your nonverbal behaviors communicate
competence, such as the position of your hands when you
talk with students or your facial expressions. Students
notice defensive positions and indications that you are dis-
missing or don’t value their comments or contributions.
Dynamism
This aspect of teacher credibility focuses on the passion teach-
ers bring to the classroom and the content they teach. Dyna-
mism is really about the ability to communicate enthusiasm—for
subject matter and for students’ learning. It’s also about develop-
ing lessons capable of capturing students’ interest. To increase
dynamism . . .
• Remind yourself why you wanted to be a teacher and what
aspects of the content you love. Students notice when
their teachers are bored by what they’re teaching. (We
think “Make content interesting!” is a motto all teachers
should adopt.)
• Consider the relevance of your lessons. Does the con-
tent lend itself to application outside the classroom? Do
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Learning and the Intentional Act of Teaching 17
students have opportunities to learn about themselves
and their problem-solving abilities? Does the content link
in some way to civic engagement or provide opportuni-
ties for tangible community action? When students don’t
see the relevance of their assignments, they check out;
you may get compliance, but you will not get committed
learning.
• Seek feedback from trusted colleagues about your les-
son delivery. Ask those colleagues to focus more on the
passion you bring to lesson content than on the individ-
ual strategies you use. Students respond to passion and
energy in a lesson, even when they didn’t think they would
be interested.
Immediacy
This nal construct of teacher credibility focuses on how acces-
sible students perceive the teacher to be—the immediacy of the
teacher’s attention and responses. Teachers who make them-
selves accessible, who move around the room and work to be
easy to connect with and relate to, signal to students that their
learning is a priority. To improve your immediacy . . .
• Get to know your students as people. Students easily
detect when you’re indifferent to their interests and pas-
sions; it communicates to them that you’re not invested in
them or their overall success.
• Attend extracurricular events so that students see you out-
side the familiar classroom setting. Even the most skepti-
cal students will notice you’re there and think about your
presence.
• Teach with urgency, but not to the point that the class-
room climate becomes stressful. Students want to know
that their learning matters and that you are not wasting
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
18 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
their time, but they also want to be pulled into the feel-
ing that the work is important and worth their investment
rather than something imposed on them.
• Start the class on time and use every minute wisely. This
means preparing tasks that students can complete while
you engage in routine work like taking attendance. It means
having a series of “sponge activities” ready when lessons
run short. Students notice when time is wasted. Lots of
“free time” communicates to them that neither the content
nor their learning is a high priority.
Take a moment to think about how these aspects of teacher
credibility encompass both art and science. As noted previously,
this book focuses mainly on the intentional use of instructional
strategies that deepen student learning and develop students’
learning capacity. Over several decades’ worth of experience and
research, we have come to believe that planning and delivering
lessons with the gradual release of responsibility instructional
framework enhances teacher competency and, thus, teacher
credibility.
Conclusion
The gradual release of responsibility framework is a structure
that requires teachers to commit to the following:
• Knowing their students and content well
• Regularly assessing students’ understanding of the content
• Purposefully planning lessons that transfer responsibility
from the teacher to the student in order to build student
identity and agency by equipping them with the self-
regulation skills they need to fuel their own learning
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Learning and the Intentional Act of Teaching 19
In the remainder of this book, we examine each aspect of this
instructional framework and note how intentionally structuring
learning experiences helps teachers meet students’ needs and
develop both students’ condence and competence and their
own.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
151
References
Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing: A comprehensive guide to simulations, com-
puter games, and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, N. J. (2002, April). The role of metacognition in second language teach-
ing and learning (ERIC Digest EDO-FL-01-10). Retrieved from http://www.cal.
content/download/1560/16583/le/RoleofMetacognitioninSecondLanguag-
eTeachingandLearning.pdf
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system
and its control processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2, 89–195.
Bandura, A. (1965). Inuence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the
acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, (6)1, 589–595. doi:org/10.1037/h0022070
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psy-
chological Science, 1, 164–180.
Benjamin, A. (2002). Differentiated instruction: A guide for middle and high school
teachers. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Burke, J. (2002). Tools for thought: Graphic organizers for your classroom. Ports-
mouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking.
New York: Broadway Paperbacks.
Choppin, J. (2011). The impact of professional noticing on teachers’ adapta-
tions of challenging tasks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(3), 175–
197. doi:10.1080/10986065.2010.495049
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:
Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
152 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
(Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser
(pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Daniels, H. (2001). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading
groups. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Daniels, H. (2006). What’s the next big thing with literature circles? Voices from
the Middle, 13(4), 10–15.
Désert, M., Préaux, M., & Jund, R. (2009). So young and already victims of ste-
reotype threat: Socio-economic status and performance of 6 to 9 years old
children on Raven’s progressive matrices. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 24(2), 207–218.
Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: History, mathe-
matics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Research
Council.
Duffy, G. G. (2009). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills,
and strategies (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Dufresne, A., & Kobasigawa, A. (1989). Children’s spontaneous allocation of study
time: Differential and sufcient aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-
chology, 47(2), 274–296. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/0022-0965(89)90033-7
Duke, R. A. (2012). Their own best teachers: How we help and hinder the devel-
opment of learners’ independence. Music Educators Journal, 99(2), 36–41.
Retrieved from doi:10.1177/0027432112458956
Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine
Books
Dweck, C. S. (2010, September). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leader-
ship, 68(2), 16–20.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review,
100(3), 363–406.
Falloon, G. (2020). From simulations to real: Investigating young students’ learn-
ing and transfer from simulations to real tasks. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 51(3), 778–797.
Fisher, A. T., Alder, J. G., & Avasalu, M. (1998). Lecturing performance appraisal
criteria: Staff and student difference. Australian Journal of Education, 42(2),
153–168.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Homework and the gradual release of responsibil-
ity: Making “responsibility” possible. English Journal, 98(2), 40–45.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Collaborative learning: Ensuring students consolidate
understanding. Newark, DE: International Literacy Association.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment
techniques for your classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2019). Improving adolescent literacy: Content area strategies
at work (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Almarode, J. (2020). Student learning communities: A spring-
board for academic and social-emotional development. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., Anderson, H., & Thayre, M. (2015). Text-dependent questions:
Pathways to close and critical reading, grades 6–12. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
References 153
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Pumpian, I. (2012). How to create a culture of achievement
in your school and classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Retrieved from soi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2011). The formative assessment action plan: Practical steps
to more successful teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Gonzalez, A. (2010). Literacy 2.0: Reading and writing in
21st century classrooms. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Gonzalez, J. (2018, March 26). Frickin’ packets [Blog post]. Cult of Pedagogy.
Retrieved from https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/busysheets/
Graff, G., & Birkenstein, C. (2009). They say/I say: The moves that matter in aca-
demic writing. New York: Norton.
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting con-
ceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional
interventions from reading education and science education. Reading
Research Quarterly, 28(2), 116–159. doi:10.2307/747886
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses
relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2013). Calibration and condence: Where to next? Learning and
Instruction, 24, 62–66. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc. 2012.05.009
Hattie, J. A. C., Brown, G. T., & Keegan, P. (2005). A national teacher-managed,
curriculum-based assessment system: Assessment tools for teaching &
learning (asTTle). International Journal of Learning, 10, 770–778.
Hattie, J. A. C., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and
conceptual model. NPJ Science of Learning, 1, article 16013. doi:10.1038/
npjscilearn.2016.13
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., & Bureau, J. S. (2017). Testing a continuum structure
of self-determined motivation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
143(12), 1346–1377.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2012). Advancing digital age
learning. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students
Kellough, R. D., & Kellough, N. G. (1999). Secondary school teaching: A guide to
methods and resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kesten, C. (1987). Independent learning. Regina, Canada: Saskatchewan
Education.
Kriegbaum, K., Becker, N., & Spinath, B. (2018). The relative importance of intel-
ligence and motivation as predictors of school achievement: A meta-analy-
sis. Educational Research Review, 25, 120–148.
Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback
practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13–22. doi:org/10.1093/elt/ccn010
Marulis, L. L., Palincsar, A., Berhenke, A., & Whitebread, D. (2016). Assessing
metacognitive knowledge in 3–5 year-olds: The development of a metacog-
nitive knowledge interview (McKI). Metacognition & Learning, 11, 339–368.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
154 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
McMahon, S. I., Raphael, T. E., Goatley, V. J., & Pardo, L. S. (2007). The book club
connection: Literacy learning and classroom talk. New York: Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), doi:10.3102/
00028312040004905
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2012, June). More than
half the class had internship/co-op experience. Spotlight for Career Ser-
vices Professionals. Retrieved from http://www.naceweb.org/s06062012/
intern-co-op-experience/?menuID=364&referal=knowledgecenter
Oczkus, L. (2018). Reciprocal teaching at work: Powerful strategies and lessons
for improving reading comprehension (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2010). How science works: What is the nature of scien-
tic reasoning and what do we know about students’ understanding? In J.
Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research
has to say (pp. 20–45). Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill Education.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-
fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruc-
tion, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21st century learning.
Retrieved from http://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, G. (1983). The gradual release of responsibility
model of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 112–123.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton.
Raphael, T. E., Higheld, K., & Au, K. H. (2006). QAR now: A powerful and practi-
cal framework that develops comprehension and higher-level thinking in all
students. New York: Scholastic.
Resnick, L. (1995). From aptitude to effort: A new foundation for our schools.
Daedalus, 124(4), 55–62.
Rosenshine, B. (2008). Five meanings of direct instruction. Center on Innova-
tion & Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.centerii.org/search/
Resources%5CFiveDirectInstruct.pdf
Shih, M. J., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ho, G. C. (2012). Stereotype boost: Positive outcomes
from the activation of positive stereotypes. In M. Inzlicht & T. Schmader
(Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 141–156).
New York Oxford University Press.
Short, D. J., Fidelman, C. G., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic lan-
guage in English language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL
Quarterly, 46(2), 334–361.
Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2006). America’s lab report:
Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Research
Council.
Smith, D., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2019). All learning is social and emotional: Help-
ing students develop essential skills for the classroom and beyond. Alexan-
dria, VA: ASCD.
Smith, T. (2014). Elementary science instruction: Examining a virtual environ-
ment for evidence of learning, engagement, and 21st century competen-
cies. Education Sciences, (1), 122–138.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
References 155
Summers, J. J. (2006). Effects of collaborative learning in math on sixth grad-
ers’ individual goal orientations from a socioconstructivist perspective.
Elementary School Journal, 106, 273–290.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of
all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
U.S. Department of Labor Ofce, Ofce of Disability Employment Policy. (2012).
Soft skills to pay the bills: Mastering soft skills for workplace success. Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Van Ryzin, M. J., Roseth, C. J., & McClure, H. (2020). The effects of cooperative
learning on peer relations, academic support, and engagement in learning
among students of color. Journal of Educational Research, 113(4), 283–291.
Vatterott, C. (2018). Rethinking homework: Best practices that support diverse
needs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reections: Parallels
between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63–119.
White, E. B. (1948). Death of a pig. The Atlantic, 81(1), 28–33.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and
improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd ed.). Alexan-
dria, VA: ASCD.
Wilson, J., & Cutting, L. (2001). Contracts for independent learning: Engaging stu-
dents in the middle years. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solv-
ing. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.
1469-7610.1976.tb00381
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
156
Index
The letter f following a page locator denotes a gure.
accessibility, 35. See also imme-
diacy, building for teacher
credibility
accountable talk, 79
achievement, motivation and, 12
actionable feedback, 122–123
agency, motivation and, 13–14
application homework, 116–117
apprenticeship, 20. See also cogni-
tive apprenticeship
art of teaching, 1
ASCD Whole Child approach, 73
assessment
in collaborative learning, 99–100,
123–124
in focused instruction, 36–37,
123
in guided instruction, 68–72,
123
in independent learning, 124
misconception analysis in,
40–42
noticing component of, 37–40
noticing vs., 37
assumption of responsibility,
13–14
asynchronous learning, 36, 46, 93,
103
autonomy, 120
basic group work, 80–83, 81f
book clubs and literature circles,
93–96
calibration, 110–111
carousel, 82–83
cheaters, 115–116
clarifying strategy, 88
close reading, 63–66, 65f
cognitive apprenticeship
introduction to, 20–21
teacher’s role in, 21
cognitive apprenticeship experi-
ences, providing
direct instruction, 32–34
lectures, 35–36, 36f
think-alouds, modeling and dem-
onstrating with, 24–32
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Index 157
cognitive processes
prompts in, 52
think-alouds naming, 30
collaborative learning
classroom models/structures not
supporting, 10–11, 11f
for college and career readiness,
73–74
common features and key dis-
tinctions, 79–80
condence and competence,
building through, 100–101
consolidation process in,
100
for learning, 74–75
misconceptions, 142
overview, 6–7
purpose of, 100
student learning communities in,
developing, 75–78
students, expectations of, 73
summary overview, 101–102
collaborative learning phase
assessment in, 99–100, 123–124
basic group work, 80–83, 81f
lesson plan example, 139f,
141
lesson plan template, 134f
productive group work, 81f,
83–93
quality indicators, 144–145f
student actions, examples of, 7f
teacher actions, examples of, 7f
collaborative poster technique,
86–87
collective learning, intentional,
77–78
college and career readiness, 73–74
competence (student), building
through
collaborative learning, 100–101
focused instruction, 42
guided instruction, 70–72
independent learning, 124
competence (teacher), building for
credibility, 16
compliance outcome, 22
condence (student), building
through
collaborative learning, 100–101
focused instruction, 42
guided instruction, 70–72
independent learning, 124
content differentiation, 67
conversational roundtable tech-
nique, 84
corrective feedback, 119, 120
critical thinking, 21, 112
cues, scaffolding via, 54–55, 55f
demonstration and modeling
in focused instruction, 4, 21,
26–29, 32
making implicit processes vis-
ible, 21
in misconception analysis, 40–42
providing apprenticeship experi-
ences, 24–28
with think-alouds, 24–32
dialogue, tasks and experiences
encouraging, 76
differentiation in guided instruction,
67–68
direct explanations, scaffolding via,
56
direct instruction, 32–34
discussion roundtable technique,
84–86, 85f
dynamism, building for teacher
credibility, 16–17
engagement
dynamism and, 16–17
indicators of success for, 73–74
materials required for, 147–148
English language learners, establish-
ing purpose for learning, 23
enthusiasm. See dynamism, building
for teacher credibility
Error Analysis Sheet, 48, 49f
errors
factual, 47
misconception, 47–48
mistakes vs., 46–48
patterns in, nding, 48
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
158 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
procedural, 47
targeted vs. global, 48–49
tracking, 48–49, 49f
transformation, 47
expert blind spot, 29
expert performance, predictors of,
104
expert teachers, 37–40
extension homework, 116–117
families, homework and, 114
feedback
about self-regulation, 120
about the processes used in the
task, 120
about the self as a person,
120–121
about the task, 119
effective, criteria for, 121–123
in independent learning, 117,
119–123
levels of, 119–121
on mistakes, 46
5-word summary strategy, 92–93
uency-building homework, 116–117
focused instruction
condence and competence,
building through, 42
demonstration and modeling in,
4, 21, 26–29, 32
power of, 21
requirements for, 21–22
transparency in, 21
value of, 22
focused instruction phase. See also
cognitive apprenticeship experi-
ences, providing
assessment in the, 37–42, 123
components of, 4
establishing purpose for learning,
4, 22–24
lesson plan example, 137f, 140
lesson plan template, 133f
quality indicators, 143f
setting learning intentions and
success criteria, 4
student actions, examples of, 5f
summary overview, 43
teacher actions, examples of, 5f
gradual release of responsibility
instructional framework. See also
specific phases
agency in the, 13
assessment and, 130–132
basis of, 2–3
differentiated instruction and,
127–128
introduction to, 3–4, 4f
linearity of the, 3–5, 126–127
recursive nature of, utilizing the, 5
social and emotional learning
and, 129–130
structures not supporting,
examples of, 8–11, 9f, 10f, 11f
student responsibilities, 4f, 8–11
teacher responsibilities, 4f, 8–11
theories informing, 3
Understanding by Design (UbD)
and, 128–129
gradual release of responsibility
instructional framework, imple-
menting the
guiding questions, 142, 147–149
introduction, 126–127
planning with the, 132, 133–140f
quality indicators, 143–146f
routines and procedures, useful,
149
success, monitoring indicators
of, 142
summary overview, 150
guided instruction
condence and competence,
building through, 70–72
differentiation in, 66–68
nding time for, 148
hallmark of, 46
integrating in the classroom,
57–65, 65f
participants, 5, 45–46
purpose of, 5
scaffolds, types of, 50–56, 53f, 55f
small groups in, 45, 68
errors—(continued) focus instruction phase—(continued)
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Index 159
guided instruction owchart, 50,
51f
guided instruction phase
assessment in the, 68–72, 123
lesson plan example, 138–139f,
141
lesson plan template, 134f
overview, 5–6
quality indicators, 144f
scaffolding understanding, 5,
46–49, 49f
student actions, examples of, 6f
summary overview, 72
teacher actions, examples of, 6f
teacher’s role, 45
habits of mind, developing, 75
homework assignments, 114–117
idea exchange, basic group work for,
80–83, 81f
identity, motivation and, 12–13
immediacy, building for teacher
credibility, 17–18
independent learning
classroom models/structures
not supporting, 9–10, 10f
condence and competence,
building through, 124
effectiveness, factors in, 7
feedback in, 117, 119–123
goal of, 105
meaningful, ensuring, 148–149
metacognition, developing,
106–109
misconceptions, 104, 142
models/structures not support-
ing, 10f
participants, 5
practice and application in,
105–113
purpose of, 103
in school, examples of, 111–113
self-regulation behaviors, need
for, 109–111
summary overview, 124
timing, 103
value of, 105
independent learning phase, 45
assessment in the, 124
homework assignments,
114–117, 118f
lesson plan example, 139f, 141
lesson plan template, 135f
overview, 4–5, 7–8
planning for, question to con-
sider, 112–113
quality indicators, 146f
student actions, examples of, 8f
teacher actions, examples of, 8f
teacher’s role, 105
time requirements, 5
independent students, characteris-
tics of, 104
information sharing, basic group
work for, 80–83, 81f
instruction, primary goal of, 6
instructional frameworks, purpose
of, 2
interactivity in effective lectures,
35–36
International Society for Technology
in Education, 73–74
jigsaw method, 90–92
labs and simulations, 96–99
leadership skills, developing, 78–79
learning
asynchronous, 36, 46, 93, 103
establishing purpose for, 22–24
four dimensions of, 26
passive, 14
small group work and, 74
social and emotional dimensions
of, 12–15
social-emotional, 78
structures not supporting,
examples of, 8–11, 9f, 10f, 11f
synchronous, 36, 46, 93
tasks to advance, 148–149
learning intentions, 4
learning transfer, 100–101
lectures, 35–36, 36f
Literacy Design Collaborative writ-
ing task templates, 112
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
160 Better Learning Through Structured Teaching
literature circles and book clubs,
93–96
materials needed for implementa-
tion, 147–148
metacognition
calibration in, 110
development of, 106–109
feedback promoting, 120
goal of, 108
learning transfer to promote,
100–101
prompts in the process of, 52
self-regulation and, 14, 109–110
think-alouds and, 29–30
metacognitive awareness, modeling,
26, 31
misconception analysis, 40–42
mistakes
errors vs., 46–48
feedback focusing on, 46, 119
modeling. See also demonstration
and modeling
importance of, 142
methods of, 142, 147
peer support, 78
motivation, factors informing,
12–15
National Association of Colleges and
Employers, 74
noticing, 37–40
Ofce of Disability Employment
Policy (DOL), 74
Partnership for 21st Century Skills,
73–74
patterns in errors, nding, 48
peer relationships in student learn-
ing communities, 76–78
persistence, 14–15, 120
praise, 120
predicting strategy, 88–90
problem solving, productive group
work for, 81f, 83–84
process differentiation, 67
product differentiation, 67–68
productive group work
basic group work vs., 81f
collaborative poster technique,
86–87
discussion roundtable tech-
nique, 84–86, 85f
hallmark of, 83
instructional routines, 84–93
labs and simulations for, 96–99
literature circles and book clubs
for, 93–96
for problem solving and nding
solutions, 81f, 83–84
reciprocal teaching strategy,
87–90
specialized routines, 93–99
thinking goals, 83
professional learning communities
(PLCs), 75
prompts, scaffolding via, 52–54, 53f
question generating, 87–88
questions, scaffolding via, 50–52
reading instruction, guided, 57–59
reasoning, making visible, 21
reciprocal teaching, 87–93
resilience, building, 120
responsibility, assumption of, 13–14
scaffolding principles, 46
scaffolding understanding, 46–49,
49f
scaffolds, types of
cues, 54–55, 55f
direct explanations, 56
prompts, 52–54, 53f
questions, 50–52
school, primary goal of, 22
science of teaching, 1
self as a person, feedback about the,
120–121
self-assessment, 110
self-determination, building, 120
self-efcacy, 45, 120
self-regulation
condence and, 42
feedback fostering, 120
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Index 161
in independent learning, 109–111
metacognition and, 14, 109–110
motivation and, 14–15
need for, 109–111
self-talk in fostering metacognition,
108–109
shared agreements of group suc-
cess, 77
simulations for collaborative learn-
ing, 96–99
small group guided instruction, 45,
68
social-emotional learning, 78
soft skills, 74
solitary performance, 104
solutions, group work for nding,
81f, 83–84
specic feedback, 121
spiral review homework, 116–117
stereotype threat/stereotype boost,
13
student learning communities
(SLCs), developing, 76–79
students, expectations of, 15–18
success
engagement and, 73–74
setting criteria for criteria, 4
shared agreements for group, 77
sudden release of responsibility, 9,
9f
summarizing strategy, 87
synchronous learning, 36, 46, 93
task prioritization, 109–110
teachers
credibility of, factors in, 15–18
expert vs. novice, 37–40
present day role of, 20
teaching
art and science of, 1
purpose of, 1
quality, 22
think-alouds (student), assessing,
70, 71f
think-alouds, (teacher)
authentic voice, using, 29–30
brevity in, 29
cognitive processes, naming, 30
effective, crafting, 28–32
expertise component, 30
metacognition in, 29–30
modeling and demonstrating
with, 24–32
thinking processes, unpacking,
29
thinking aloud, goal of, 61
timely feedback, 121
time management, 109
trust, building for teacher credibil-
ity, 15
understandable feedback, 121–122
understanding, tasks to advance,
148–149
Understanding by Design (UbD),
128–129
videos, interactive, 35–36
virtual opinion stations, 80–82
visual displays, 86–87
Whole Child approach (ASCD), 73
workplace readiness, 73–74
worksheets, 106, 107f
writing instruction, guided, 59–61
self-regulation—(continued)
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
162
About the Authors
Douglas Fisher is a professor of educational
leadership at San Diego State University and
a teacher leader at Health Sciences High &
Middle College. He is the recipient of an Inter-
national Reading Association William S. Grey
citation of merit, an Exemplary Leader award
from the Conference on English Leadership of
NCTE, and a Christa McAuliffe Award for Excel-
lence in Teacher Education. Along with Nancy Frey, Doug has pub-
lished numerous articles on improving student achievement, and
his books include The Purposeful Classroom: How to Structure Les-
sons with Learning Goals in Mind; Enhancing RTI: How to Ensure Suc-
cess with Effective Classroom Instruction and Intervention; Checking
for Understanding: Formative Assessment Techniques for Your Class-
room; How to Create a Culture of Achievement in Your School and
Classroom, and Using Data to Focus Instructional Improvement. He
can be reached at d[email protected]. Follow him on Twitter: @
DFISHERSDSU.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
About the Authors 163
Nancy Frey is a professor of educational lead-
ership at San Diego State University and a
teacher leader at Health Sciences High & Mid-
dle College. Before joining the university fac-
ulty, Nancy was a special education teacher in
the Broward County (Florida) Public Schools,
where she taught students at the elementary
and middle school levels. She later worked for
the Florida Department of Education on a statewide project for
supporting students with disabilities in a general education cur-
riculum. Nancy is a recipient of the Christa McAuliffe Award for
Excellence in Teacher Education from the American Association
of State Colleges and Universities and the Early Career Award
from the Literacy Research Association. Her research interests
include reading and literacy, assessment, intervention, and cur-
riculum design. She has published many articles and a number of
books on literacy and instruction, including All Learning Is Social
and Emotional; Your Students, My Students, Our Students: Rethink-
ing Equitable and Inclusive Classrooms, and Building Equity: Poli-
cies and Practices to Empower All Learners. She can be reached at
nfr[email protected]. Follow her on Twitter: @NancyFrey.
To learn more about Doug, Nancy, and their work, please visit
www.sherandfrey.com.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
Related ASCD Resources: Teaching
At the time of publication, the following resources were available (ASCD
stock numbers in parentheses):
Gradual Release of Responsibility in the Classroom (Quick Reference
Guide) by Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey (#QRG116083)
Improving Student Learning One Teacher at a Time, 2nd Ed. by Jane E.
Pollock and Laura J. Tolone (#117013)
Intentional and Targeted Teaching: A Framework for Teacher Growth and
Leadership by Douglas Fisher, Nancy Frey, and Stefani Arzonetti Hite
(#116008)
Learning That Sticks: A Brain-Based Model for K–12 Instructional Design
and Delivery by Bryan Goodwin with Tonia Gibson & Kristin Rouleau
(#120032)
How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms, 3rd
Ed. by Carol Ann Tomlinson (# 117032)
Never Work Harder Than Your Students and Other Principles of Great
Teaching, 2nd Ed. by Robyn R. Jackson (#1180340)
Rise to the Challenge: Designing Rigorous Learning That Maximizes Stu-
dent Success by Jeff C. Marshall (#120007)
So Each May Soar: The Principles and Practices of Learner-Centered Class-
rooms by Carol Ann Tomlinson (# 118006)
Student Learning Communities: A Springboard for Academic and Social-
Emotional Development by Douglas Fisher, Nancy Frey, and John
Almarode (#121030)
Teaching for Deeper Learning: Tools to Engage Students in Meaning Mak-
ing by Jay McTighe and Harvey F. Silver (#120022)
Teaching Students to Become Self-Determined Learners by Michael Weh-
meyer and Yong Zhao (#119020)
For up-to-date information about ASCD resources, go to www.ascd.
org. You can search the complete archives of Educational Leadership at
www.ascd.org/el.
For more information, send an email to [email protected]g; call 1-800-
933-2723 or 703-578-9600; send a fax to 703-575-5400; or write to Informa-
tion Services, ASCD, 1703 N. Beauregard St., Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
USA.
ADVANCE COPY—NOT FINAL. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION.
