Table of Contents Introduction to the Observation and Coaching Guide for Power Skills Glossary of Terms – pg. 4 The Observation and Coaching Guide for Power Skills – pg. 5 Observation Protocol – pg. 6 Skills: Self-Regulation – pg. 6 Perseverance – pg. 8 Relationships – pg. 10 Critical Thinking – pg. 12 Coaching Resources: The Rating Sheet – pg. 14 Coaching Strategies to Keep in Mind – pg. 16 Leverage Leadership Coaching Structure – pg. 17
Facilitator doesn’t use any strategies to build perseverance. OR Facilitator uses a strategy in a negative way. For example, the facilitator has a high expectation of challenge, but the level of the challenge is the same for all students. Making it too challenging for some and too easy for others. Facilitator uses 1 (maybe 2) strategies to build perseverance, but not consistently or effectively. For example, the facilitator rewards effort of only some students in the group that perform better than other students, while some students who struggle more are not rewarded for their effort. Facilitator consistently and effectively uses 1 (maybe 2) strategies to build perseverance. For example, the facilitator has a weekly challenge problem the students need to solve. Facilitator consistently and effectively uses 2 or more strategies to build perseverance. For example, the facilitator had the students create a business plan throughout the summer. The facilitator uses rewards for students sticking with it when things are challenging.
Peer Relationships Rubric Evidence Absent Inconsistent Evidence Reasonable Evidence Compelling Evidence There is little or no evidence that facilitators are using strategies that allow students to build skills in peer relationships. is limited evidence that facilitators are using strategies that allow students to build skills in peer relationships. There is substantial evidence that facilitators are using strategies that allow students to build skills in peer relationships. There is consistent and meaningful evidence that facilitators are using strategies that allow students to build skills in peer relationships. 1 2 3 4 Facilitator doesn’t use any strategies to build peer relationships. OR Facilitator uses a strategy in a negative way. For example, during a team building activity, students may make belittling comments on multiple occasions and the facilitator fails to intervene. Facilitator uses 1 (maybe 2) strategies to build peer relationships, but not consistently or effectively. For example, there are no overtly negative interactions the atmosphere may be formal, polite and verging on cold. Facilitator consistently and effectively uses 1 (maybe 2) strategies to build peer relationships. The majority of interactions are positive, however there are occasional interactions that are inconsistent with a positive environment. Facilitator consistently and effectively uses 2 or more strategies to build peer relationships. Interactions among students and between the facilitator and students are consistently positive, creating a warm and friendly learning environment
Critical Thinking Rubric Evidence Absent Inconsistent Evidence Reasonable Evidence Compelling Evidence There is little or no evidence that facilitators are using strategies that allow students to build skills in critical thinking. There is limited evidence that facilitators are using strategies that allow students to build skills in critical thinking. There is substantial evidence that facilitators are using strategies that allow students to build skills in critical thinking. There is consistent and meaningful evidence that facilitators are using strategies that allow students to build skills in critical thinking. 1 2 3 4 Facilitator doesn’t use any strategies to build critical thinking. OR Facilitator uses a strategy in a negative way. For example, the facilitator pulls a student aside to debrief a conflict, but the conversation is dominated by the facilitator and is more of a lecture than a conversation that engages the student in critical thinking. Facilitator uses 1 (maybe 2) strategies to build critical thinking, but not consistently or effectively. The facilitator may briefly prompt for a critical thinking, but may move on after one or two responses, so there is no sustained reflective activity. The facilitator may review what was learned, but the students passively paraphrase what happened during the activity or repeat what the facilitator reviewed. Facilitator consistently and effectively uses 1 (maybe 2) strategies to build critical thinking. The facilitator uses prompts or questions to encourage critical thinking. Students’ reflections include connections among ideas and attempts to explain concepts, but are still incomplete or inconsistent; or only a small subset of students show evidence of critical thinking. Facilitator consistently and effectively uses 2 or more strategies to build critical thinking. Almost all students are actively reflecting on the content and making meaningful connections between the activities they participated in and concepts.