Coaching Observation Writer

Coaching Observation Writer

Purpose

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

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

---

What You Need From the User

Gather before generating. Ask for anything missing:

• Raw observation data (required): Script, notes, or description
• Observation purpose: Informal coaching visit / formal evaluation /

peer observation / instructional rounds / walkthrough?

• Instructional framework in use: Danielson, Marzano, NIET, school-

specific framework, or none specified?

• Teacher's focus area or coaching goal: What was the teacher working on?

What did they ask you to look for?

• Student population context: Grade level, subject, any relevant context

about the class that affects the observation (e.g., "this is a co-taught inclusion class", "these are newcomer ELL students")

---

Observation Write-Up Architecture

Informal Coaching Write-Up (Default)

For post-observation debrief prep and coaching documentation:

1. Context Header

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

2. Strengths — Evidence-Based

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

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

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

Rules for strengths:

• Never generic ("Great classroom management!")
• Always evidence-linked ("When [X happened], teacher did [Y], and students

responded with [Z]")

• Name the teaching move, not just the outcome

3. Areas for Growth — One Priority Focus

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

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

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

Rules for growth areas:

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

exists to..."

4. Data Summary (if quantitative data was collected)

Present any scripted data collected during the observation:

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

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

5. Debrief Conversation Starters

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

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

Example questions: > "Walk me through your thinking when you designed the discussion section — > what were you hoping students would do?" > > "When you look at the student talk data, what stands out to you?" > > "What felt different today compared to when we last talked about > questioning strategies?"

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

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

---

Formal Evaluation Write-Up

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

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

Key differences from informal write-up:

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

---

Walkthrough / Snapshot Format

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Tone Calibration

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

---

What to Avoid

• Praise sandwiches: Strength / criticism / strength is a documented

ineffective feedback structure (Wiggins, 2012). Lead with strengths, then focus growth separately.

• "But" as a connector: "Great lesson, but..." signals that the strength

was setup for the critique. Use "and" or separate sections entirely.

• Prescriptive directives: "You should have..." removes teacher agency.

Use "A next move to explore..." or "What might happen if..."

• Personality attribution: "You're such a caring teacher" is not evidence-

based feedback. Name the practice, not the person.

• Quantity over focus: Three-page feedback documents are rarely read and

never acted on. One clear growth focus, well-supported, is the standard.

---

Reference Files

• references/evaluation-frameworks.md — Domain language, rubric

descriptors, and rating guidance for Danielson, Marzano, and NIET

• references/coaching-question-bank.md — 50+ debrief questions organized

by teaching domain, useful for generating debrief conversation starters

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

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: JJuice22
• Source: JJuice22/classroom-ready-ai-skills
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.