Alignment of the CLARITY Work (Sharratt) with the Explicit Teaching Model
Watch Dr Lyn Sharratt and Sue Walsh talking with Drew Janetzki from the NSW PPA about Explicit Teaching
Please submit your Name and email address to view the content
This document is based on research by Dr. Lyn Sharratt (Corwin Press, 2009-2022).
The focus of Sharratt’s work is on building teacher and leader capacity to increase all students’ growth and achievement in an ongoing, sustainable way.
The 14 Parameters of System and School Improvement are at the core of Sharratt’s CLARITY Research.
The following shows the alignment between Explicit Teaching and Sharratt’s research, as a Practitioner, captured in the texts “CLARITY: What Matters MOST in Learning, Teaching and Leading” Corwin, 2019, and “Putting FACES on the Data: What Great Leaders and Teachers DO!” Corwin, 2022.
Background
All of the Sharratt work referenced in this paper (and in the CLARITY Learning Suite) is embraced in the NSW document regarding Explicit Teaching. In fact, across the globe, the CLARITY work reflects every document written about ‘Back-to-Basics: Explicit Teaching’.
Alignment
The NSW Explicit teaching model (below) will be compared to Sharratt’s evidence-based research. This
is compelling, rather than competing, justification for the most effective, current teaching and learning approaches to ensure ALL students move from engagement to empowerment, which firmly includes the 14 Parameters, and the Assessment Waterfall Chart discussed in this paper (N. Marden, 2024).
Reference will be made to two Conceptual Frameworks (Sharratt, 2015, 2016, 2019, Sharratt and Fullan 2022):
- Figure 1.1: The 14 Parameters
The body of work on System and School Improvement is evidenced-proven research that Dr. Lyn Sharratt and Dr. Michael Fullan, both from the University of Toronto (OISE), have done from 2002-2022. The Conceptual Framework follows.
- Figure 1.2: The Assessment - Instruction Waterfall Chart (AWC)
The following Conceptual Framework (Figure 1.2) displays ‘Formative Assessment that Informs Explicit Teaching’ and is the evidence-proven research of Sharratt, 2015-2024.
Enabling Factors
- Know students and how they learn
Begin with shared beliefs and understandings encapsulated in Parameter #1 of the Conceptual Framework (along with the ultimate pursuit of Student Goal Setting seen in the Assessment Waterfall Chart (AWC). As noted in FACES, 2022, do you know 10 things about each learner, and do your learners know that you know 10 things about them?
- Have ‘High Expectations’
Teachers show high expectations of learning for every student. What this looks like and feels like is
unpacked in Parameter #1 that focuses on:
Shared Beliefs and Understandings among all staff that:
All students can achieve high standards given the right time and the right support.
All teachers can teach to high standards given the right assistance.
High expectations and early and ongoing intervention are essential.
Leaders, teachers and students need to be able to articulate what they do and why they teach the way they do.
Having High Expectations also means having Shared Responsibility and Accountability – Parameter #14.
We all own all the Faces of learners in our care: students, teachers, leaders and community.
- Safe, inclusive learning environment
It is imperative that teachers and leaders invest the time to cultivate a learning environment or a culture of learning within every department in systems and schools. Parameter #14, as the ‘bookend’ with Parameter #1, of the Conceptual Framework describes how through Shared Accountability and Responsibility staff nurture students’ cultural, social, emotional, behavioral and physical wellbeing in a safe and inclusive learning environment.
This dovetails with the crucial aspect of teachers checking for and monitoring students’ understanding. This deliberate and on-going teacher action ... “helps create a safe learning environment where students feel supported to be active participants” (AERO 2024c).
- Know the content and how to teach it
A core teaching and leading strategy towards ensuring all teachers know curriculum content and how to teach is encapsulated in Parameter #2 where-in Embedded Knowledgeable Others (KOs) co-plan, co-teach, co-debrief and co-reflect with teachers in the cycle of planning for teaching and learning the content. Together, they continuously monitor what instructional teaching approaches are necessary to set each student up for success. Knowledgeable Others support teachers as they plan for focused work based on evidence – that is, proven and high impact practices. (Parameters #3 and #13: Quality Assessment Informs Instruction – across all content areas).
The fundamental value here is recognizing the importance of Professional Learning (PL) opportunities that strengthen teacher knowledge and practice (B. Johnston, 2024). Providing time for teacher and leader PL within the school day, led by KOs, is foundational to ALL students’ success.
Planning for Explicit Teaching
According to Sharratt, 2019, Explicit Teaching is carefully planned, implemented and revised as student’s needs are met. Therefore, teachers have time to plan, with colleagues, starting with the Curriculum Expectations and following the Assessment Waterfall Chart (AWC). The co-planning, when complete, will look like Figure 1. 3:
Sharratt (2019, p. 278) states that planning ensures that assessment practices must differentiate instruction to meet individual student’s needs in a safe and supportive environment that Sharratt calls ‘The Third Teacher’. Teachers must plan for the time to:
- be attentive to students’ thinking,
- be alert to student voice,
- subsequently clarify points of view using Accountable Talk (Sharratt 2019, p. 169), and
- engage in developing a broad repertoire of instructional strategies upon which to draw when developing lessons.
Explicit Teaching Strategies
- Gradual Release of Responsibility
According to Sharratt, (2019 p. 171-173), teachers must consider scaffolded instruction, best determined using the ‘Gradual Release and Acceptance of Responsibility’ model, in providing texts that start where the student is, and then become increasingly demanding in their use of specialist language, technical features, jargon, precision, density—that is, scaffolding the greater cognitive demands placed on readers. After the early years, most students receive little or no ongoing instruction to help them negotiate meaning with increasingly challenging texts. All teachers must weave literacy instruction, intentionally scaffolded, into all subject areas to make meaning explicit not only for struggling literacy learners but for all learners, to stretch them beyond their present performance levels. Note Sharratt has added “and acceptance” of Responsibility as no learning will occur if students don’t accept the responsibility for their learning – hence the AWC is essential to understand and explicitly plan for the implementation in every K-12 classroom. There are 5 stages (Vygotsky) as Sharratt points out (2019, p. 172): Modelled, Shared, Guided, Independent and Application and leads to independent learners who know how to learn (Figure 1.4).
- Chunking and Sequencing Learning
Sharratt is very descriptive (2019, pp.139-142) explaining that Bump-It-Up Walls (BIUW) help teachers communicate clear expectations and help students develop the thinking skills required to become evaluators of their own work. They provide students with a visual reminder (and visual Descriptive Feedback) of what the Success Criteria (SC) look like and how to accomplish them. Bump-It-Up Walls provide guidance for students to use in peer and self-assessment and in goal setting. They anchor the learning and ensure a common vision of the Learning Intentions (directly from the Curriculum Expectations) and SC. What it takes to get to the next level is shown on the BIUW and discussed and referred to often in class. Students and teachers co-construct what is required to move the piece of work from a low to high level. Bump-It-Up Walls allow students to see what their next expected level of work is and to discuss with teachers and each other how they will reach it. BIUWs are a visual for teachers and students to chunk expectations, sequence learning, assist teachers to plan and deliver Next Steps and for students to set their own goals for learning given they can see their next steps. Example of a BIUW follows.
- Connecting Learning
Sharratt espouses (2019, p.124-125) that the twin notions of establishing Big Ideas and Essential Questions, as a Unit of Study begins, affords teachers the important opportunity to unpack what students already know about the unit of study (to avoid teaching what students already know!) and also connects students to what they already know about a unit of work, and answer the question, “Why are we learning this?”
The Big Ideas are at the very core of teaching and learning. They make concepts understandable, so they must be woven throughout the teaching and learning cycle. Developing Big Ideas, alongside students, demands the explicit teaching of the higher order thinking skills of analysis, interpretation, evaluation, and synthesis of a text or a curriculum unit.
It is critical that teachers and students make the links to real-world relevance/experiences so
that students not only know what they are learning but WHY they are learning it (Question #1 of Sharratt’s 5 Questions, CLARITY: pages 59-63). Delving into real-world issues through Big Ideas and Essential Questions moves students from just being engaged to being empowered as ongoing learners (Parameter #13).
Thus, the term Big Idea does not mean naming a theme unit, such as “friendship,” and selecting a bunch of books and activities that go along with the friendship theme, but rather modeling higher- order thinking skills for students and giving them opportunities to think through text or essential questions critically, bringing them to levels of deep understanding, creativity, and new learning about what characterizes “friendship,” for example (Greenan, in Sharratt & Fullan, 2022).
Essential Questions are thought provoking and cognitively demanding. Students always want to
know how the world works, so topics and questions that capture students’ interest and create academic controversy, using evidence, are directly connected to multiple, interdisciplinary curriculum expectations – or “The Why” of the topic being studied – hence what students already know ...and want to know.
- Sharing Learning Intentions
The word sharing often reflects ‘compliance’ or something ‘done to’ students. Sharratt (2019, p.126) explains Learning Intentions (LIs) are deconstructed to ensure students understand the language of the discipline and flow from the conversations with students about Big Ideas and Essential Questions. This deconstruction is an opportunity to work on vocabulary – the language of the discipline. LIs are derived directly from State standards: the curriculum expectations - and also answer the question, “Why are we learning this?” The LI must make sense, be meaningful to students, be purposefully unpacked, and then be communicated in student-friendly, age-appropriate language. It is a statement of what students are learning and why, not what they are doing. Teachers must ponder whether and why it is worth learning and make that clear to students.
- Sharing Success Criteria
Sharing often refers to putting the Success Criteria (SC) up somewhere or referring to them once at the beginning of a Unit of Study. Sharratt’s research (2019, p128-136) indicates that the co-construction of SC is the most important construct in the AWC (Figure 1.3). SC must be clear, visible in classrooms, and co-constructed so they are easily understood by students (J. French, 2024). Most importantly, SC must paint an accurate picture of what is truly the essential learning that will be assessed in the LI. When SCs are co-constructed collaboratively with students, and added to continuously as the learning unfolds throughout a unit of study or exploration of a “wicked problem,” students understand, in detail, how to be successful. Experiencing scaffolded instruction that supports attainment of the SC moves students from being engaged to being empowered. This occurs when teachers incorporate evidence-proven teaching practices, such as the following:
-
- making deconstructed LIs and co-constructed SC visible
- posting them in classrooms
- updating them as learning grows and the Unit of Study progresses
- having students use SC in an active way to give Peer Feedback and articulate and own their next steps.
As Michele McDonald writes to all staff (July 2024), “The Assessment Waterfall Framework provides students with clarity. The Learning Intention is a clear scaffold that signals what is to be learned. The Success Criteria, when co-constructed, allow students to understand what successful learning looks like. Feedback, goal setting and peer and self-assessment wrap around the learning in a way that promotes self-directed learning. If students own their learning, then they can understand their next steps thus allowing greater independence.”
- Checking for Understanding
Hattie and Sharratt (2024, in press) write that questioning is all part of teachers listening intently to students to really hear them and as a result not only check for understanding but also flexibly group students often to ensure that teachers make time for students who are not getting a concept to come to a ‘guided table’ in the classroom to teach the material in a new way – not louder and longer! To do this we use this Venn Diagram (Figure 1.5) – a powerful formative assessment tool - to assist teachers in knowing where all the students are at any moment as they engage with rich performance tasks. (Sharratt, 2019, p. 137).
- Using Effective Feedback
Sharratt’s research (2019, pp 136-139) shows the Explicit Descriptive Feedback is the ongoing, daily element in assessment that informs instruction and is provided to students in a timely, meaningful way. It is best used when students articulate what next steps they will take to improve their learning— always prior to a summative point in their learning. Teachers base their feedback to students only on the co-constructed Success Criteria. Descriptive Feedback must be ‘in the moment’, precise, and clearly understood by students, for example: 2 Praise Points, 1 Instructional Point and (importantly) an Example.
To be explicit, in each verbal or written piece of feedback, teachers state at least one way students have met the SC, and at least one (age- and level-appropriate) instructional point and give an example.
Teachers facilitate ongoing assessment practices by ensuring the Descriptive Feedback is recorded accumulated for reporting purposes as well as determining next steps in instruction. Descriptive Feedback is cognitive nourishment. Students must have opportunities to practice and learn to offer Feedback to other students based only on the SC, to ensure more accuracy and rigor.
It is essential that students receive feedback during the learning, and it’s equally important that they are provided with sufficient time to implement what they have learned from the feedback. Both are critical steps in actually enhancing student learning.
- Using Effective Questioning
Using effective questioning is pivotal in gathering data to support assessment that is most effective as an integral part of teaching and learning programs.
Hattie and Sharratt (2024, Chapter 3, in press) discuss the critical importance of teachers elaborating on thoughts by asking clarifying questions. In this way, teachers’ model and demonstrate active engagement and a genuine interest in what others have to say. Nystrand et al. (1998) have argued that the two most powerful questions were “uptake” questions whereby teachers validate particular student ideas by incorporating their responses into subsequent questions; and “authentic” questions— questions asked to obtain valued information or questions without “prespecified” answers not simply to see what students know and don’t know. “Authentic questions, like uptake, also contribute to coherence. By asking authentic questions, teachers elicit students’ ideas, opinions, and feelings, making students’ prior knowledge and values available as a context for processing new information.
Assessing Explicit Teaching
- Learning Walks and Talks. Sharratt (2015, 2016, 2019, 2022) has developed Learning Walks and Talks (LWTs) as a means to gather assessment data to inform learning and teaching and give leaders and teachers feedback on how learning is progressing as a result of implementing the 14 Parameters and AWC. The 5 Questions for teachers and leaders to ask students provide the ‘why’ and the ‘how’. ‘
-
- What are you learning? Why?
- How are you going?
- How do you know?
- How can you improve?
- Where do you go for help?
The questions are connected directly to the concepts in the AWC (CLARITY, page, 124). The answers given by the students will tell leaders and teachers whether the teaching has been explicit or not. This informs the culling of learning and teaching approaches in order to embed only the most impactful practices.
- Accumulative Feedback that has been documented in Units of Study, against the SC, gives teachers an accurate picture of a student’s learning trends and patterns of growth over time. This documentation will inform teachers of gaps in students’ learning, so they can correctly plan for students’ next steps and report to parents.
- Venn Diagrams, when developed class-by-class with a specific focus, give leaders specific information about how a class is growing, achieving and meeting the expected achievement targets. Venn Diagrams give leaders and teachers an opportunity to discuss the data collected that is shown in the Venn Diagram and have a conversation about next steps in Explicit Instruction.
Conclusion
The emphasis on maintaining the core principles of Good First Teaching and Instructional Intelligence amidst new terminology is crucial. The fundamentals of Explicit Teaching, captured in this document
have always been central to effective education. As Murat Dizdar (Secretary, NSW) Dept of Education) recently stated at the Law Symposium, NSW: the classroom is at the heart of instruction; he emphasized the importance of system and school leaders placing their energies in impactful classroom practice (J. Matthews, 2024). As Meg Couvee states (July 2024) “We must continue to embed Explicit Teaching as one of the many important elements of a strong instructional leadership approach”.
This document has been carefully written to reflect Sharratt’s research into learning, teaching and leading and to provide teachers and leaders with a tool to self-assess the questions: “How do we achieve Explicit Teaching?” “What are the Looks Fors of Explicit Teaching?” How do we lead Explicit Teaching? to ensure that these approaches make a difference for ALL students. Both frameworks discussed in this paper, the 14 Parameters and Assessment Waterfall Chart, not only reflect Explicit Instruction but also result in student agency described by OECD (July 2024):
“Student agency relates to the development of an identity and a sense of belonging. When students develop agency they rely on motivation, hope, self-efficacy and a growth mindset (the understanding that abilities and intelligence can be developed) to navigate towards well-being. This enables them to act with a sense of purpose, which guides them to flourish and thrive in society.”
The FACES and CLARITY research, when fully implemented with integrity, empower leader, teacher, and student agency.
Dr. Lyn Sharratt, July 26, 2024.
References
Hattie and Sharratt (2024). Visible CLARITY: Echoes of Understanding. IN PRESS: Corwin: California
OECD: July 26, 2024 https://search.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/
student-agency/Student_Agency_for_2030_concept_note.pdf
Sharratt (2019). CLARITY: What Matters MOST in Leading, Teaching and Learning. Corwin Press: California
Sharratt & Fullan (2009). Realization: District-WIDE Improvement. Corwin Press: California
Sharratt & Fullan (2012). Putting FACES on the Data. Corwin Press: California.
Sharratt & Fullan (2022). The NEW FACES: What Great Leaders and Teachers DO! Corwin Press: California
Sharratt & Harild (2015). Good to Great to Innovate. Corwin Press: California
Sharratt & Planche (2016). Leading Collaborative Learning. Corwin Press: California
English 
French 
Norwegian 
Spanish 
Welsh