Switch course ▾
Session 5. Follow-up and Impact on Pupils
Objective. Plan a follow-up with the same tool, gather simple before-and-after evidence from teaching and pupil work, and report impact honestly without overclaiming.
A cycle ends when you know what changed, not when the feedback meeting is over. But 'what changed' is harder to know than it sounds, and the risk of fooling yourself is real. This lesson goes deeper than the key ideas: how to take a baseline, how to decide what counts as pupil evidence, and how to write an honest sentence about impact. These skills protect your colleague, your pupils and your own credibility.
Key ideas
The follow-up visit
- Return after two to three weeks of trying the step, with the same focus and the same tool, so that the two counts can be compared.
- Start the follow-up meeting by asking the colleague what has changed, before you show numbers. They often know already.
- If the step did not work, that is information, not failure. Ask what got in the way and adjust the step, not the person.
Three kinds of evidence
- Teaching: did the practice change? (the second tally against the first). Pupil work: do exit tickets or exercise books show what the success criteria describe?
- Pupil voice: ask five pupils one question, such as 'What helps you speak in maths?' Get the baseline BEFORE the step; evidence taken only afterwards cannot show change.
- Write success criteria in plain words before you collect: 'A pupil gives a reason that names the cause.' Then code pupil work against them, not by feeling.
Say only what the evidence supports
- Before-and-after is not proof of cause. Other things change: a new workbook, absent pupils, a different topic, a different week. Name them in your report.
- Compare shares (12 of 30, 19 of 26), not just totals, and use words such as 'encouraging' or 'suggests'. Reviews of research find that coaching can improve teaching practice, but gains in pupil achievement are smaller and not guaranteed; one study in Ecuador found better teacher-pupil interaction, yet pupil achievement fell.
- Your evidence belongs first to the colleague. The head sees only what the colleague has agreed to share.
Closing the cycle and keeping it going
- Close each cycle on purpose: name what worked, thank the colleague, and decide together: repeat with a new goal, deepen the same goal, or rest.
- Keep it light: two or three cycles a year per coach, paper tools, 15-minute meetings. Swap roles so colleagues also coach you.
- Coach yourself too: what did I do well, when did I advise, what will I change? Share lessons with colleagues only without names.
How much can we claim?
Baseline, criteria and a small sample
Take the baseline before the step: the first tally, a first exit ticket, a sample of exercise books. Without a baseline there is nothing to compare, and memory is unreliable. Write the success criterion in plain words before you look at any work, for example 'the answer names the cause'. Then code every paper against that sentence, not against your impression.
Use the same check twice. A tally in the first 10 minutes, repeated in the first 10 minutes; one exit ticket question repeated on a similar question. Keep the sample sensible: a whole class is better than 10 papers, and several lessons are better than one. When you only have a small sample, say so.
Writing an honest sentence
Reports of research on coaching show that it can improve teaching practice, but changes in pupil achievement are smaller and not guaranteed, and a study in Ecuador found better interactions with a fall in achievement. That is not a reason to give up. It is a reason to check and to be modest.
Use a simple template: 'Compared with [baseline], [the measure] changed from [x] to [y]. Other things also changed: [list]. So we can say [modest claim], but we cannot say [overclaim]. Next we will [step].' Compare shares not totals when the numbers of pupils differ. Words like 'encouraging', 'suggests' and 'fits' are honest; 'proved' and 'because of me' are not.
Examples from the classroom
The average that hid the story
Scene. Malika tells the head that Gulnora's class average rose after coaching. Gulnora points out that four weak pupils moved to another class and a new workbook began. They return to the agreed goal: the share of pupils who give a reason. It rose from 12 of 30 to 19 of 26 present. They write 'encouraging; other changes too' and plan to repeat on the next topic.
Insight. A measure tied to the goal beats a general average, and naming other changes keeps the claim honest.
Success criteria first
Scene. Dilnoza and her coach in Bukhara want pupils to 'write a reason'. Before collecting work they write: 'Code 1 if the answer says what causes the water to disappear.' Two readers code the same ten papers and disagree on three. They add 'and what happens to the water' and now agree on all ten.
Insight. A written criterion makes coding agree and keeps the coach from seeing what they hope to see.
Closing the cycle
Scene. Aziz and Jasur finish a five-week cycle. They tally 5 different pupils answering before, 11 after. In the last meeting they decide together what to keep (pair talk first), what to drop (extra worksheet) and whether to start a new cycle. Jasur says he would like to coach Aziz next term. They agree to share, without names, one lesson learned at the staff meeting.
Insight. Closing a cycle on purpose protects trust and starts the habit of shared learning.
Common pitfalls
- Taking evidence only after the step, so there is nothing to compare.
- Claiming 'it worked because of coaching' from one before-and-after pair.
- Reporting only totals when the number of pupils differs.
- Giving the head more than the colleague agreed to share.
What Can We Honestly Say?
- Pairs (10 min): in the Kit are 10 pupil answers from before and 10 from after coaching. Use the success criterion to code each as 1 or 0. Count the 1s on each side.
- Pairs (15 min): read the data sheet (class results, tally, context). Write four short lines: What changed? What can we say? What can we NOT say? What next? Compare with another pair.
- Trios (15 min): plan the impact check for your own real cycle: baseline, follow-up tool, one piece of pupil evidence, dates, and what you will and will not share with the head.
- Second short activity (10 min): alone, write your own coach reflection: one thing I did well, one moment I gave advice instead of asking, one change for my next cycle. Share one line with a partner.
- Alone (5 min): write your school-based task from the Kit and the date for your follow-up.
Your facilitator will guide you through this activity in the session.
Questions to discuss
- How different were the counts from the 10-paper sample and from the whole class? What does this say about small samples?
- Which sentence about 'what we cannot say' was hardest to write?
- What would you tell the head, and what would you leave with the colleague?
Reflect
- What is the evidence you would trust most that a colleague's lesson had improved?
- When have you claimed an improvement that you could not fully prove?
- How will you keep coaching alive in your school next term with no extra staff?
Try it tomorrow
- Before your next coaching step, take and keep a baseline: one tally or one exit ticket question.
- Write a success criterion in one sentence and ask a colleague to code five papers with it.
- Draft the honest impact sentence with the template and ask your colleague whether it is fair.
Further reading and links
Follow up with the same tool, compare before and after in pupils' work, name other changes, and claim only what the evidence supports.