top of page

Quick Conference Protocol: A Tier 2 Strategy for Tier 1 Instruction

Updated: Feb 22

In her ASCD article, Brookhart defines it best: “Effective feedback describes the student's work, comments on the process the student used to do the work, and makes specific suggestions for what to do next.”

Individual conferences and feedback are inextricably linked, as individual conferences provide the space for effective feedback to occur. Therefore, the types of conferences a teacher conducts, and the type of feedback they provide, are symbiotic. I encourage you to share with your teachers Brookharts Feedback That Fits for more on the impact of clear, positive teacher feedback.

In this post, we focus on conferencing individually with students as a form of remediative feedback, directly following a Check for Understanding.

Zaretta Hammond discusses in Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain, the implications for feedback and individual conferences, noting that individual conferencing gives way to connection, daily engagement, motivation, self-efficacy, and ultimately, student success.

The following is a conference protocol that a team of New York City public school leaders and I developed to help our teachers implement interventions during Tier 1 instruction. The protocol lends itself to immediate remediation following a Check for Understanding, however, it can certainly be adapted to fit your teachers' conferencing and feedback goals.

Before beginning the protocol, students would complete a Check for Understanding (CFU) and understand how the CFU connects with the learning target or objective for the class.

  1. Each conference begins with the teacher asking the students how they are doing, how their day has been. The teacher should also share something that they are happy/excited about in their life. This lets students know that you care about them! (15-20 seconds.)

  2. Ask the student their thought-process in completing the CFU. What steps did they take? How did they arrive at that answer? The teacher may ask probing questions to guide the thinking. This is low stakes- if the student is unsure how to respond, let them know that that is okay.

  3. Depending on how step 2 goes, the teacher decides whether a complete reteach is necessary, or if they can explicitly identify the part of the process that needs clarification.

  4. The teacher provides explicit next steps for the student. Either the student will write the feedback on the task itself, or the teacher will jot-down some key words and phrases.

  5. The student is directed back to their seat and given the time to immediately apply the feedback and revise the CFU.

For each of these conferences, the teacher is not

  • writing anything more than a sentence or two.

  • telling students how to “fix” the work.

  • fixing the work for students.

  • giving the answer (students revise the same CFU post-conference).

  • grading (I typically did not grade CFU’s)

The teacher is

  • building my relationship and connection with students.

  • meeting my students where they need, whether that is through a reteach or clarification.

  • guiding the conversation. If this conference were student-led and simply non-evaluative, the teacher would be more the facilitator and the student would be the leader of the conversation. But here, the purpose is to reteach. Therefore, the teacher leads the meeting.

  • sharing with students why this revision is important, how it connects to the real world and what we learn in the future of the class.

  • using key words and phrases to provide action-oriented next steps.

  • giving students an opportunity to revise.

Want to learn more about this conference protocol and how it is used in schools today? Email me at and let's set up a time to chat.


20 views0 comments


bottom of page