Conferencing¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 5 studies (2 causal, 2 quant-synthesis, 1 review), q2–q3 · 2 of 5 report an effect size

Description¶

Conferencing is a scheduled, individualized conversation between a teacher and a learner (or small group) focused on the learner's work, progress, or goals. The instructor asks diagnostic questions, gives targeted feedback, and negotiates next steps, replacing or supplementing written feedback. It is most common in writing instruction but applies to any domain where work can be reviewed and revised.

Design Implications¶

Conferencing operationalizes feedback as a dialogue rather than a transmission, letting the instructor diagnose the source of an error instead of just marking it Feedback improves learning when it answers where the learner is going, how they are doing, and where to next. [+S]. The conversational format also builds relationship and trust, which increases learners' willingness to act on critical feedback Interventions that strengthen students' sense of belonging improve outcomes. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Protected time and a predictable schedule; conferences fail when they are squeezed into ad hoc moments
• A specific artifact or work sample the conversation is anchored to (Assessment data, a draft, a problem set)
• A structure: opening question, evidence review, one or two prioritized next steps — not an unstructured chat
• A record-keeping method so commitments can be followed up (Check-In notes or conference logs)

Constraints¶

• Time-intensive: individual conferencing scales poorly to large enrollments; group conferences or peer conferencing are the usual adaptations
• Feedback delivered as personal praise or global judgment ("you're a good writer") can undermine motivation and does not improve performance Feedback focused on the person rather than the task yields weaker or negative effects. [~M]
• Power asymmetry can suppress honest disclosure; learners may claim understanding they do not have to end the conversation
• Poorly structured conferences drift into social talk with no instructional payoff

Implementation Variability¶

• Writing conferences (Murray; Atwell): brief, draft-centered, learner-led agenda
• 5-minute writing conferences 5-Minute Writing Conferences — rapid rotating check-ins during work time
• Reading conferences (workshop model): comprehension and strategy diagnosis during independent reading
• Advising/progress conferences: goal-setting and self-regulation monitoring rather than content feedback
• Peer conferencing: learners use the same protocol with each other before instructor review

Target Learners¶

• Developing writers and other learners producing revisable work, who benefit most from dialogic, task-level feedback Feedback improves learning when it answers where the learner is going, how they are doing, and where to next. [+S]
• Struggling or disengaged learners, for whom the relational component matters as much as the informational one Interventions that strengthen students' sense of belonging improve outcomes. [+M]
• Less necessary for learners already self-regulating their revision effectively

Target Learning Goals¶

• Revision and iterative improvement of authentic work
• Self-regulated learning: goal-setting, monitoring, and reflection on one's own process
• Metacognitive awareness of strengths and next steps

Instructions¶

1. Collect and skim the work sample in advance; identify one or two high-leverage issues rather than cataloguing every error.
2. Open with a learner-led question ("Tell me about this draft — what are you happiest with?") to surface intentions before giving feedback.
3. Diagnose: ask the learner to explain their reasoning on the problem spot, distinguishing conceptual from procedural errors.
4. Give one or two specific, task-focused next steps, framed as actionable revision moves (Action-Oriented Feedback).
5. Close by having the learner restate the plan in their own words; log it for follow-up at the next Check-In.

Related Strategies¶

• 5-Minute Writing Conferences — the compressed, high-frequency variant
• Action-Oriented Feedback — the feedback style conferencing should deliver
• Check-Ins — the lightweight, whole-class counterpart for monitoring between conferences

Examples¶

• Nancie Atwell's writing workshop (Center for Teaching and Learning, Maine): each student has a brief conference during every writing session; the teacher sits beside the writer, asks about intent, and suggests one revision move.
• Lucy Calkins' Units of Study (Heinemann) — reading and writing workshop curricula built around predictable one-to-one conferring with scripted research-decide-teach protocols.
• Writing center tutorials (e.g., Purdue OWL-affiliated campus writing labs) — hour-long dialogic sessions where tutors question rather than edit, modeling revision decisions.

Key Sources¶

• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
• Murray, D. M. (1985). A Writer Teaches Writing (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
• Atwell, N. (2014). In the Middle (3rd ed.). Heinemann.