TABLE 3.

Target techniques^a

Technique	Description	Category	References
Circulate	Moving through classroom and engaging with students to monitor understanding	Practice	Lemov, 2010
	Check for understanding*	Practice
Cold call*	Calling on nonvolunteering students by name to answer a question	Apprehension reduction, practice, accountability	Dallimore et al., 2004, 2006, 2012
Debrief	Analyzing reasons correct answer was correct and incorrect answers were wrong	Logic development	deWinstanley and Bjork, 2002; Turpen and Finkelstein, 2010; Smith et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2012
No apology	Demonstrating belief in importance of the ­instructional methods and curriculum	N/A	Roney et al., 1995
Normalize error	Framing errors as natural and beneficial to learning	Apprehension reduction	Keith and Frese, 2005, 2008; Bell and Kozlowski, 2008
Praise effort	Explicitly recognizing and praising student effort	Apprehension reduction	Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Dweck, 2007; Bell and Kozlowski, 2008
Praise improvement	Explicitly recognizing and praising student growth	Apprehension reduction
Right is right*	Setting high standards for accuracy in student responses	Practice, accountability	Epstein et al., 2002
Stretch it: explain logic*	Asking students to explain the reasoning behind an answer	Practice, accountability, logic development	Willoughby et al., 2000; Dunlosky et al., 2013
Stretch it: follow-up	Asking related follow-up questions to stretch boundaries of knowledge and check for ­integration	Practice, accountability	Lemov, 2010

^aTechnique names and descriptions are derived from (Lemov, 2010). Selected references are given; however, the same or very similar teaching practices may be referred to by various names in the literature. Techniques marked with an asterisk were drilled during training sessions.