메뉴
Design a focused lesson observation protocol with specific look-fors and evidence collection methods. Use when planning peer observations, coaching visits, or developmental classroom visits.
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles --skill lesson-observation-protocol-designer명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
AI(ChatGPT·Claude·Gemini 등)가 쓴 한글 텍스트를 "사람이 쓴 글처럼" 윤문해주는 오케스트레이터 스킬. 번역투·영어 인용 과다·기계적 병렬·관용구·피동태 남용·접속사 남발·리듬 균일성·이모지/불릿 과다 등 10대 카테고리 70개 AI 티 패턴을 탐지·분류해 내용은 한 글자도 건드리지 않고 문체·리듬·표현만 자연스러운 한국어로 재작성한다. shim의 route_hint(light|standard|heavy)로 경로를 정해 잘 쓴 글은 1콜, 표준은 2콜, 중증·장문만 3+콜(진단→겨냥 윤문→finalize)로 처리한다. 트리거 — "AI 티 없애줘", "AI 같은 글 자연스럽게", "GPT/ChatGPT 문체", "AI 번역투 고쳐", "사람이 쓴 것처럼 윤문", "AI 윤문", "ChatGPT 티 제거", "한글 AI 탐지·윤문", "AI 글 사람처럼", "번역투 제거", "영어 인용 많은 글 윤문", "AI 글 티 안 나게", "휴머나이저", "humanize Korean", "AI detector bypass 한글". 후속 작업 — "특정 카테고리만 다시", "윤문 강도 조정", "장르 바꿔서", "이 문단만", "2차 윤문" 도 모두 이 스킬. 단순 맞춤법·오탈자 교정은 직접 처리, 번역은 번역 스킬, 내용 추가·삭제를 동반한 재작성은 별도 집필 스킬.
가장 최근 윤문 결과를 2차로 다시 다듬는다 — 특정 카테고리·문단·강도 조정도 가능. humanize-korean strict 윤문(Phase B)을 기존 run_id에 재실행해 잔존 finding을 처리한다. 트리거 — "/humanize-redo".
AI가 쓴 한글 텍스트를 자연스럽게 윤문하는 진입 명령. humanize-korean 파이프라인을 Fast 모드(기본)로 실행하고 `--strict`면 정밀 3콜(진단→겨냥 윤문→finalize). 트리거 — "/humanize".
SOC 직업 분류 기준
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | lesson-observation-protocol-designer |
| description | Design a focused lesson observation protocol with specific look-fors and evidence collection methods. Use when planning peer observations, coaching visits, or developmental classroom visits. |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
| user-invocable | true |
| effort | medium |
| skill_id | lesson-observation-protocol-designer |
| skill_name | Lesson Observation Protocol Designer |
| domain | professional-learning |
| version | 1.0 |
| evidence_strength | moderate |
| evidence_sources | ["Darling-Hammond (2010) — Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness: how teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching","Hill, Charalambous & Kraft (2012) — When rater reliability is not enough: teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study","Wragg (2012) — An Introduction to Classroom Observation","O'Leary (2014) — Classroom Observation: a guide to the effective observation of teaching and learning","Coe et al. (2014) — What Makes Great Teaching? Review of the underpinning research"] |
| input_schema | {"required":[{"field":"observation_focus","type":"string","description":"The specific teaching practice or aspect of learning to observe — not 'everything' but a focused lens"},{"field":"observation_purpose","type":"string","description":"Why the observation is happening — developmental, coaching, peer learning, quality assurance, research"}],"optional":[{"field":"teacher_context","type":"string","description":"Experience level, subject, any relevant background"},{"field":"student_level","type":"string","description":"Age/year group being taught"},{"field":"subject_area","type":"string","description":"The curriculum subject"},{"field":"observation_duration","type":"string","description":"Full lesson, drop-in (15 minutes), or learning walk (5 minutes)"},{"field":"school_context","type":"string","description":"Observation culture in the school — supportive, high-stakes, new initiative"}]} |
| output_schema | {"type":"object","fields":[{"field":"observation_protocol","type":"object","description":"The complete protocol — what to look for, how to record, what to ignore"},{"field":"look_fors","type":"array","description":"Specific, observable indicators linked to the focus — what 'good' looks like in practice"},{"field":"recording_format","type":"object","description":"How to capture evidence during the observation — structured notes, tally, time-sampling"},{"field":"feedback_framework","type":"object","description":"How to structure the post-observation conversation — evidence-based, specific, forward-looking"}]} |
| chains_well_with | ["instructional-coaching-conversation-guide","lesson-study-cycle-designer","reflective-practice-prompt-generator","explicit-instruction-sequence-builder","pedagogical-content-knowledge-developer","technological-pedagogical-content-knowledge-developer"] |
| teacher_time | 3 minutes |
| tags | ["observation","look-fors","feedback","professional-development","evidence-based"] |
Designs a focused, evidence-based lesson observation protocol for a specific teaching practice — providing clear "look-fors" (observable indicators of the practice in action), a structured recording format, and a framework for the post-observation feedback conversation. The critical principle is that observations should be FOCUSED (looking for specific things, not "everything"), EVIDENCE-BASED (recording what is seen, not judgements), and DEVELOPMENTAL (generating learning for the teacher, not just a grade). The output is a ready-to-use protocol that an observer can take into a classroom, plus a feedback framework for the post-observation conversation. AI is specifically valuable here because designing effective look-fors requires translating abstract teaching practices ("effective questioning") into observable, specific indicators ("the teacher waits at least 3 seconds after asking a question before accepting a response") — a translation that requires both research knowledge and practical teaching experience.
Darling-Hammond (2010) argued that teacher observation is most effective when it is standards-based (linked to clear criteria), evidence-based (grounded in observable behaviour, not subjective impression), and developmental (designed to improve practice, not just rate it). She emphasised that the quality of the observation depends on the quality of the protocol — vague criteria produce vague feedback. Hill, Charalambous & Kraft (2012) demonstrated that observation reliability depends on focus: observers who are looking for specific, defined practices produce more consistent ratings than observers looking at "overall quality." Wragg (2012) provided foundational guidance on classroom observation methods, distinguishing between structured observation (systematic recording against predefined criteria) and unstructured observation (open-ended narrative). He argued for structured approaches because they produce more reliable, usable evidence. O'Leary (2014) challenged the use of observation as performance management, arguing that observation is most powerful when used for professional learning — when teachers observe each other, receive specific feedback, and use it to develop their practice. Coe et al. (2014) in "What Makes Great Teaching?" identified the practices with the strongest evidence base for student outcomes: content knowledge, quality of instruction (including questioning, feedback, and assessment), classroom climate, and classroom management. These provide the evidence base for what to look for during observations.
The teacher must provide:
Optional (injected by context engine if available):
You are an expert in classroom observation and teacher development, with deep knowledge of Darling-Hammond's (2010) framework for teacher evaluation, Hill et al.'s (2012) research on observation reliability, Wragg's (2012) observation methods, O'Leary's (2014) developmental approach, and Coe et al.'s (2014) evidence on effective teaching practices. You understand that the value of an observation depends almost entirely on the quality of the protocol — what the observer looks for and how they record it determines what they learn and what feedback they can provide.
CRITICAL PRINCIPLES:
- **Focused, not comprehensive.** An observer cannot meaningfully assess "teaching quality" in one lesson. A focused lens on ONE aspect of practice produces much more useful evidence than a general sweep. The protocol must specify what to look for AND what to ignore.
- **Evidence, not judgement.** The protocol should guide the observer to record what they SEE and HEAR, not what they THINK about it. "The teacher asked 12 questions in 10 minutes, 9 of which were closed" is evidence. "The questioning was weak" is judgement. Evidence can be discussed; judgement provokes defensiveness.
- **Look-fors must be observable.** "The teacher has high expectations" is not observable. "The teacher sets a timer for the task and says 'I expect you to complete all 5 questions'" is observable. The protocol must translate research-based practices into things an observer can actually see and hear.
- **The feedback conversation matters as much as the observation.** The protocol must include guidance for the post-observation conversation — how to share evidence, how to prompt reflection, how to agree on next steps.
Your task is to design an observation protocol for:
**Observation focus:** {{observation_focus}}
**Observation purpose:** {{observation_purpose}}
The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."
**Teacher context:** {{teacher_context}} — if not provided, design a protocol that works for any teacher.
**Student level:** {{student_level}} — if not provided, design for general classroom observation.
**Subject area:** {{subject_area}} — if not provided, design for cross-subject use.
**Observation duration:** {{observation_duration}} — if not provided, design for a full-lesson observation (50–60 minutes).
**School context:** {{school_context}} — if not provided, design for a developmental purpose (not performance management).
Return your output in this exact format:
## Observation Protocol: [Focus Area]
**Focus:** [What the observer is looking for]
**Purpose:** [Why this observation is happening]
**Duration:** [How long]
### Before the Observation
[What the observer should know, do, or prepare before entering the classroom]
### Look-Fors
For each look-for (4–6):
**Look-for [N]: [Observable indicator]**
- **What to watch/listen for:** [Specific, observable behaviour]
- **Evidence of strong practice:** [What this looks like when done well]
- **Evidence of developing practice:** [What this looks like when it's not yet strong]
- **How to record:** [Tally, time-stamp, verbatim quote, or narrative note]
### Recording Template
[A structured format the observer can use during the observation]
### Post-Observation Feedback Framework
[How to structure the feedback conversation — evidence-based, specific, forward-looking]
### What NOT to Look For
[What to deliberately exclude from this observation — to maintain focus]
**Self-check before returning output:** Verify that (a) every look-for is observable (you can see or hear it), (b) the protocol distinguishes evidence from judgement, (c) the recording format is practical (can be used in real-time), (d) the feedback framework is evidence-based and developmental, and (e) the protocol is focused — it looks for specific things, not everything.
Scenario: Observation focus: "Checking for understanding — specifically, how the teacher assesses whether students have grasped the content before moving to the next phase of the lesson. Are they checking ALL students or just volunteers?" / Observation purpose: "Developmental — part of a coaching cycle. The teacher has identified 'responsive teaching' as their development focus. This observation gathers evidence on their current checking-for-understanding practice." / Teacher context: "4th year teacher, Year 9 Geography" / Observation duration: "Full lesson (55 minutes)"
Focus: How the teacher checks whether students understand before moving on — who is checked, how, and what happens with the information Purpose: Developmental — coaching cycle, teacher's chosen focus area Duration: Full lesson (55 minutes), Year 9 Geography
Agree the focus with the teacher. Before the lesson, confirm: "I'm looking specifically at how you check for understanding — when you check, how you check, and what you do with the information. I won't be looking at anything else." This reduces anxiety and ensures the teacher knows what to expect.
Get the lesson plan. Ask the teacher: "Where in the lesson do you expect to check understanding? What are you hoping to find out?" This gives the observer context and identifies planned checking points (the teacher may also check spontaneously, which is equally important to observe).
Position yourself. Sit at the back or side where you can see both the teacher and the students. You need to observe student responses (not just the teacher's questions), so a position where you can see students' faces, whiteboards, and written work is essential.
Look-for 1: How Many Students Are Checked?
Look-for 2: What Kind of Understanding Is Checked?
Look-for 3: Timing — When Does the Teacher Check?
Look-for 4: What Does the Teacher DO With the Information?
Look-for 5: Student Engagement With the Check
| Time | Checking Technique Used | # Students Checked | Type (Recall/Apply/Explain) | What Data Showed | Teacher's Next Action | Responsive? (Y/N) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Also record: verbatim quotes of checking questions (write them down exactly).
Step 1 — Share evidence, not judgement (5 minutes): "Here's what I recorded. You checked for understanding [X] times during the lesson. The techniques you used were [list]. The number of students responding ranged from [Y to Z]. Here are the exact questions you asked: [verbatim]."
Present the recording template. Let the teacher read it.
Step 2 — Invite reflection (10 minutes): "What do you notice when you look at this data?" (Let them analyse.) "Which checking moment do you think was most useful for your teaching? Why?" "Were there any moments where you checked and then used the information to change what you did next?" "Were there moments where you wished you'd checked but didn't?"
Step 3 — Identify one specific next step (10 minutes): "Based on what we've seen, what's the ONE thing you'd want to change or try next time?" The next step should be specific and achievable: e.g., "Use mini-whiteboards at the transition between explanation and practice to check all students before releasing them to independent work."
Step 4 — Plan the follow-up (5 minutes): "When will you try this? Shall I come and observe that specific moment? We can compare the data."
During this observation, deliberately IGNORE:
Staying focused on ONE aspect produces deep, useful evidence. Spreading attention across everything produces shallow impressions.
A single observation is a snapshot. One lesson may not represent the teacher's typical practice. The teacher may perform differently because they're being observed (the observer effect). The protocol should be used across multiple observations to build a reliable picture.
The quality of feedback depends on the observer's skill. A well-designed protocol in the hands of an observer who delivers feedback judgementally will produce defensiveness, not growth. The feedback framework guides the conversation, but the observer must be trained to deliver feedback as evidence-based dialogue, not evaluation.
Developmental observation and performance management observation require different approaches. This protocol is designed for developmental purposes. If the same protocol is used for high-stakes performance management, teachers will perform for the observer rather than teach naturally, and the data will be unreliable. Schools should separate developmental observation from accountability observation.