Deliverable

🧩 How Might We Dugout Board

Critical Thinking & Problem Solving Content Expertise Collaboration Academic Mindset Effective Communication CCSS.Math.Practice.MP5 6-8.AF.4.6 DA:Pr5.1.8.c Product Assessment Reflection Core Content Project Launch Community Partners Essential Question Critique and Revision Submission Required Grading Required

Students use evidence cards from the A's game notes, scrimmage stats, interview quotes, and pressure check-ins to sort patterns about performance, setbacks, confidence, and enjoyment. In small groups, they separate observations from interpretations, name one measurement limit or missing data point, and draft a How Might We statement for a chosen player type such as a beginning player, travel player, or high school athlete. Groups then give feedback to 2 peers, receive feedback, and revise their problem statement and need statement before submitting it as the phase checkpoint for the mock goals journal and scouting report pathway.

Plan day

Day 2

Duration

60 min

Grouping

Small Group

Steps

7 steps

Lesson plan

7 steps · 60 min

#	What teachers do
1	Launch the dugout board by briefly naming the goal of the Define phase, reviewing the difference between an observation and an interpretation, and connecting today's work to evidence from the A's game, scrimmage stats, interview quotes, and pressure check-ins. (8 min)
2	Model one example with the class by placing 2-3 sample evidence cards onto the board, thinking aloud about what the data shows, what it does not show, and one possible measurement limit or missing data point. (7 min)
3	Have groups choose one player type to focus on such as a beginning player, travel player, or high school athlete, then sort their evidence cards into categories such as performance, setbacks, confidence, enjoyment, habits, and support while separating observations from interpretations. (15 min)
4	Ask groups to discuss patterns across their cards, identify one important gap or limitation in the available data, and draft a first version of a need statement and a How Might We statement that is specific, empathetic, and grounded in evidence. (10 min)
5	Run a peer feedback round where each group shares its draft with two peers, listens to questions about clarity and evidence, and records at least two suggestions about stronger wording, stronger evidence, or missing perspectives. (8 min)
6	Give groups time to revise their need statement and How Might We statement, add the named measurement limitation or missing data point, and prepare a clean checkpoint submission on chart paper, sticky notes, or a digital board. (7 min)
7	Close with a quick share-out and exit check in which groups post their final statement and each student completes a brief reflection on how pressure, confidence, and enjoyment showed up in the evidence they used. (5 min)

Preparation (9 items)

Prepare mixed evidence card sets for each group using A's game notes, simple scrimmage stats, player or coach interview quotes, and student pressure check-in excerpts.
Create a sorting board or table template with labeled spaces for observations, interpretations, performance, setbacks, confidence, enjoyment, habits, support, and data limitations.
Select and print or post 2-3 model evidence cards for the opening think-aloud that clearly show the difference between what can be observed and what must be inferred.
Prepare sentence stems for need statements and How Might We statements, such as '___ needs a way to ___ because ___' and 'How might we help ___ so that ___.'
Set up materials for collaboration, including sticky notes, markers, chart paper, tape, or a shared digital board if students are working electronically.
Create a short peer feedback protocol with prompts such as 'What evidence supports this?', 'What is still an interpretation?', and 'What data is missing or limited?'
Prepare a visible checklist for the phase checkpoint submission so groups know they must include a player type, at least three pieces of evidence, one data limitation, one need statement, and one revised How Might We statement.
Pre-plan balanced groups and assign or offer roles such as sorter, evidence reader, recorder, discussion leader, and feedback catcher to support full participation.
Review all interview and mental health materials to ensure they are age-appropriate, emotionally safe, and presented as discussion evidence rather than diagnosis.

Student-facing instructions

You will work with a small group to build a dugout board that helps define a real player-improvement challenge. Your materials include evidence cards from game notes, scrimmage stats, interview quotes, and pressure check-ins, along with sticky notes or a digital board, markers, and the statement stems. First, you will separate observations from interpretations. Then you will sort the evidence into patterns about performance, setbacks, confidence, enjoyment, habits, and support. Your group will choose one player type to focus on, identify one measurement limitation or missing data point, and use the evidence to write a need statement and a How Might We statement. After that, you will share your draft with two peers, listen carefully to their feedback, and revise your statements before submitting your checkpoint. Your goal is to create a clear, evidence-based, player-centered problem frame that can guide your later mock goals journal and scouting report work.

Success criteria

You are successful when your group submits one complete dugout board checkpoint that includes: a clearly named player type; at least three specific pieces of evidence from different sources; a correct separation of observations from interpretations; one identified measurement limitation or missing data point; one need statement that shows empathy for the chosen player; one How Might We statement that is specific and actionable; and at least one revision made after receiving peer feedback from two peers. During discussion, each group member contributes at least once by sorting evidence, explaining reasoning, asking a question, or recording feedback.

Facilitator notes

Keep the pace active and visual because middle school students engage more consistently when they can move cards, talk, and make visible decisions. Emphasize that the goal is not to solve every problem today but to define one strong challenge grounded in evidence. A common pitfall is that students jump too quickly to advice or solutions; redirect them back to observations, patterns, and player needs before they write the How Might We statement. Another common pitfall is overclaiming from limited stats, so prompt groups to name what the data cannot tell them and why that matters. Support differentiation by providing color-coded evidence cards, pre-highlighted quotes, and sentence stems for students who need more structure, while inviting advanced groups to compare conflicting evidence or refine wording for greater precision. Consider assigning roles if some students dominate discussion. During peer feedback, remind students to ask for evidence and clarity rather than judging the player. If mental health examples surface personal experiences, keep the conversation focused on habits, supports, stress, and choices in a general and respectful way, and follow school support procedures if a concern arises. Use a timer for each segment and reserve the final minutes for submission so the revised statements are captured as the Define phase checkpoint.

Resources

No resources yet