Recently I was having a chat with a middle leader in a secondary school who works part-time to support teacher training. In that capacity, she gets to visit a lot of schools and observe lots of lessons. She was talking about how much she enjoys the job, but also about how much variation there seems to be among teachers and school leaders with regards to an understanding of what makes high-quality teaching.
For example, she had observed an English literature lesson being taught by a trainee teacher, the bulk of which comprised students copying (high-quality) notes from the board. In her view, this wasn’t particularly great teaching.
However, when she raised this with the trainee teacher’s head of department, who had watched the same lesson, they had a very different view. In their opinion, this was a good lesson because all students were engaged - they were paying attention and doing what was asked. Although she disagreed, the visiting middle leader wasn’t sure how to articulate why she felt the way she did about the main activity.
The scenario described here is a strong example of the very real issue that exists in schools across the world: two experienced professionals having completely different opinions about the quality of specific teaching approaches.
Despite the prevalence of literature from cognitive science about how learning happens, and educational research about approaches that are likely to be the most effective at particular times, there still exists huge variation in the minds of teachers and school leaders about what makes great teaching.
Different views on high-quality teaching
On the one hand, you might argue that this isn’t too much of a problem because lots of different teaching approaches are likely to work. Based on that logic, you might also argue that it is perfectly reasonable for teachers to make their own decisions about what to do in lessons.
However, such arguments are deeply flawed. As an increasingly strong body of educational research makes clear, although most approaches to teaching are likely to work to some extent, they won’t all work equally well, all the time.
Depending on what we are trying to teach and the stage that students are at in their learning, some approaches will, almost certainly, be more effective than others.
Accepting this, it seems reasonable to suggest that - as professionals - teachers and school leaders have an obligation to always consider what would likely be the best approach to teaching a particular lesson, using a research-informed knowledge base to guide decision-making. Otherwise, all we are really doing is behaving as well-meaning amateurs. With the best interests of student learning in mind, an “anything goes” approach to teaching is never OK.
For example, imagine that you have decided to teach the history of the Olympic Games over the course of three 50-minute lessons. From the following list of approaches, which would you recommend as “the best” to teach this content, and why? Are there any approaches that you think would be relatively poor? If so, why?
1. Internet research.
2. Students individually reading an article selected by the teacher.
3. Whole-class reading of an article selected by the teacher.
4. Students going to different stations to read different information.
5. Copying notes from the board.
6. Watching a video clip, chosen by the teacher.
7. Interactive, teacher-led PowerPoint presentation.
8. Students individually creating a PowerPoint.
9. Groups of students making a poster.
10. Students answering a set of short-response questions.
11. Students using source material to write their own test questions.
12. Students creating and using flash cards.
One teacher might decide to get students to do internet research and then create a poster in groups to summarise their learning, leaving it at that. Another might get students to read a pre-selected article, answer a set of short-response questions based on this and then ask them to create and use their own flashcards. Is one approach likely to be better for learning than the other? If so, why?
We could argue that it isn’t possible to tell because we don’t have enough information. For example, perhaps the reading material was too difficult, using language that was unfamiliar to students. And perhaps the questions were quite basic in nature. These are perfectly valid points. The quality of any activity should be as important a consideration as the nature of the activity.
However, let’s assume that the quality of the reading material and the questions are of a good standard. Which of the two approaches do you think is likely to offer the best learning opportunity for students?
Evidence-informed decision making
So that our decisions about teaching approaches are more than a shot in the dark or driven by ideology, we need a research-informed set of pedagogical principles to draw upon. Three of the most important are as follows:
Principle 1: Thinking is the key to learning
If we want students to learn particular things, we need to get them to think about these. Reading, watching and listening on their own tend to be “passive activities” because they don’t necessarily require thinking. True, some students might learn some things through such activities, but if we don’t get them to think about specific things, what they are learning and how well they are learning is being left to chance. Answering questions, discussions and turning information into new formats are all good bets for thinking activities.
Principle 2: One-off thinking is rarely enough
As a general rule, students need to think about something on at least three separate occasions before it is likely to be learned. Therefore, when we plan lessons, we should prioritise “thinking revisits”. For example, we could get into the habit of starting lessons with short active review activities, ending each week and month with these, and utilising homework programmes for the same purpose.
Principle 3: Never assume learning is happening - generate evidence
The key to establishing the effectiveness of a particular teaching approach is to generate evidence of what students know, understand or can do after a period of “teaching”. Nothing has really been taught unless it has been learned, and we can’t assume that learning is happening just because students are paying attention and doing what we ask. Such behaviours are prerequisites to learning, not proxies for learning.
Returning to the scenario at the start of this article, a shared understanding of research-informed principles would have been invaluable in helping to steer the discussions between the head of department and the visiting tutor, and to ensure that the trainee teacher was offered high-quality feedback.
It’s high time we started to support everyone to develop this understanding across the teaching profession - it’s students who will benefit most.
Bruce Robertson, a former secondary headteacher in Scotland, is director of Next Level Educational and author of the Power Up Your Pedagogy and The Teaching Delusion series
You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android
