Last week (03.12.16), Oliver and I delivered our ‘Choose Science, Not Myths’ presentation at the first ResearchEd devoted to Further Education.
Below are the slides from the presentation and Oliver kindly put together the presentation notes in his blog here and here.
The first part of the presentation explored a range of myths and while it is acknowledged that the jury is still out on some of these, it is important to remember that we were attempting to be contentious in order to spark debate. The second part of the presentation explored a range of effective learning strategies which are supported by both classroom experiments and cognitive science.
This is the first of what I hope will be many guest posts on my blog. It is written by my good friend and experienced Learning Support Assistant (LSA), Paul Warren.
Rarely do teachers have the opportunity to explore how to work effectively with LSAs (or equivalents) in their classrooms. Both ITE and ongoing staff development sessions often fail to emphasise the importance of, and methods to enhance, the working relationship between teacher and LSA, resulting in ineffective utilisation of this key role (not in all cases, but many). In this post, Paul highlights the pivotal role that LSAs play and he provides teachers with 10 great tips to maximise their use:
‘At some point during their career, many FE lecturers will have an opportunity to work alongside a Learning Support Assistant (LSA). Usually, but not exclusively, LSAs are tasked with providing 1:1 or small group support to students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities by offering learning strategies which help them to access the curriculum. Above all, however, the ultimate aim of most LSAs is to promote independent and autonomous working for the students that they support.
The most effective LSAs are those which seek to work closely with the lecturer and the student to gradually reduce the need for support with a view to ultimately removing it altogether. This can create a range of possible issues – not least of which being that the LSA should expect to make themselves redundant – but the overall impetus is on helping the learner to maximise their potential to work independently.
Of course, some learners will require support for the entirety of their time at college, but there is no harm in working with the expectation that all students will be able to work more independently before their course of study ends.
Often lecturers may not have had any in-depth instruction or training regarding how best to work with LSAs. Finding information isn’t always easy. FE-specific literature or research relating to working with LSAs is scarce, but there are some schools-based studies (see the excellent Deployment and Impact of Support Staff (DISS) Project) or smaller scale FE research (see LSIS/Natspec’s highly valuable Enhancement of Learning Support) which may prove helpful. Excellence Gateway have also produced a really useful guide which can be used to gauge the impact of support staff via their Working With LSAs Audit Tool. In addition, a search on the Education and Training Foundation’s website will yield a range of resources for working with students with SEND who need support. Other additional useful and relevant sources include The 2010 Equality Act, the 2014 Children and Families Act – including Education, Health and Care Plans and The FELTAG report which, in part, highlighted the importance of providing assistive technology for FE students who need it. More current FE-specific research and general awareness is needed, however, which promotes the benefits and value of using LSAs to promote independent and autonomous working in Further Education.
In the meantime, the following suggestions may be useful to lecturers to help kick-start a collaboration with LSAs with a view to reducing support and increasing learner independence:
Work with LSAs to review current records of student needs – particularly pinpointing any known learning strategies which encourage the learner to work independently.
Cultivate high expectations of the learner by immediately working with LSAs to try to identify what independence from support might ultimately look like. Use what you find in conjunction with your identification of student needs as a guide for each session and review regularly.
Agree an absolute maximum level of support that LSAs can provide before an issue or difficulty must be referred directly to the class tutor. Be clear with LSAs (and the learner) that the LSA should never do the work for the student.
Identify an early target for the learner to interact directly with the lecturer at least once during every session. Increase over time in order to reduce reliance on LSAs and gradually prepare the student for the time when the support is withdrawn.
Produce a measurable method of identifying the impact of support. This could be a chart or record of work that records instances in which the student does a task independently or requires minimal LSA input. If possible, actively involve the student in evaluating their own need for help and use the data to plan future support.
Encourage, praise and reward students when they work independently and use successes to promote future independent learning
Work with the LSA and the student to produce a portfolio of independent working strategies which the learner can take with them to further study or employment.
Liaise with teacher trainers, quality managers and senior leaders to share successes of promoting learner independence and reducing LSA support.
Work with your Learning Support team to build a database of what works for learners in your subject and use it to inform future individual student support needs.
Share ideas and successes via social media platform such as Blogs, Twitter or YouTube (remembering to respect individual student confidentiality and identity) and get in touch with other colleges to find out how they reduce support and promote learner independence.’
So there we have it. Why not consider how you can develop each of the above points. Thanks go to Paul Warren @paulw_learn for this excellent post.
Along with the other half a dozen books I am working my way through, I am coming to the end of Ruth Clarke and Chopete Lyons’ book on Graphics for Learning. My fascination for this sort of thing is borne out of admiration for my good friend, Oliver Caviglioli’s work (if you haven’t seen this, you’re missing out). For information, in this post I will be using graphics and visuals synonymously.
In their book, Clarke and Lyons spend a chapter (4) exploring how learning happens and how graphics can be effective in supporting this. Here is a graphic they use to show human cognitive architecture which aligns with Baddeley and Hitch’s Working Memory Model.
They note that because of the importance of long term memory, those with little domain knowledge (novices) suffer when information is not presented effectively to them, as their working memory (WM) becomes overloaded. Using visuals with auditory information during instruction can work to reduce this burden on WM however, as two pathways into WM are distinctly separate – one visual and one auditory.
Essentially, the working memory is like a bottle neck. If we pour too much into the bottle neck, much is lost… now imagine having two bottle necks into the same bottle, we’d keep much more information (yes a very simplistic way of looking at it). Better still, imagine if the same information went in both visually and auditory… this is what Paivio calls dual coding – a really useful approach to providing new information to learners.
Using graphics benefits learners in numerable ways, not just the above. Here I will discuss some of the reasons outlined by Clarke and Lyons:
1. Graphics help to direct attention
They suggest that almost any ‘visual will attract attention’. Attention is key to learning anything new, but in a typical classroom, in addition to the information being taught, there are other stimuli which can distract learners. Having a visual for learners can provide the focus of attention, however, they should be used with caution:
The visual should not be irrelevant to what information is being shared (random clip art images should be avoided).
The visual, if complex, should also have signals to direct attention to component parts such as small circles or arrows.
Simple visuals are better for more novice learners.
2. Graphics help to activate prior knowledge
Learners ‘know stuff’ already, but it will be in the abyss of long term memory and it is important for us to draw it (no pun intended) into the working memory in order to link new knowledge. Clarke and Lyons tell us that ‘a visual provided before the main lesson content can help to build an effective base knowledge structure. This skeleton structure provides a frame on which the learner can attach additional lesson details.’ This is corroborated by Marzano’s work on classroom based instruction, whereby non-linguistic teaching methods such as graphic organisers have a startling effect on achievement (0.75 Ave. ES)
In spite of this, a graphic that activates inappropriate prior knowledge will depress learning according to Clarke and Lyons, so there is a need to ensure clarity and order with the graphic that is used.
3. Graphics help to manage mental load
‘Since working memory is the site of active processing, good instructional materials must preserve its limited capacity for learning.’ I have blogged before about the use of storyboards to assist with delivery of new information. This is one example of how to manage the mental load. Simple visuals (line drawings) are said to be better than more complex visuals. For instance, when drawing the heart, for novice learners it would help to draw a simple boxed line drawing as opposed to a cross section of the heart, which is often seen. As learners become more competent with the content, visuals can increase in complexity.
4. Graphics help to build mental models
Where Clarke and Lyons refer to mental models, they basically mean ‘schema’, or patterns of knowledge and skills in the long term memory. The more expert one becomes, the more complex and organised our mental models become. We learn by linking new information to existing mental models and in using graphics, abstract information can be made more clear with how new information links to current knowledge.
5. Graphics help with transfer
Clarke and Lyons argue that with all the knowledge in the world, unless we can retrieve it and bring it back to WM, we won’t be able to transfer it to alternative situations. They distinguish between near and far-transfer in their book, both requiring different types of graphic to maximise the type of transfer.
Near-transfer is the type of thing we will do more frequently, like a following a process for sending an email – the difference being that there will be different content to include.
Far-transfer requires the use of concrete and abstract examples – Clarke and Lyons inform us that in developing far-transfer, ‘graphic illustrations that build mental models, use varied context, transition from concrete to abstract, and provide a work context for immersive learning environments’. I feel that this warrants an entirely separate blog post, so will look at this further in the new year.
6. Graphics can optimise motivation
Clarke and Lyons highlight motivation as the key to effective learning and that visuals can play a huge role in motivating learners. They recommend using visuals that help learners see the relevance and value in the learning and trigger interest for learners. It is important to note that while visuals can interest learners in the learning material, the ‘edutainment’ that often comes with instruction can actually impede learning (guilty of this your honour). So try to avoid eye candy and instead focus on relevant graphics.
In addition to this, a recent post by Greg Ashman caught my eye, arguing that by reducing cognitive load, we increase the motivation of our learners. If we look back at the purpose of using the visual pathway to WM – to reduce load, then we find additional benefits to using graphics.
So that’s it, six reasons why we should consider using more visuals in our instruction. If you do use them though, please heed the advice of Clarke and Lyons.
Okay, I admit it, I’m an avid Strictly Come Dancing watcher and my Saturday evenings are just not the same at the minute…
One of the many things I enjoy about the show is the progress made by the celebrity dancers over the course of the programme; in many cases, it’s phenomenal. What I find even more amazing is the work of the professionals aka the experts.
The professionals have been selected due to their expertise in a repertoire of dance disciplines. Each week, not only are they required to train a novice (celebrity) how to dance a particular routine, but they are also involved in at least one other routine during the show, which they perform with gusto and grace. In order to reach this standard, they have acquired thousands of hours of practice over a number of years and, as a result, have highly organised and fine tuned schema in their long term memories, which allows them to access new routines with efficiency and ease (I’ve discussed cognitive architecture in previous posts, so don’t intend to dwell on it here).
The work of Ericson and colleagues found that for individuals to become experts in their respective domains, it generally takes about 10 years of deliberate practice.
‘Simon and Chase (1973) observed that nobody had attained the level of an international chess master (grandmaster) “with less than about a decade’s intense preparation with the game”.’
They found similar results when reviewing other domains (teaching not included of course) and concluded that:
‘the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain.’
What does an expert teacher look like?
Whilst it is acknowledged that there is currently little consensus as to what constitutes an expert teacher, one could argue that as it currently stands, it is one that gains the highest value added achievement that is likely to be considered an expert. The often discredited work of Hattie and Marzano, along with studies in the domain of cognitive science provide us with many examples of methods and approaches that have greater impact on achievement. For example, we know that feedback which looks forward and is task-centred is more effective than no feedback or ego-centred feedback. We know that testing learners on material supports their ability to retain and retrieve knowledge. We know that spacing practice supports retention better than massed practice.
Using these (and the many other research informed approaches) as a barometer for expertise is arguably a starting point for all teachers in their deliberate practice towards expertise.
What is the difference between deliberate practice and normal practice then?
Ericsson et al inform us that ‘deliberate practice includes activities that have been specifically designed to improve the current level of performance’. They go on to state that key conditions for deliberate practice include: intrinsic motivation, feedback, and focused practice on specific areas of weakness. Unlike deliberate practice, normal practice is generally unstructured and feedback-free.
As a teacher, what can I do with this information?
This blog is timely in light of the recent Deans for Impact – Practice with Purpose release for teacher educators, and using the framework suggested will provide trainees with a good foundation for deliberate practice. For those already teaching, there are many aspects of this report that you might use, but as Ericsson et al point out, practice is not inherently motivating, requires time and is effortful. Therefore, it might be something you discuss with colleagues in order to cooperatively agree targets, structure practice opportunities, and monitor and provide feedback to one another to make progress towards ‘expertise’, or rather, a 10 from Len!
Not all teachers have the luxury of their own classroom; many have to move from room to room for their lessons, but regardless, one of the biggest pieces of advice that I give to teachers when managing classroom behaviour is to OWN YOUR ROOM.
When I started out teaching, I would often arrive at my classroom 2 minutes before the lesson to find students already in the room, sometimes eating/drinking, on phones, generally treating the place as a common room, rather than place of learning. This put me on the back foot as a teacher. I couldn’t arrange the tables as I saw fit, so would try to involve the learners in moving the room around (mayhem). Then trying to get them to sit where I needed them became even more of an issue. I had to start negatively by enforcing rules that learners should have been following; “put your drink in your bag”, “put your phones away”, so getting learners focussed on the lesson became difficult. Basically, I was taking part in unnecessary battles, when I should have been inspiring learners to learn about my subject. So after a terrible first year, here’s what I started to do – I owned my room. Below I have put some simple strategies that can help you to do the same:
Where possible, arrive at your room before your learners and if they are in the room before you for whatever reason, ask them to leave whilst you set up. Do not work around them in your classroom – even if it means delaying the lesson start by a few minutes until you are ready.
Where possible, set the room layout differently to last time (or try to vary at least a little with a different seating plan). Learners get comfortable very quickly and as soon as they take control of a seat, it’s very difficult for a teacher to gain your classroom control back. In addition to this, research by Smith (1985) has demonstrated the benefits of multiple learning environments on memory. Whilst not a completely different environment, the variation in position in the room, may result in less environmental cues used for memory.
Welcome every student at the door. This not only sets a positive tone for the session, but it also allows you to prevent any misdemeanours prior to them entering your classroom. At this point, you can also start to direct them to where you want them to sit. “Morning Kye, please sit there” (Note: I have not asked Kye if he would mind sitting there, but have told him politely).
In most instances, I’d suggest that you begin the class swiftly with an overview of the expectations for the session. That way, there will be no surprises along the way. “Here is what we are doing today and this is what I expect from you”. Further to this, according to Marzano (2003, cited in Petty), the use of ‘reminders’ has a 0.64 effect-size on achievement and is a useful strategy for developing student-teacher relationships in the classroom. This sense of clarity with expectations for learning is supported further by the work of Wiliam on formative assessment. Thus starting most sessions in this way is desirable.
Recap prior learning so that students can draw upon what they already know about the topic. Supported by a wealth of cognitive psychology research, low stakes testing offers a multitude of benefits. Not only does it allow for initial assessment to take place (if done properly*), but it also allows for learners to take part in retrieval practice. This is a low-cost, high impact strategy to support learner acquisition of knowledge, which can be built upon as the lesson progresses. In terms of behaviour, this will provide a routine for learners and even the most challenging like routine.
Try to avoid large group work. When it comes to group work, then anything more than groups of 3 and I start to worry about the benefit to all involved. Slavin, Hurley and Chamberlain offer two key features of effective group work (working towards the same goal and having accountability for one another’s learning), but even so, it becomes very difficult for a teacher to manage large groups. I tend to stick to paired activities in the main, but that’s my preference. If you can be confident that all members are participating fully and are getting the most from their experience in the group (and I’m not talking ‘soft skill’ nonsense), then fine, but larger group size does create the conditions for behaviour to go awry. My ‘go-to’ strategy is think, pair, share. A great post on the strategy by HeadGuruTeacher can be found here and in using it well, the teacher maintains their control, thus their ownership of the room.
There are many more ways of owning your classroom, but I generally offer the above 6 tips for my trainees to enable them to then make decisions based upon their own contexts. I haven’t discussed classroom rules, rewards or punishments, because there’s a whole blog post in that, but these are just simple strategies that can be adopted with relative ease. If you find learner behaviour a struggle, then perhaps try owning your classroom.
* For effective initial assessment, consider using multiple choice questions, along with a whole group answer approach, whereby mini-white boards, individual hand held devices, or simply fingers up, is used to determine each learner’s starting point. Do not resort to the ‘asking an open question and only the most confident shout out’ approach.
A few weeks ago whilst teaching about Ebbinghaus’ forgetting curve and distributed practice*, one of my trainees was able to conceptualise it by way of learning songs… Here we go, I thought…
“You know when you hear a song for the first time, you can only remember a little of it, but the more you listen to it, the more you remember of the song?”
Well, yes. I suppose there may be a point to this. I thought about some examples that I could use to explain the forgetting curve and distributed practice via the ‘learning a song’ approach and here are my thoughts:
Twenty years ago, Puff Daddy (AKA P Diddy, AKA Sean Coombs, AKA whatever the latest is) and Faith Evans released ‘Missing you’ a song in memory of the Notorious BIG – Notorious! My summer was spent with the CD on loop, playing it over and over again. A 5 minute song turned into 5 weeks, until I became sick of it. To this day, I can still spit bars like the 13 year old me – word.
But was this distributed practice I thought? I mean, my whole summer was blocked with that song – I had overlearned it. Whilst I could use this to discuss the forgetting curve, I suppose frequent visiting over a long period wasn’t the best example to use for distributed practice…
I then thought about a song that I hadn’t heard as much, but with sufficient space between listening… aha! Christmas songs!
A yearly dose of Maria, George, The Pogues et al and… wait, I can’t say that I know all of the words to any of those songs… there’s bits I mumble my way through in an attempt to appear like I know, but I really don’t. Is it because I almost completely forget with such a long period between listening? Maybe.
So what could I use as an example? Well, I have struggled with this one. Would I have remembered ‘missing you’ if I hadn’t listened to it intensely for such a long time and overlearned it? Maybe I could have been more efficient with my time and had I thought about improving my memory of the song, would have listened to it a couple of times every week? Then I might have remembered a few other songs from that summer.
I can’t think of an example to demonstrate distributed practice, but I’m going to conduct a little experiment on myself and listen to the pogues twice a week up to Christmas in an attempt to get the words… then I might have a decent example to use in future. I’ll keep you posted!
*For those of you that have no idea what I have just been on about, a summary of the forgetting curve and distributed practice can be read by clicking the links.
Learning theory provides us with a why for the what. When we teach learners, we expect them to know the why for the what, so why wouldn’t we expect the same of teachers?
The problem that many practitioners face is that they probably haven’t studied learning theory since their teacher training, and I’m certain that in some cases, much of that was ‘guff’ (Gardners MI, learning styles, learning pyramids etc etc). Much of the theory that I was taught has been debunked and I don’t even know if what I was doing as a result of learning the theory was particularly useful or not. Aside from this, there are so many theories (see above image) that it becomes difficult to determine what is useful to know and what isn’t.
For this reason, I recommend that the minimum that all teachers should be armed with is some objective evidence of how students learn best. I have previously written about the different types of evidence you might use to determine how students learn (here). If we know that the reason we are doing something in our classroom is because there is some objective evidence to show that it works, then we should have confidence that we are likely doing the best for our learners. If on the other hand, there is no objective evidence, or evidence that refutes something we are doing, then perhaps we need to consider what we can do better for our learners (I’m not saying that the more subjective evidence is wrong, but there might be something we can do that will be more effective). So where can we get the more objective stuff?
Below you will find a range of the more objective evidence that I use. I have summarised each and given a subjective rating out of 5. My rating is based on the security of evidence and how useful it is for a classroom practitioner.
This isn’t a link to the book, but a pretty good review. There is a wealth of research informed strategies covered in the book. Despite a lot of criticism for his methods, this is a good starting point for understanding what is typically more effective in the classroom.
This is a link to the complete book. The work summarises a wealth of classroom based research. 9 research-based strategies are explored with a thorough coverage of the research and a range of applications for the classroom. A big read, but great book.
This toolkit for practitioners summarises classroom based research into 3 key elements – cost, research security and months impact on achievement. Some of the research methods used by the foundation have been scrutinised, but certainly worth exploring as a starting point.
On the face of it, the points made in the post might sound like grand ideas, but with all due respect, I disagree with some of the points made and am concerned that there is no evidence to support an argument being made by a senior leader in the sector. For this reason, I want to break the article down to highlight the problems.
Firstly, there are many assumptions and no evidence to back up some of the statements. For example:
‘It falls to the FE sector to provide the core of the nations workforce of the future. And I would hazard a guess that these workers will need to be natural collaborators, problem solvers and out-of-the-box thinkers.’
‘In the future, chefs will probably need to work hand-in-hand with software developers to create apps to promote their restaurant…’
Making radical changes to a college based on assumptions is dangerous.
The article includes a series of sub-headings followed by a rationale for each. Let’s examine each one:
NO PLACE FOR CHALK AND TALK
The author wants to ‘move away from classrooms that have not progressed since the days of chalk and talk – with a desk at the front, where teaching remains in the hands of teachers and students are passive recipients of information, rather than active learners.’
Seriously? Teaching in the hands of teachers is a bad thing? Let’s not have experts in the room then. Let’s just hire someone with no experience, knowledge or skills in the subject and pass the control to learners to find out for themselves. In fact, why even have a college building at all? The above comment undermines the fantastic knowledge, skills and experiences of the FE workforce and would put learners at a complete disadvantage (cue evidence to support sweeping statement): Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) inform us that:
‘based on our current knowledge of human cognitive architecture, minimally guided instruction is likely to be ineffective. The past half-century of empirical research on this issue has provided overwhelming and unambiguous evidence that minimal guidance during instruction is significantly less effective and efficient than guidance specifically designed to support the cognitive processing necessary for learning.’
There’s no disputing that learners should engage in ‘active learning’, but I do wonder whether my understanding of active learning differs to what the authors is, particularly if they’re suggesting the complete removal of guided instruction. A wealth of well researched learning strategies can be found here to support learners in becoming ‘active learners’, fortunately for us teachers, there is still a large role to play.
A DIFFERENT TYPE OF TEACHING
Apparently, ‘to get students ready to compete in the global market and thrive in the sharing economy, we need to move towards self-directed learning’. Teachers as facilitators to develop independent learners of the future. To achieve this, the author advocates ‘skills-based learning’, which I am broadly in favour of, that is, if we are talking about domain specific skills. However, it isn’t clear whether the author is only talking about these skills, as littered throughout the article is reference to generic/soft, transferable skills. Despite how lovely it would be to be able to teach a learner generic skills such as problem solving, critical thinking and creativity (out-of-the-box thinking), I’m yet to see a framework for the effective teaching of these ‘generic’ skills. Whilst there’s no disputing how important these skills are, current research shows that these skills are tied to a domain and that it is very difficult to explicitly teach them. A recent blog from Carl Hendrick articulates this far better than I ever could.
As a side note, why all of a sudden are these skills more important than they’ve been previously? We are quite good at being creative and problem solving… you only have to look at advancements in the last 100 years. Have we all of a sudden lost creativity, problem solving and communication skills?
COLLABORATION IS KEY
I can’t argue with this. Collaboration is a key characteristic that we should find in any learning environment. Slavin, Hurley and Chamberlain (2003) have demonstrated that cooperative learning has the potential to be highly effective, particularly if two conditions are met – firstly that learners work as a team, not just in a team and secondly, all individuals should be accountable for the learning.
Project based learning is suggested by the author as a pedagogical approach to bridge different domains. Sure. But not at first and not for all learning activities. Perhaps once students have acquired sufficient knowledge to participate as a group and be accountable for one another’s learning. Perhaps when they are on their way to mastering a topic. Research has demonstrated that experts benefit from less guidance (expertise reversal effect), whereby guided methods of instruction become less effective as learners become more experienced and knowledgeable. However, those that begin a vocational course at 16 have arguably got little experience/knowledge/skills in that domain and are therefore novices, thus a guided approach to instruction is a necessity.
With the above in mind, if we adopt ‘facilitator’ roles in a vocational education and training with novice learners, are we at risk of widening the skills gap, not narrowing it?
NEW LEARNING SPACES
I’m a technology advocate, I sure am, but rather than adopting an alternative paradigm, why don’t we align it to current paradigm? (Blog to follow). The whole changing spaces idea can still work with current ‘effective’ instructional approaches, so if we must, let’s go for it.
Whilst I agree that colleges need to evolve, fundamentally, the instruction isn’t the problem, it is doing things without a sufficient evidence base that is. Influential leaders in the sector need to be careful what they wish for.
This post was originally written for the TES (edited and featured 0n 25/06/16)
For most, this question may seem an odd one, but according to Dr Gary Jones, sound evidence based practice requires teachers to discriminate, apply and evaluate a variety of sources of evidence in order to answer such questions, so have you?
@OliverCavigliol and @AceThatTest recently collaborated on Twitter to determine a continuum of subjective to objective sources of information that may be used by teachers to find out about how students learn. This article intends to explore the benefits and limitations to each of these sources:
Intuition and Experience
Highly subjective, people’s intuition often derives from a desire to find patterns and connections in randomness. Sometimes people overestimate their intuition and prevent themselves from making sound decisions. Take the roulette player that observes 5 reds come in one after another, he believes that there is little chance that a red can come in again, so places his bet on black. But of course, the odds are still the same regardless of how many came before. Liken this to the classroom, we use our intuition and experiences to guide us in situations that we face day-to-day. Being time-short means that teachers don’t have the opportunity to contemplate decisions, rather they act in the moment when it comes to thinking about how students learn best. Denes-Raj and Epstein (1994) propose that people process information in two different modes, one identified by terms such as rational, analytical and deliberative, and the other by terms such as experiential, automatic, intuitive and natural – The latter being a dangerous concoction of highly subjective approaches. Conversely, experience can support us contextually, particularly when less objective sources are available to us, moreover, intuition may useful to open yourself to new ideas that rational thinking may not allow.
Though some CPD sessions are informative and outside experts can act as agents for change (http://bit.ly/1THQQS7), there are a lot of snake oil salespeople out there. These individuals work in their best interests to promote ideas and resources, not really providing us with unbiased information about how students learn and often not informed by research. Furthermore, there remains limited evidence to support the impact of one off CPD sessions on teaching and learning(http://bit.ly/1Zfh2XS). However, if the CPD session is well informed and part of an ongoing community of practice, then this is where it is likely to have most value.
Communicating with peers
Teacher Learning Communities are held in high regard by Dylan Wiliam, who advocates this over the traditional sheep-dip approach to CPD, but done alone, does it really tell us about how students learn? Probably not, but in trialling strategies that are informed by more objective sources, it is certainly worth working with peers in communities of practice to determine how students learn best in your context.
Media and Blogs
This very article poses some bias towards particular sources. The very nature of this publication provides all in education a voice – some more authoritative than others. Blogs can also be produced by anyone and perhaps reinforce bad practice. Having said that, with both media and blogs, the information is current and highly accessible, so as a starting point, why not use it to find out how students learn?
Popular education books
There are thousands of books on the shelf that serve to provide us with information on how students learn. The issue we face is deciphering which are the most valid and reliable sources. Of course, once you get past this gargantuan task, you then have the bias of the author and editor to tackle. In spite of this, the thing that makes books more desirable is their ability to make the research accessible.
On the topic of research, there are an array of individual peer-reviewed studies available covering a broad range of age groups, subjects and countries. These have been synthesised by both John Hattie and Robert Marzano, who have drawn upon the thousands of studies to determine how students best learn, producing an ‘effect-size’ for each of the strategies. There are some that have critiqued the methods used to determine the ‘effect-size’, however, questioning the validity of such an approach. Despite this, it is difficult to completely dismiss the findings of such large scale studies – just don’t take it as a standalone piece of evidence.
Cognitive science journals
Out of all of the abovementioned, this resource is the only one that focusses on the brain – that is what we’re here for isn’t it? These studies try to isolate the variables associated with typical classroom experiments and are generally laboratory based, so are pretty much as objective as we can get (of course, there is neuroscience, but this is a developing, yet murky area). Key principles of the learning science can easily be applied to the classroom, but it can be problematic trying to interpret these.
In determining how students learn best, we should try to use as many of the aforementioned sources as possible, preferably using more of the objective sources. If we can draw upon, and amalgamate the information gleaned from each to determine the most effective strategies to support our learners, then surely that’s what we should be doing?
Here’s an example:
Cognitive science informs us that distributed practice is a highly effective way to increase long term retention (http://bit.ly/1sO8Pzv). Classroom experiments also corroborate this, with the effect size of spaced practice being 0.46 (http://bit.ly/1VsEUIv). My experience tells me that cramming delivery into short blocks does little to help my learners remember the content at the end of the year and my peers would agree. So having gathered this information, next year I shall now try distributing practice and evaluate the findings at the end of the academic year.
So, how will you use the evidence to find out how students learn?
Over the last few weeks I’ve been working with a new group of unqualified, practicing teachers. It’s fascinating to hear about some of the things they’ve been indoctrinated with from others – those that did their teacher training many years ago.
Over a series of sessions, I’ve dispelled several myths about things they think they need to do and asked them to question their current practice. It’s not that this practice is necessarily wrong or ineffective, but the view of a ‘model lesson’ is, in my opinion. I’m going to explore some of these myths in this post and hopefully reassure readers that you don’t need to do any of them:
1. You don’t need to… start all lessons with a ‘starter activity’.
While it might be beneficial to grab the attention of the learners, a lesson needn’t start with an activity that has little relevance to the content. If you’re going to use one, I’d suggest a quick recap quiz for retrieval practice and initial assessment. Having said this, sometimes you might just fire straight in with the main body of the lesson and that’s fine, there isn’t a ‘right’ way to do this.
2. You don’t need to… write your learning objectives on the board.
It’s so frustrating that people think this makes a difference to the learners. Often the language used on the board is written in learner unfriendly, educational jargon. In most cases it is important to share the intentions with learners, so that they know what they’re doing and why, but sometimes you might reveal the intention as the lesson progresses. Whether you write down, tell learners or mime it, it doesn’t matter. Having said this, I often write intentions on the board so that learners have a point of reference should they wish to clarify what they’re aiming for, but I normally write this in the form of a question.
3. You don’t need to… make your learning activities fun, engaging and relevant to learner interests.
Two of my favourite quotes: ‘learning happens when people have to think hard’ (Coe, 2014) and ‘memory is the residue of thought’ (Willingham, 2009) should be considered here. All learning activities should give the learner the opportunity to think about the content. If fun, engagement and interest is a byproduct, then fine, but we should ensure that the focus is on content first. It doesn’t really matter how you do it, though some methods have, through research, demonstrated to be more effective than others (see here and here).
4. You don’t need to… worry about having enough time to teach the qualification.
This is something I hear a lot of, particularly in recent years where the guided learning hours of qualifications are being stripped back and every minute of a teacher’s contract is accounted for. For a start, you’re probably spending too much time on writing lesson objectives, doing starters and fun activities where the learners aren’t actually learning. If 5 mins are wasted in each lesson doing this and the learner has 12 lessons per week for 36 weeks, my maths says that’s 36 lost hours that I’ve just found you. In reality though, we are time short, so let’s not waste the precious time we have on nonsensical, ineffective tick box exercises.
5. You don’t need to… develop learners’ English, maths, soft skills etc in every lesson.
Whilst I am a huge advocate of developing literacy and numeracy through subject lessons, I don’t believe this should be at the expense of the content. I also don’t think we should force something in to ‘tick a box’. Natural opportunities should be taken and opportunities to develop the skills around the subject should be considered where appropriate. For example, if an learner uses subject specific terminology incorrectly, I would look to explore their understanding of the term and help them to put the word into context through use of a glossary.
6. You don’t need to… have a lesson plan.
Of course, you’d be foolish to think that you can teach without some sort of a plan, but you certainly don’t need to complete a particular lesson plan template. I’ve seen people plan to the exact minute in their lessons, but if learners don’t get something, rather than moving on because it is 9:23 and your plan says that you should be giving learners an activity, stop, and respond to what the learners need. Having a broad aim, an idea of how you’ll achieve it and how you’ll monitor learner progress towards it will allow for a more responsive approach to the learners – you might even be able to squeeze all of this information onto your fag packet.
7. You don’t need to… do what’s always been done.
New teachers, old teachers, teachers with no label – there’s an obsession with doing things how it has always been done. You pick up a new unit to teach, so follow the scheme that was planned by the teacher who did it in 2007, because that’s how its always been done. You include a learning styles inventory within your induction period and write the results on the group profile with no intention of using them, because, that’s how its always been done. Hey you that is nodding your head to this! Take control of this situation and your professionalism.
There’s probably many more myths that I dispel in every session, but these are a few that I have and will continue to challenge. You don’t need to do any of the above and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, but equally, if you want to do them, then that’s your call.