What makes great teaching

what makes a great teaching assistant and what a great teaching idea
GemmaBeven Profile Pic
Published Date:14-07-2017
Your Website URL(Optional)
What makes great teaching? Review of the underpinning research Robert Coe, Cesare Aloisi, Steve Higgins and Lee Elliot Major October 2014 Executive Summary A framework for professional learning This review set out to address three apparently simple questions:  What makes ’great teaching’?  What kinds of frameworks or tools could help us to capture it?  How could this promote better learning? Question 1: “What makes great teaching?” Great teaching is defined as that which leads to improved student progress We define effective teaching as that which leads to improved student achievement using outcomes that matter to their future success. Defining effective teaching is not easy. The research keeps coming back to this critical point: student progress is the yardstick by which teacher quality should be assessed. Ultimately, for a judgement about whether teaching is effective, to be seen as trustworthy, it must be checked against the progress being made by students. The six components of great teaching Schools currently use a number of frameworks that describe the core elements of effective teaching. The problem is that these attributes are so broadly defined that they can be open to wide and different interpretation whether high quality teaching has been observed in the classroom. It is important to understand these limitations when making assessments about teaching quality. Below we list the six common components suggested by research that teachers should consider when assessing teaching quality. We list these approaches, skills and knowledge in order of how strong the evidence is in showing that focusing on them can improve student outcomes. This should be seen as offering a ‘starter kit’ for thinking about effective pedagogy. Good quality teaching will likely involve a combination of these attributes manifested at different times; the very best teachers are those that demonstrate all of these features. 1. (Pedagogical) content knowledge (Strong evidence of impact on student outcomes) The most effective teachers have deep knowledge of the subjects they teach, and when teachers’ knowledge falls below a certain level it is a significant impediment to students’ learning. As well as a strong understanding of the material being taught, teachers must also understand the ways students think about the content, be able to evaluate the thinking behind students’ own methods, and identify students’ common misconceptions. 2. Quality of instruction (Strong evidence of impact on student outcomes) Includes elements such as effective questioning and use of assessment by teachers. Specific practices, like reviewing previous learning, providing model responses for students, giving adequate time for practice to embed skills securely 2 and progressively introducing new learning (scaffolding) are also elements of high quality instruction. 3. Classroom climate (Moderate evidence of impact on student outcomes) Covers quality of interactions between teachers and students, and teacher expectations: the need to create a classroom that is constantly demanding more, but still recognising students’ self-worth. It also involves attributing student success to effort rather than ability and valuing resilience to failure (grit). 4. Classroom management (Moderate evidence of impact on student outcomes) A teacher’s abilities to make efficient use of lesson time, to coordinate classroom resources and space, and to manage students’ behaviour with clear rules that are consistently enforced, are all relevant to maximising the learning that can take place. These environmental factors are necessary for good learning rather than its direct components. 5. Teacher beliefs (Some evidence of impact on student outcomes) Why teachers adopt particular practices, the purposes they aim to achieve, their theories about what learning is and how it happens and their conceptual models of the nature and role of teaching in the learning process all seem to be important. 6. Professional behaviours (Some evidence of impact on student outcomes) Behaviours exhibited by teachers such as reflecting on and developing professional practice, participation in professional development, supporting colleagues, and liaising and communicating with parents. Question 2: “What kinds of frameworks or tools could help us to capture great teaching?” Assessing teacher quality through multiple measures A formative teacher evaluation system – based on continuous assessment and feedback rather than a high-stakes test - must incorporate a range of measures, from different sources, using a variety of methods. A key to suitably cautious and critical use of the different methods is to triangulate them against each other. A single source of evidence may suggest the way forward, but when it is confirmed by another independent source it starts to become a credible guide. Currently available measures can give useful information, but there is a lot of noise around a weak signal, so we must be careful not to over-interpret. If we were to use the best classroom observation ratings, for example, to identify teachers as ‘above’ or ‘below’ average and compare this to their impact on student learning we would get it right about 60% of the time, compared with the 50% we would get by just tossing a coin. Therefore, these judgements need to be used with considerable caution. 3 Six approaches to teacher assessment For this review we focused on three approaches to assessing teachers that demonstrate moderate validity in signalling effectiveness: 1. classroom observations by peers, principals or external evaluators 2. ‘value-added’ models (assessing gains in student achievement) 3. student ratings Three other approaches had limited evidence: 4. principal (or headteacher) judgement 5. teacher self-reports 6. analysis of classroom artefacts and teacher portfolios Classroom observations Successful teacher observations are primarily used as a formative process – framed as a development tool creating reflective and self-directed teacher learners as opposed to a high stakes evaluation or appraisal. However, while observation is effective when undertaken as a collaborative and collegial exercise among peers, the literature also emphasises the need for challenge in the process – involving, to some extent, principals or external experts. Levels of reliability that are acceptable for low-stakes purposes can be achieved by the use of high-quality observation protocols. These include using observers who have been specifically trained – with ongoing quality assurance, and pooling the results of observations by multiple observers of multiple lessons. Measuring student gains Value-added models are highly dependent on the availability of good outcome measures. Their results can be quite sensitive to some essentially arbitrary choices about which variables to include and what assumptions underpin the models. Estimates of effectiveness for individual teachers are only moderately stable from year to year and class to class. However, it does seem that at least part of what is captured by value-added estimates reflects the genuine impact of a teacher on students’ learning. Student ratings Collecting student ratings should be a cheap and easy source of good feedback about teaching behaviours from a range of observers who can draw on experience of many lessons. There is evidence of the validity of these measures from use both in schools and, more widely, in higher education. Question 3: “How could this promote better learning?” A review by Timperley et al. details a teacher ‘knowledge-building cycle ' - a feedback loop for teachers – that is associated with improved student outcomes. Their synthesis ‘assumes that what goes on in the black box of teacher learning is 4 fundamentally similar to student learning’. And their findings suggest that teacher learning can have a sizeable impact on student outcomes. The observation/feedback routine should be structured explicitly as a continuous professional learning opportunity that enables them to work on improving student outcomes. The literature provides a challenge to the much quoted claim that teachers typically improve over their first 3-5 years and then plateau. Teachers working in schools with more supportive professional environments continued to improve significantly after three years, while teachers in the least supportive schools actually declined in their effectiveness. Another study found that feedback from classroom observation led to a gain in students’ math test scores in the years following the intervention, equivalent to an effect size of 0.11. Six principles of teacher feedback Sustained professional learning is most likely to result when: 1. the focus is kept clearly on improving student outcomes; 2. feedback is related to clear, specific and challenging goals for the recipient; 3. attention is on the learning rather than to the person or to comparisons with others; 4. teachers are encouraged to be continual independent learners; 5. feedback is mediated by a mentor in an environment of trust and support; 6. an environment of professional learning and support is promoted by the school’s leadership. 5 Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 What is good pedagogy? Elements of teaching effectiveness ..................................................................................................... 9 Defining ‘good pedagogy’ 9 Developing indicators of good pedagogy that can be used reliably 10 Types of evidence relevant to ‘effectiveness’ 11 Examples of effective practices 13 Danielson’s Framework for Teaching 13 The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) 14 Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction 14 Creemers and Kyriakides’ Dynamic Model 15 Evidence from cognitive psychology 17 Examples of teacher characteristics 18 (Pedagogical) Content knowledge 18 Beliefs about learning 19 Other characteristics 21 Examples of ineffective practices 22 How do we measure it? Frameworks for capturing teaching quality ..........................................................................................25 Section summary 25 Classroom observation approaches 25 Peer observations 26 School leader / principal observations 27 Observation by an external evaluator 29 Instruments for classroom observation 31 Value-added measures 33 Student ratings 35 Principal (headteacher) judgement 36 Teacher self-reports 36 Analysis of classroom artefacts 36 Teacher portfolios 37 How could this promote better learning? ..................................................................................................................................38 Validity Issues 38 Combining evidence from different evaluation approaches 38 Focus on student learning outcomes 38 Purposes: Fixing versus Firing 39 Approaches to providing feedback 39 Evidence of impact of feedback to teachers on student learning 40 Enhancing teachers’ professional learning 40 How might we take this forward? ..............................................................................................................................................43 Overview of the evidence 43 Evidence about effective pedagogy 43 Evidence about methods of evaluating teaching quality 43 Evidence about developmental use of evaluation 44 6 A general framework for teaching quality 44 Best bets to try out and evaluate 45 General requirements 46 Quick wins 46 Longer term (harder) 47 Multiple, multi-dimensional measures 47 School-based support systems 48 References .................................................................................................................................................................................50 Appendix ...................................................................................................................................................................................56 A: Original research questions 56 7 Introduction This paper was written to set the scene for a summit held over two days in early November 2014 in Washington, DC. The summit brought together 80 school leaders and teachers from a range of countries, including Australia, Canada, Finland, Holland, Hong Kong, Singapore, the UK and the US, to consider the latest research evidence on professional learning and share their practical tools and strategies for using observation and feedback, with the aim of creating a practical guide to support the effective professional learning of teachers. The summit and programme of work set out to address some apparently simple questions:  What is good pedagogy?  What kinds of frameworks or tools could help us to capture it?  How could this promote better learning? In focusing on these questions, we recognise that it may seem more obvious to start thinking about teachers’ professional learning and development by focusing on the necessary conditions for such learning to occur. For example, we might argue that teachers need to feel trusted and valued, that their experiences and perspectives are acknowledged, that the culture of the schools in which they work should promote critical questioning and innovative approaches, with space and encouragement for discussion and sharing of ideas. We will return to these issues, but first we focus on what that learning should be. Again, it might seem obvious that this is already well known: we surely know what great teaching looks like; we just need to create the culture in which teachers feel empowered and free to do it. In fact, there is some evidence that an understanding of what constitutes effective pedagogy – the method and practice of teaching – may not be so widely shared, and even where it is widely shared it may not actually be right (Strong et al, 2011; Hamre et al, 2009). Hence it is necessary to clarify what is known about effective pedagogy before we can think about how to promote it. Unless we do that there is a real danger that we end up promoting teaching practices that are no more – and perhaps less – effective than those currently used. We also review research that has shed some light on what works in terms of the practices of professional learning – whether it is the frameworks used to define teaching effectiveness or observing peers, entering into dialogue and feedback and helping to improve practice. This study presents a brief review of the existing research evidence that is relevant to these questions. The original research questions we set out to address are given in full in Appendix A. 8 What is good pedagogy? Elements of teaching effectiveness Defining ‘good pedagogy’ Defining effective teaching is of course problematic. Ideally, we might define effective teaching as that which leads to high achievement by students in valued outcomes, other things being equal. We acknowledge that available assessments – and particularly those that have been used for high-stakes accountability or in existing research studies – may not fully capture the range of the outcomes that we might specify as desirable aims for education (Popham and Ryan, 2012; Muijs et al, 2014; Polikoff, 2014). We also acknowledge that ‘other things being equal’ may be open to different interpretations about what factors should or can be taken into account. A number of factors will influence students’ achievements, for example, pre-existing student characteristics (both of individual students and collectively), characteristics of the school and of the teacher (some of which may be alterable, others not), and of the context. In practice, the attribution of an ‘effect’ to an individual teacher or school is generally determined by what cannot be explained by factors that are judged to be outside the control of that individual (Raudenbush, 2004). This kind of ‘residual attribution’ – interpreting value-added simplistically as the effect of the teacher – is, of course, problematic (Newton et al, 2010; Hill et al, 2011; Dumay et al, 2013). Despite these limitations, wherever possible, it makes sense to judge the effectiveness of teaching from its impact on assessed learning. If the assessments and value-added models available to us are not good enough, we need to improve them. In the meantime we must exercise some caution in interpreting any claims about teaching effectiveness. A further concern is that in practice, any kinds of observational measures provide at best poor approximations to how much students actually learn. Whether they are based on classroom observation, student surveys, book scrutiny or other sources, their predictive power is usually not high. For example, even in a high- quality research study such as the Measures of Effective Teaching Project (Mihaly et al, 2013, Table 3, p24), the median correlation between a range of value-added and observation ratings was only 0.3. Although a correlation of 0.3 will often be presented as ‘highly significant’ by researchers, in practice it means that if we were to use classroom observation ratings to identify teachers as ‘above’ or ‘below’ average in their impact on student learning we would get it right about 60% of the time, compared with the 50% we would get by just tossing a coin. It is better than chance, but not by much; there is information in classroom observation, but not enough to base important decisions on it. And of course, this is a best-case: with regular teachers or principals using un-validated observation protocols and no quality assurance process to check judgements are aligned, the correlation will be much less, perhaps even negative (Strong et al, 2011). 9 Developing indicators of good pedagogy that can be used reliably There are at least two kinds of problems we could encounter in trying to ‘operationalise’ good pedagogy - that is developing a set of measures of good (and great) pedagogy that can be reliably used to assess teacher effectiveness. One is to be too specific: to define it in terms of a checklist of observable, effective practices or skills. A potential problem with trying to reduce great teaching to constituent elements is that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts. The choices a teacher makes in orchestrating their skills may be an essential part of what makes them effective. Focusing on the behaviours themselves will always be too limited. Instead we need to think in terms of a professional pedagogy in which judgement is an essential component. Nevertheless, evaluating the quality of such choices is unlikely to be straightforward. The other problem is not to be specific enough. Although it is important to be clear about the principles that underpin pedagogy (James and Pollard, 2011), we must also relate them to something that is observable. Theory must be specific enough to be empirically testable and a guide to well-defined actions. Shulman (1988, p38) has written of the need for “a union of insufficiencies, a marriage of complements, in which the flaws of individual approaches to assessment are offset by the virtues of their fellows”. His argument was that although each individual measure of some aspect of teaching effectiveness may be flawed and inadequate, when our view is informed by a varied collection of such measures their failings can be overcome. However, this view seems not to take into account how we might assess the teacher’s role in selecting and orchestrating these ‘effective’ approaches, nor does it address the practical difficulties of turning an array of insufficient indicators into a meaningful whole. Indeed, Shulman himself seems later to have retracted this view (Shulman, 2009). Before we can think about the validity of any measures of teaching effectiveness we need to be clear what those measures are intended to be used for. On some wish-lists will be requirements: for use in selection for initial professional entry; for awarding certification as a qualified teacher; for recognising professional progression, perhaps linked to probation, tenure, promotion, retention, or performance-related pay; for identifying under-performing teachers, with associated support or firing. Unfortunately, the evidence seems clear that our best currently available measures of teaching effectiveness are not adequate for most of these kinds of purposes (Gitomer, 2009). Our purpose here is a little different. We take the view that low-stakes, formative use of teaching effectiveness indicators, with an emphasis on feedback, support and challenge, and professional learning, may lead to improvements in student learning, even if those indicators are in many ways ‘insufficient’. In this we echo Shulman’s (2009) distinction between assessment of teaching and assessment for teaching. However, where Shulman emphasises creating measures for which ‘the very act of preparing for and engaging in assessment would be a powerful form of professional development’ (p241), we also stress the role of feedback from and discussion about the results of an assessment in professional learning, and the 10 role of a clearly specified framework of performance indicators to focus teachers’ attention and effort on things that are important. With this approach, our criterion for validating a measure of teaching effectiveness is not ‘Does it produce a complete, unbiased and accurate measure of a teacher’s impact on student learning?’, but ‘Can using it as part of a system of self- evaluation, feedback, dialogue and re-assessment lead to improvements in student learning?’. In technical terms, we value consequential validity over criterion-related validity. This perspective also allows us to acknowledge that quality teaching is multidimensional: a profile of multiple, independent strengths and weaknesses may be more useful – and a better fit to reality – than a single, unidimensional measure. Types of evidence relevant to ‘effectiveness’ There are a number of sources of evidence about the skills, knowledge, behaviours, qualities and competences required to be an excellent teacher. A key feature of the current review is that we try to limit our attention to well-defined, operationalisable behaviours, skills or knowledge that have been found to be related, with at least some justification for a causal relationship, to measureable, enhanced student outcomes. Following Rosenshine (2010, 2012) and Muijs et al (2014), these sources of evidence include:  Evidence from educational effectiveness research about teacher behaviours associated with learning gains  Evidence from intervention studies about what can be changed, and its effect on outcomes  Evidence and theory from cognitive science about learning: how our brains acquire, make sense of and use information There are two key requirements for the inclusion of a teaching approach as ‘great teaching’ in this review:  There must be a clear, well-specified and implementable intervention associated with promoting the approach. It has to be something we can change. For example, the knowledge that ‘great teachers have high expectations’ is of no use to us unless we have a strategy for encouraging teachers to raise their expectations  There must be some evidence linking the approach with enhanced student outcomes. There is not necessarily any assumption that such outcomes should be limited to academic attainment: whatever is valued in education should count. One of the features of research on effective practices is that there are a number of reviews available with quite different claims about what characteristics of teacher practice are associated with improved outcomes. For example, a review by Husbands and Pearce (2012) contains ‘Nine claims from research’, of which the first is that ‘Effective pedagogies give serious consideration to pupil voice’ (p3). A 11 good definition of ‘pupil voice’ is given, but as far as we can tell, none of the studies cited contain robust evidence to link it causally to improvements in pupil outcomes. There is some evidence of a link to changes in teachers’ practices and perceptions, and to more positive attitudes for both teachers and students, though many of even these studies would not meet basic quality standards for robust support of such claims. Using pupil voice may indeed be an effective pedagogy, but we believe that the evidence currently available does not support this claim, so have not included it. However, we acknowledge that the question of what teaching practices are shown by research to be effective remains contested. An example from England is Brown et al’s (2001) analysis of different views of the research basis of the National Numeracy Strategy. From the US an example is Boaler’s (2008) critique of The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008). It is also clear that a lot of the research which has set out to discover the elements of effective teaching have simply asked the wrong questions. As Good and Biddle pointed out more than 25 years ago, looking back then over at least 20 years of this kind of research, At various times educators in this century have advocated as answers large-group instruction, smallgroup teaching and individualised teaching...However it seems clear that simple characteristics of instruction have never predicted instructional effectiveness...The issue is not individualised instruction or small- group instruction, but rather the quality of thought and effort that can occur within these structures...(Good & Biddle, 1988 p.116) A salutary example is from Brown et al (2001), who confidently identified a list of instructional practices that empirically distinguished effective from less effective teachers, as determined by their students’ learning gains. They then tested the predictive power of an observation schedule based on evaluating these practices for a different group, but found the results rather disappointing: We are therefore left with the perhaps rather happy conclusion that the behaviour of effective teachers and less effective teachers are not easily characterised; much depends on the particular way that teachers and classes as people relate together. There are signs that certain types of behaviour may often lead to higher gains, but there are always exceptions in both directions. A final caution is from the US National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008): Unfortunately, little is known from existing high-quality research about what effective teachers do to generate greater gains in student learning. Further research is needed to identify and more carefully define the skills and practices underlying these differences in teachers’ effectiveness, and how to develop them in teacher preparation programs. 12 Examples of effective practices In this section we present a collection of teacher behaviours, approaches, classroom practices and skills that meet our criteria of being well-defined, implementable and linked to gains in student outcomes. We have sought to include here some practices that are counterintuitive, or that challenge the accepted orthodoxy about what is effective teaching, on the grounds that these examples may have value more as a prompt to critical questioning rather than a checklist of desirable behaviours. Teachers may need to have clear understanding of why, when and how each of these practices can be effective, and exactly what it means to demonstrate them in a way that is optimal to promote students’ learning. Good summaries of the wider evidence about effective practices can be found in Muijs et al (2014) and in Ko et al (2013). Some important caveats are required before presenting these examples of ‘effective practice’. All of them are open to interpretation. All of them could be done well or done badly. All of them could be inappropriate in some contexts and appropriate in others. For these reasons it may be unproductive or even harmful to treat them as if their meaning is unproblematic or to require them as a recipe or formula. Nevertheless, they are all supported by robust evidence of positive impact on student learning, so may be seen as offering at least a ‘starter kit’ for thinking about effective pedagogy. Danielson’s Framework for Teaching The use of this framework as a classroom observation instrument is discussed in more detail below (p31), but for now we present an outline of the elements that are evaluated. 1. Planning and preparation a. Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy b. Demonstrating Knowledge of Students c. Setting Instructional Outcomes d. Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources e. Designing Coherent Instruction f. Designing Student Assessments 2. Classroom environment a. Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport b. Establishing a Culture for Learning c. Managing Classroom Procedures d. Managing Student Behaviour e. Organizing Physical Space 3. Instruction a. Communicating with Students b. Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques c. Engaging Students in Learning d. Using Assessment in Instruction e. Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness 4. Professional responsibilities a. Reflecting on Teaching 13 b. Maintaining Accurate Records c. Communicating with Families d. Participating in the Professional Community e. Growing and Developing Professionally f. Showing Professionalism The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) CLASS (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008) is an evaluation framework for classroom observation that identifies three main domains and a number of dimensions within each: Emotional Support Classroom climate (positive and negative) – warmth, respect, enjoyment, enthusiasm Teacher sensitivity to student needs Regard for student perspectives – respect for student autonomy, interests, motivations Classroom Organization Behavior management Productivity – time management, maximizing opportunity to learn Instructional learning formats – activities that maximize engagement Instructional Support Concept development – focus on higher order thinking Quality of feedback Language modelling – questioning, expanding, use of vocabulary Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction Rosenshine (2010, 2012) has summarised at least 40 years of research on effective instruction with a key set of principles that maximise its impact. The starting point for this evidence base is a set of correlational studies linking particular observed classroom teacher behaviours with higher student outcomes. For each of these principles there is also experimental evidence showing that attempts to train teachers in adopting these behaviours can result in changes in teacher behaviours and improvements in student outcomes. In outline the ten principles are: 1. Begin a lesson with a short review of previous learning 2. Present new material in small steps, with student practice after each step 3. Ask a large number of questions and check the responses of all students 4. Provide models for problem solving and worked examples 5. Guide student practice 14 6. Check for student understanding 7. Obtain a high success rate 8. Provide scaffolds for difficult tasks 9. Require and monitor independent practice 10. Engage students in weekly and monthly review Creemers and Kyriakides’ Dynamic Model A huge body of research in the educational effectiveness tradition has focused on the characteristics of schools and teachers that are associated with high learning gains. Much of the evidence is correlational, cross-sectional and lacking a strong theoretical foundation (Scheerens et al, 2001). However, the Dynamic Model (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2006, 2011) is empirically grounded, well enough specified to be testable and has indeed been subjected to considerable testing and verification. The model identifies 21 particular teaching practices, grouped under eight headings. Creemers & Kyriakides (2011) have also developed a set of instruments for capturing these practices, consisting of two low-inference classroom observation instruments, a high-inference observational instrument and a student questionnaire, together with a teacher questionnaire for measuring school factors. 15 Table 1: The dynamic model of educational effectiveness (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2006) (1) Orientation (a) Providing the objectives for which a specific task/lesson/series of lessons take(s) place (b) Challenging students to identify the reason why an activity is taking place in the lesson. (2) Structuring (a) Beginning with overviews and/or review of objectives (b) Outlining the content to be covered and signalling transitions between lesson parts (c) Drawing attention to and reviewing main ideas. (3) Questioning (a) Raising different types of questions (i.e., process and product) at appropriate difficulty level (b) Giving time for students to respond (c) Dealing with student responses. (4) Teaching (a) Encouraging students to use problem-solving modelling strategies presented by the teacher or other classmates . (b) Inviting students to develop strategies (c) Promoting the idea of modelling (5) Application (a) Using seatwork or small-group tasks in order to provide needed practice and application opportunities (b) Using application tasks as starting points for the next step of teaching and learning. (6) The classroom as (a) Establishing on-task behaviour through the a learning interactions they promote (i.e., teacher–student and environment student–student interactions) (b) Dealing with classroom disorder and student competition through establishing rules, persuading students to respect them and using the rules. (7) Management of (a) Organizing the classroom environment time (b) Maximizing engagement rates. (8) Assessment (a) Using appropriate techniques to collect data on student knowledge and skills (b) Analysing data in order to identify student needs and report the results to students and parents. (c) Teachers evaluating their own practices. 16 Evidence from cognitive psychology Because of the fragmentation of academic disciplines, a parallel source of evidence can be found in research in cognitive psychology that has investigated the nature of learning, the conditions under which it occurs and the role of memory in this process. A good summary can be found in Bransford, Brown, & Cocking (2000). One paradoxical finding is that some approaches that may appear to make learning harder in the short term, and less satisfying for learners, actually result in better long-term retention. Emphasising the difference between short-term performance and long-term learning, Bjork and Bjork (2011) call these ‘desirable difficulties’, and give four specific examples:  Varying the Conditions of Practice: Varying the learning context, types of task or practice, rather than keeping them constant and predictable, improves later retention, even though it makes learning harder in the short term.  Spacing Study or Practice Sessions: The same amount of time spent reviewing or practising leads to much greater long-term retention if it is spread out, with gaps in between to allow forgetting. This “is one of the most general and robust effects from across the entire history of experimental research on learning and memory.” (Bjork and Bjork, 2011, p59).  Interleaving versus Blocking Instruction on Separate To-Be-Learned Tasks: Learning in a single block can create better immediate performance and higher confidence, but interleaving with other tasks or topics leads to better long-term retention and transfer of skills.  Generation Effects and Using Tests (Rather Than Presentations) as Learning Events: Having to generate an answer or procedure, or having to retrieve information – even if no feedback is given – leads to better long- term recall than simply studying, though not necessarily in the short-term. Testing can also support self-monitoring and focus subsequent study more effectively. “Basically, any time that you, as a learner, look up an answer or have somebody tell or show you something that you could, drawing on current cues and your past knowledge, generate instead, you rob yourself of a powerful learning opportunity” (Bjork and Bjork, 2011, p61). A recent and comprehensive summary of the impact, strength of evidence and generality of conditions under which a number of learning techniques have been shown to be effective is presented by Dunlosky et al (2013). 17 Table 2: Effectiveness of ten learning techniques, from Dunlosky et al (2013) Practice testing Self-testing or taking practice tests on material to be learned Distributed (‘spaced’) practice Implementing a schedule of practice that spreads out study activities over time Elaborative interrogation Generating an explanation for why an explicitly stated fact or concept is true Self-explanation Explaining how new information is related to known information, or explaining steps taken during problem solving Interleaved practice Implementing a schedule of practice that mixes different kinds of problems, or a schedule of study that mixes different kinds of material, within a single study session Summarization Writing summaries (of various lengths) of to-be-learned texts Highlighting Marking potentially important portions of to-be-learned materials while reading Keyword mnemonic Using keywords and mental imagery to associate verbal materials Imagery use for text learning Attempting to form mental images of text materials while reading or listening Rereading Restudying text material again after an initial reading Examples of teacher characteristics As well as observable behaviours, there are also some teacher characteristics that may not be directly observable in classroom behaviour, but which have been found to be related to students’ learning gains. (Pedagogical) Content knowledge A number of studies have found a relationship between measures of a teacher’s knowledge of the content they are teaching and the gains made by their students. It seems intuitively obvious that ‘Teachers cannot help children learn things they themselves do not understand’ (Ball, 1991, p5). However, the search for a relationship between characteristics such as academic qualifications or general ability and student performance has been rather disappointing: correlations are typically very small or non-existent (Rockoff et al, 2011). Nevertheless, there seems to be an emerging body of work that can link more specific measures of 18 Low utility Moderate utility High utility content knowledge, and in particular the kinds of content knowledge that are relevant to teaching, to student gains. For example, Sadler et al (2013) tested a group of volunteer, experienced middle school (seventh and eighth grade) science teachers on their understanding of the content they were teaching and on the kinds of misconceptions they expected students to show. Generally, their understanding of the content was good, though there was enough variation to give some predictive power to teachers’ subject knowledge: overall, teachers answered 83% correctly, compared with 38% by their students. However, the teachers’ ability to identify common misconceptions was hardly above chance. Overall, there was a positive but modest relationship between teachers’ understandings and their students’ gains. However, an item- level analysis of the relationship between teachers’ and students’ understanding of specific concepts had considerably more predictive power. This suggests that targeting support for teachers at particular areas where their understanding or their knowledge of student misconceptions is weak may be a promising strategy, a claim that is supported by reviews of the impact of teacher professional development in these areas (Timperley et al, 2007; Blank and de las Alas, 2009). Hill et al (2005) investigated the importance of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics. They cited a number of studies that have found that teachers’ level of understanding of the mathematics they are teaching is related to how effectively students learn it. In their own analysis, they found that the difference between high and low scoring (a 2 SD gap) teachers on their Content Knowledge for Teaching (CKT) was associated with more than a month’s additional learning for students in a year. Although this is not a huge effect, it is of similar order to the strength of the relationship between socioeconomic background and attainment, for example. Interestingly, most of the difference was between the lowest scoring teachers and the rest: once their CKT score was into the third decile there was no further relationship with student learning. Beliefs about learning Askew et al (1997) found that highly effective teachers of numeracy were characterised by a particular set of beliefs, which in turn led to a corresponding set of teaching approaches. They claim that “The mathematical and pedagogical purposes behind particular classroom practices are as important as the practices themselves in determining effectiveness” (p5). In other words, simply describing or defining observable practices or approaches is not enough to characterise teachers as more or less effective; it matters why the teachers adopt them. In particular, Askew et al (1997) identified beliefs about the nature of mathematics and what it means to understand it, along with teachers’ beliefs and theory about how children learn and about the teacher’s role in promoting learning, as important distinguishing factors between those who were more and less effective (see Table 3). Given the potential significance of the need to focus on teacher beliefs, it seems surprising that these findings do not seem to have been extensively tested by further research; although there is extensive research on teacher beliefs, links with pupil progress are much less common. A study by Higgins and Moseley (2001) of teacher beliefs about Information and 19 Communication Technology failed to find any convincing relationships between beliefs and pupil progress. However, some corroboration can be found in the evidence from Timperley et al (2007) that the professional development programmes with demonstrable benefits for learners mostly included some attempt to engage with teachers’ existing theories, values and beliefs (p196). Such a claim is also consistent with a view of effective pedagogy as consisting of more than just a set of classroom techniques, but depending on the ability to make complex judgements about which technique to use when. 20

Advise: Why You Wasting Money in Costly SEO Tools, Use World's Best Free SEO Tool Ubersuggest.