For far too long, teachers’ CPD and subsequent practice followed
various fads and trends that, on the surface, seemed attractive to implement
and try as part of the classroom practice.
The appeal of many myths, like ‘brain gym’ or explicit reliance on
different ‘learning styles,’ or what has been termed as ‘accelerated learning’
techniques, has been based on the premise that relatively simple and easy lists
of strategies, if followed, could lead to big learning gains and improvement in
pupil engagement. Although these approaches
promised research-based foundations on how the brain works, the real fact remains
that many of these myths, which have been sold to teachers as ‘real evidence’,
often lack clear scientific proof that any of the suggested classroom strategies
lead to improved learning. It would
appear that these quick-fix fads have been simply sold to the teaching
profession as short-cuts to improvement based on snippets of inconclusive or
out-of-context research.
Dr Hilary Leevers, head of education and learning at the Welcome
Trust, agrees:
“Neuromyths”
can merely perpetuate misconceptions about the brain. Of greater concern is when they influence how
we are raised or educated. You may be
familiar with the idea of different types of learner. For example, if you are a “visual learner”
you need content delivered primarily visually.
But there is very little scientific evidence to support this idea, and
labelling pupils by type of learner and delivering content accordingly limits
the richness of their learning experience and may reduce what is learned. (The Guardian, 7 January 2014)
Indeed, ‘labelling’ pupils’ can have a negative influence
on learning and progress. Moreover, these unproven myths have not only
contributed to a stream of ineffective classroom practices, that could be referred
to as ‘educational fads’, they have also simplified some of the neurological
research findings for the purpose of appeal on popular psychology grounds that
vowed instant classroom success. Another
reason why these myths can be so damaging, is that teachers have come to expect
ready-made lists of effective strategies that they can follow in class and, in
some cases, this has led to a tick-list teaching-style characteristic of little
reflection about what really leads to improved learning and quality outcomes
for young people. In contrast,
substantive evidence-based research into better teaching and learning that results
in improved learning progress cannot be reduced to tick-lists and is
characterised by an approach-style methodology being used as part of the
teaching and learning processes.
I feel that teachers need some help in distinguishing
between solid, evidence-based research into what strategies, if consistently
applied, really bring big learning gains and myths that result is seemingly
quick-fixes but have little to do with improvement in learning outcomes or
developing essential pupil learning autonomy for long-term success. It is also critical to emphasise the need for
deeper reflection and honest self-evaluation of teachers’ own practices so
robust research-based evidence is seen in terms of an ‘approach’, rather than a
list of ritualised classroom strategies.
Investment in high quality CPD for teachers based on
solid academic research findings into what really works in education – and there
is enough of evidence-based research regarding what approaches lead to improved
outcomes – is absolutely key if we are to improve everyday classroom practice
and long-term prospects for our young people.
It is about elucidating what is ‘real’ and what is a ‘myth’ so teachers
can make informed judgements regarding the rationale behind their teaching
methods.
When it comes to research-based evidence, it seems
appropriate to mention the research into assessment for learning (AfL) as an
example of a wide evidence-based study into improving learning outcomes. Despite
the effectiveness of AfL approach based on the evidence of ‘effect size’[i] between 0.4 to 0.7 (one of
the biggest found in educational interventions, Black and Wiliam,1998, and
backed up by Hattie’s research into effectiveness of classroom interventions), this
approach to better teaching and learning can be still poorly understood by
teachers and policy-makers, who seem to be conditioned into thinking that ‘assessment’
can be only reflected quantitatively, rather than qualitatively during the
process, and ultimately leading to improved standards that can be demonstrated
in quantitative, as well as qualitative, values.
Seemingly, this lack of in-depth grasp of what AfL means
in practice, highlights the need for teachers’ greater awareness of robust,
research-based evidence so they can make more informed choices regarding their most
effective practices in class leading to improvement and learning sustainability.
High quality, evidence-based training is crucial to
institutional learning and continuous teacher professional development for
improved standards in teaching and learning.
References:
Black, P. and Wiliam D. (1998). Inside the Black Box. London: NferNelson
Hattie, J. and Yates, G. (2014). Visible Learning and Science of How We Learn. Oxon: Routledge.
[i] Learning
gains measure by comparing (a) the average improvements in pupils’ scores on
tests with (b) the range of scores that are found for typical groups of pupils
on the same tests. The ration of (a) divided by (b) is the ‘effect size’.
