Morgs Edu – Reflecting on education.

Featured

Task Design Series

Are we being ‘instructionally efficient’?

I find that debates into methods of instruction often discuss ‘efficiency’ implicitly, though rarely by name.

For the sake of this blog, I define ‘instructional efficiency’ as the speed and effectiveness with which students can understand, encode and retain new information.

If we design our instruction with this efficiency in mind, we can maximise the time available that we have with our pupils. The sooner pupils learn something, the sooner they can be tested on it, consolidate their understanding through retrieval and practice, and then move onto more challenging material – the time saved during initial instruction can be used to accelerate pupils towards mastery of the content.

The most common debate around method of instruction is that of direct instruction versus discovery-based learning. When viewed through the lens of efficiency, an abundance of empirical evidence tells us that direct instruction is unequivocally the superior choice, particularly when introducing new concepts to pupils with a lack of prior knowledge.

As we know, this is because direct instruction minimises cognitive load by presenting information in a clear and sequential manner. This ensures that working memory is not overwhelmed, allowing pupils to focus on encoding the new material into their long-term memory.

In contrast, discovery-based learning often requires students to use significant mental effort as they work through unstructured tasks, which can result in confusion and failure. Regardless of how effective discovery-based learning could be, it is undoubtedly an inefficient use of time. The time spent ‘discovering’ learning through trial and error would be far better used deepening understanding or applying knowledge in a task, if the concept had been taught directly. Notwithstanding, it is extremely optimistic to expect all 30 pupils in a class to ‘discover’ the same learning within the same timeframe. It is an approach that disadvantages those with a lack of prior knowledge.

Despite this clear disparity in instructional methods, instructional efficiency is not static; it evolves as learners gain expertise.

The Expertise Reversal Effect (an instructional principle from within Cognitive Load Theory) informs us of the diminishing returns of direct instruction for our more knowledgeable pupils.

This effect tells us that, as our pupils become more knowledgeable in a subject, they benefit less from explicit teaching and more from opportunities to independently connect ideas and solve problems. For these pupils, the efficiency of learning shifts from receiving specific, detailed guidance to engaging in self-directed tasks that leverage what they already know. For us as teachers, this means that the instructional methods we use should adapt to the prior knowledge of the learner.

Direct instruction vs discovery-based learning is therefore a false dichotomy. Both pedagogical approaches have utility, but at different times in the learning process. It is not a question of which one should I use, but rather, when should I employ each one?

For those without strong prior knowledge, direct instruction provides the clarity and structure needed to help them understand what we are teaching them.

For those with strong prior knowledge, instructional efficiency is better achieved through tasks that encourage pupils to independently apply what they already know.

To paraphrase Ausubel, the key is to ascertain what the learner already knows and adjust our instructional methods accordingly.

Ultimately, instructional efficiency is not just about teaching faster; it is about teaching smarter. There is a lot we know from cognitive science that can help us to explain information more clearly that will helps pupils learn better:

Redundancy Effect: avoiding unnecessary duplication of information prevents cognitive overload and allows learners to focus on the essential material.

Dual Coding Theory: combining verbal and visual information helps learners encode and retrieve knowledge more effectively than one form of representation alone.

Split Attention Effect: presenting information in an integrated format rather than requiring learners to split their attention across multiple sources reduces extraneous cognitive load.

Not to mention the worked example effect, spaced practice, the testing effect etc – the list goes on. You get the idea.

Let’s keep things instructionally efficient.

The Two-Task Conundrum

We have all faced the frustration of watching pupils struggle with a task that, on the surface, seems straightforward. We plan lessons carefully, scaffold tasks, and provide support; nonetheless pupils still struggle.

While this struggle can sometimes be attributed to the pupil in some form (e.g. lack of prior knowledge), the task itself may have a design flaw, which I term the ‘two-task conundrum’.

The two-task conundrum occurs when a single task actually requires pupils to engage in two separate tasks and they are not yet fluent in one or both of them. The lack of fluency places constraints on working memory, which prevents pupils from completing the overall task.

In other words, the cognitive demand of mastering one task undermines the pupil’s ability to tackle the other task.

Learning is cumulative in nature, which means the two-task conundrum can occur easily when a more complex task is building on foundational knowledge.

The conundrum is therefore not confined to any one subject, but can instead appear across any subject:

Science: pupils conducting an experiment may struggle if they don’t yet understand the underlying scientific concepts or the steps necessary to conduct the experiment
History: writing a source-based essay can be difficult if pupils do not yet understand how to identify bias, reliability etc
Art: producing a painting when they haven’t yet mastered simple colour mixing or brush stroke techniques

A common example I cite in my training is long multiplication. For pupils to successfully complete a long multiplication question, they must draw on knowledge from two areas:

Knowledge of times tables
Knowledge of the procedure of long multiplication

If a pupil is not yet fluent in their times tables, their working memory is highly likely to be overwhelmed by the dual demand of figuring out the multiplication facts and following the procedural steps of the multiplication, especially when the procedure is new to them.

We all know what happens next: errors, frustration and even complete task abandonment.

How can we avoid this conundrum?

First, we have to diagnose any gaps in understanding of foundational knowledge. For the long multiplication example, we could give pupils a quick quiz to identify any gaps and then scaffold accordingly.

If we find out that gaps exist, we can then isolate the tasks or reduce cognitive demand to make them more familiar first. For example, we can begin by teaching long multiplication with simple multiplication facts pupils are likely to know, like their 1x, 2x and 5x tables. Once the procedure of long multiplication is committed to long-term memory, we can then increase the cognitive demand by introducing other times tables gradually.

Because pupils are not fluent in their times tables, we can reduce the cognitive load for the task by providing them with a 12×12 times tables grid for them to work on. They can use this so their working memory focuses instead on the procedure of long multiplication, and then once the procedure is known, we can remove the scaffold of the 12×12 grid.

Obviously, the two-task conundrum can stunt progress through a curriculum, but more importantly, it can negatively affect pupils’ confidence and motivation towards a task. By acknowledging the conundrum, and designing tasks to build fluency gradually, we can create tasks that help learners to feel successful.

With that in mind, I leave you with a parting question.

Next time you are designing a task, ask yourself: am I asking the learner to do one thing or two?

Familiarity vs Automaticity – What’s the Difference?

When it comes to mastering knowledge/a skill, understanding the difference between automaticity and familiarity is crucial – mistaking one for the other can slow the rate of learning.

Automaticity refers to the ability to perform a task or skill effortlessly, without conscious thought. This happens after extensive deliberate practice where the skill becomes ingrained. Essentially, automaticity is the result of overlearning until something becomes second nature.

Familiarity, on the other hand, is a sense of recognition or comfort with knowledge or a skill. Familiarity arises when you have been exposed to information enough times that it feels recognisable, but it does not necessarily mean you can apply the knowledge or execute the skill with fluency or ease – this is where the key difference between automaticity and familiarity lies.

Automaticity involves unconscious, smooth execution of a task. It is characterised by speed, accuracy, and, most of all, consistency. When you’ve achieved automaticity, you can perform a skill with little mental effort because it is so well-practised.

Familiarity is much more superficial. You recognise the knowledge or skill but cannot necessarily apply it with ease or fluency. Familiarity gives the student the impression that they understand or can perform a task, but in reality, it might just be simple recognition. They may be able to apply it correctly on occasion, but not to the point of consistency.

Automaticity, especially in lower-level or foundational skills, allows learners to focus on more complex tasks without getting bogged down by the basics. My go-to example that I have witnessed countless times over my career is knowledge of times tables freeing up cognitive resources to undertake long multiplication or complicated reasoning/problem-solving tasks.

Familiarity is deceptive. Learners often mistake this feeling of recognition for an assumed level of mastery. This deception is problematic because recognition does not equate to application. This creates a false sense of confidence in the learner and can be quite demotivating when they realise (through repeated failure) that they do not actually know how to do something.

Repeated exposure is not enough; repeated application (e.g. in the form of practice) is what is required. There is no substitute for practice. True mastery of a skill or knowledge comes from repeated practice that leads to automaticity, where the task becomes effortless and precise.

I shall end by putting my own spin on an age-old adage:

Familiarity is practising it until you can get it right; automaticity is practising it until you can’t get it wrong.

Are mind maps good enough for summative assessment?

At its core, assessment seeks to evaluate the extent to which learners have understood and can apply the material they have been taught; it is a diagnostic process aimed at uncovering both the knowledge and misconceptions held by the learner. Once we identify any gaps in students’ knowledge, we can use this to guide future instruction.

A mind map is a visual representation of knowledge, where ideas and concepts are laid out as interconnected branches radiating from a central theme (e.g. democracy) or unit title (e.g. Romans in Britain). Often defined as a tool for organising thinking, mind maps can help learners to make connections between pieces of knowledge. As a method of notetaking during a course of learning, mind maps can be highly effective in helping learners visualise complex concepts. However, when used as an assessment tool, their efficacy becomes more nuanced and, in many cases, limited.

One of the inherent weaknesses of mind maps is their tendency to prioritise brevity over depth. In the context of assessment, this often results in a superficial demonstration of knowledge, where key facts are listed but rarely explored in any meaningful depth.

The narrowness of mind maps means they prioritise recall over demonstrating conceptual understanding. While students may successfully list several key points, this does not necessarily reflect their ability to engage with these concepts in a meaningful way.

The visual structure of mind maps encourages learners to condense complex ideas into short phrases/sentences, which can create an illusion of deeper understanding and an ability to break knowledge down into simpler chunks. The result is a haphazard and incohesive representation of knowledge that may fail to fully consider how different pieces of information link together, thus impeding the demonstration of true understanding and, consequently, the teacher’s ability to interpret what the learner really knows.

Another significant challenge posed by the use of mind maps in assessments is the potential for cognitive overload. Unlike more scaffolded forms of assessment, mind maps often leave students with no clear structure or prompts to guide their thinking.

A blank page, while offering freedom, can often be overwhelming, causing students to focus more on making the mind map visually pleasing rather than concentrating on the content. Having to balance visual presentation with knowledge recall can distract learners from engaging deeply with the material and cause an unnecessary cognitive burden.

In contrast, other types of assessment, such as essays, often do a better job of measuring how well students can apply what they know. These more linear formats require students to articulate their understanding in a structured, coherent manner, demonstrating depth of thought and the ability to retrieve learnt knowledge.

Another notable drawback of mind maps in assessment is the lack of (for want of a better term) standardisation. Because mind maps are highly individualised, they do not lend themselves easily to consistent benchmarking of progress or understanding across a class. This lack of comparability makes it harder for teachers to identify which lessons/content learners struggled with. Because of this, mind maps can fall short of uncovering where intervention/future instruction is needed.

Ultimately, when it comes to summative assessments that are designed to measure a learner’s understanding at the end of a unit, mind maps often prove inadequate. Summative assessments typically require students to demonstrate not only their knowledge but also their ability to transfer or apply that knowledge in various contexts. While mind maps may show connections between ideas, they do not provide the detailed explanations or evidence-based reasoning we require to truly assess depth of understanding.

The Illusion of Practice Frequency

Individual differences among students create significant challenges for designing effective instruction. Students differ in a variety of ways from levels of prior knowledge to working memory capacity. Ideally, instruction should be adapted to meet these individual characteristics, but in reality, our teaching methods often remain uniform and do not accommodate these differences.

This is where the illusion of practice frequency comes in. We may have a tendency to believe that because something has been practised or done set a number of times (e.g. Nuthall’s magic number of three) that the student is much closer to automaticity in that task than before.

For some students, this may be true. Prior knowledge has been shown to facilitate the learning process by providing an existing framework for new information to merge with. This connection would make it easier for the student to achieve automaticity with less practice.

Transfer, while hard to achieve, could also support students to automate a task sooner. Near transfer, in particular, has some empirical evidence to support it (Barnett and Ceci, 2002). If a student has previously acquired skills that are applicable to new tasks and has more experience in related areas, they will often require less practice to automate the new, but relatable task. For example, the student who knows their times tables fluently is more likely to automate the procedure of long multiplication quickly than their peer who does not know their times tables fluently.

Another interesting factor is working memory capacity – this is obviously linked to how efficiently students can practice and automate tasks. There are a number of assumptions we can make about students with a higher working memory capacity and why they will need less practice to reach fluency:

they can better integrate new information with existing knowledge
they can maintain attention for longer
they can filter out irrelevant information more easily
they are more likely to hold multiple pieces of information in mind
they are more likely to monitor their performance more effectively
they are less likely to experience cognitive load as they practise the task
they can better chunk information into meaningful units

In conclusion, the illusion of practice frequency underscores the need to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to amount of practice. While some students may achieve automaticity with minimal practice due to factors like robust prior knowledge, near transfer capabilities, or higher working memory capacity, others will require more time and repetition to reach the same level of fluency. Ultimately, understanding that practice is not merely about a pre-determined quantity (but also about quality and the individual) can lead to more efficient and successful learning outcomes.

References:

Barnett, S.M. and Ceci, S.J., 2002. When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological bulletin, 128(4), p.612.

Scaffolding The Writing Task Itself

In my previous blog, I discussed the importance of scaffolding leading up to the writing task itself, focusing on techniques like rehearsal of content, wait time, and notetaking.

These strategies help students prepare mentally and organisationally for writing. However, once students are ready to write, we then face a new challenge – guiding the them through the actual writing process.

Despite the fact that our students may now have ideas and notes through our pre-writing scaffolds, they may still struggle to transform this thinking into coherent, structured writing.

Students often struggle with organising their thinking and maintaining a clear focus for their writing. This stage of writing can be particularly challenging for students who lack confidence or have limited experience with extended writing tasks (i.e. KS1).

To tackle these issues, supporting pupils with the structure of writing is immensely beneficial. A scaffolded structure helps break down a writing task into more manageable steps, providing clear guidance at each step.

By providing this structure, it not only helps pupils to organise their thinking, but to understand the overall structure of their writing.

A scaffolded structure reduces the cognitive load associated with managing multiple aspects of writing simultaneously. Consequently, pupils are more likely to produce coherent and well-developed written work.

Let’s consider what these scaffolds for structure and organisation could like:

Modelling

Modelling is the instructional strategy where we demonstrate a task to students, showing them exactly how to complete it successfully.

Demonstrate each stage of the writing process by showing modelled examples. Show students how to approach each phase and the kinds of questions to ask themselves. This can be done by thinking aloud as you model an example yourself.

Be conscious that you are an expert and pupils are novices – make sure not to skip steps that you yourself have automated (e.g. using a capital letter, using conjunctive adverbs).

Graphic Organisers

A graphic organiser is a visual tool that helps students organise and structure their ideas in a clear and logical manner.

Crucially, graphic organisers help pupils to visualise how pieces of knowledge link together. This helps them to organise their thinking and, indirectly, their writing.

For example, if pupils are doing a piece of writing to compare how the NUWSS and WSPU campaigned for suffrage, a Venn diagram can be used to show similarities and differences between them.

When children are then tasked with writing a comparison of their approaches, they have seen how this information can be organised: through similarities and differences.

Writing Frames

A writing frame is a scaffold that provides a clear framework for writing. It offers a predetermined organisational structure and reduces cognitive load for the learner – they no longer need to think about structure and can instead focus on the content itself.

For learners who struggle to organise their thinking or who have not yet learned writing conventions, writing frames are particularly useful.

In addition to providing a structure, a writing frame also helps to break information learnt into more manageable chunks.

What a writing frame looks like is contingent on the type of writing the learner is being tasked with, but the thing that all writing frames should have in common is how to make the structure of a specific type of writing explicit.

Sentence Stems

A sentence stem provides the learner with the beginning of a sentence to help them construct their writing.

The idea behind them is that it guides student thinking in the right direction.

For example, if we stick with the Suffragettes example above, we could use something like this:

‘The NUWSS campaigned differently by _______________________’

This helps the learner to include contrasting information. Using the Venn diagram they have seen earlier, they know they need to pick a piece of information that was not in the overlapping part of the circles.

It is paramount that these scaffolds are gradually removed as pupils become more competent and independent at writing – if we continue to use them again and again, pupils become reliant on them and will not be thinking independently.

Scaffolding Writing in KS1

A common conversation I have with teachers is how to scaffold writing in KS1. Teachers often say they want pupils to write more, but, in reality, find it to be rather challenging to implement.

Because of this challenge, a lot of writing can come in the form of tasks that are heavily scaffolded, such as gap-fill tasks.

While these tasks lead to pupils being able to access the learning, they lead to little writing on the part of the learner. More often than not, it results in the learner writing just 4 or 5 individual words for an entire task.

As an initial scaffold, gap-fill tasks can work well – the main problem is when they are used for every task and not gradually faded out over time. The frequent use of these tasks may be borne out of a common misconception that exists around scaffolding: that scaffolding should make the task easier.

A scaffold is there to make the task more accessible, not to make it easier.

Everything you do should have a scaffold, but a scaffold should not do everything for the learner.

A scaffold makes the task possible for the learner to engage with. It should provide the necessary support so the learner can work through the task without reducing its inherent difficulty.

On the other hand, a scaffold that makes the task easier simplifies the task itself, reducing both the difficulty of the task and the demands placed on the learner.

We want all learners to learn the same content and meet the same learning goals. A scaffold that makes the task easier lowers these expectations.

In order to retain our high expectations and ensure all pupils are challenged to think hard and work independently, we should keep the task outcome the same, but consider how the level of support needs to be different (i.e. considering necessary scaffolds and adaptations).

For example, imagine children have just learnt about the United Kingdom and are tasked with writing an explanation of what the Union Jack represents.

For a pupil who can access this task independently, they can simply just start writing.

For a pupil who needs support in accessing the task, we must keep the task expectation the same, but provide a scaffold to help them answer. For example, a sentence starter:

E.g. The Union Jack represents ______________________________.

We can then gradually remove the scaffold towards the end of a task by encouraging them to write a sentence (or sentences) by themselves. So, they may complete three sentence starters and then write one full sentence indepedently.

This final sentence can still be scaffolded by providing a question to prompt thinking:

‘Which four countries are in the United Kingdom?’

The expectation for both pupils is the same.

Scaffolds are meant to be removed over time not only as the child becomes more independent, but also to build that independence.

Wood et al (1976) explain that scaffolding is about ensuring the pupil can recognise the actions they have to take to access the task independently over time. In their own words, they say, “Comprehension of the solution must precede production”.

The pupil has to recognise what the task requires of them before they are able to do so without a scaffold. They have to see the link between the mode of communication in the task (i.e. writing) and how it can be used to explain the content (i.e. information about the Union Jack).

Pupils need to understand what a task requires of them before they can attempt it. This doesn’t just mean the approach to the task but the content they are being asked to think about. As such, we need to consider how scaffolding extends beyond the task itself.

In fact, I would argue that the most important scaffolding happens before the task takes place – scaffolding that enables the learner to understand the content before they have to apply it in a task independently.

This scaffolding helps pupils to reach the ‘comprehension’ stage (understanding the material and the task) before they have to engage in the ‘production’ stage (engaging in the task itself).

With writing tasks, we are trying to get pupils to organise and then communicate their understanding. There are many scaffolds we can use during the teaching part of the lesson that can facilitate this.

Rehearsal

Once children have been taught information pertinent to the task, provide them with opportunities to rehearse this information. A simple and effective way to do this is through the use of partner talk. Pupils get the opportunity to think about the content and then articulate it out loud.

Going back to our task from earlier, it may look something like this:

(a map of the UK is on the board)

Teacher: ‘There are four countries that make up the United Kingdom. Those countries are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Turn to the person next to you, tell them the four countries that make up the United Kingdom. Partner A you start, then partner B’.

This ensures all pupils rehearse the information they have just heard and increases the likelihood of pupils being able to use this information in the task. Naturally, this could be rehearsed and questioned about more than once too.

2. Wait time

We know that as a profession we don’t wait long enough after asking questions. One study found that the average length of time that we wait is that of a heartbeat or F1 pitstop – between 0.7 and 1.4 seconds (Stahl, 1994).

Giving children time to think about what they are going to say or write about can again lift the success rate of ‘comprehension’ across the class. Let’s revisit that same scenario:

Teacher: ‘There are four countries that make up the United Kingdom. Those countries are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In a moment, you are going to turn to the person next to you and tell them the four countries that make up the United Kingdom. I want you to think for a moment. What are those four countries that make up the United Kingdom? [the teacher pauses for 10 seconds] Partner A you start, then partner B’.

The phonics scheme you use in school will likely have a learning behaviour children are familiar with for writing sentences – for example, Read Write Inc talks about ‘holding a sentence’. As this is a familiar behaviour to your pupils, consider using this same learning behaviour in lessons across the curriculum.

3. Notetaking (cognitive offloading)

When there is a lot of information to take in at once, it can overload working memory. Allowing pupils to take notes can act as a form of cognitive offloading – they can free up working memory by having the information written down, knowing they can refer back to it when needed. However, it is not as simple as just getting pupils to write notes as you talk – this can lead to attention being split between listening and writing, which many pupils can find difficult. Instead, notetaking should be built into the instructional phase with plenty of time to think and write. Let’s revisit our scenario again:

Teacher: ‘There are four countries that make up the United Kingdom. Those countries are England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Write down the four countries on your whiteboard [the teacher allows enough time until pupils have written them down]. In a moment, you are going to turn to the person next to you and tell them the four countries that make up the United Kingdom. I want you to think for a moment. What are those four countries that make up the United Kingdom? [the teacher pauses for 10 seconds] Partner A you start, then partner B’.

The combination of these scaffolds before the task will significantly boost the ‘comprehension’ of pupils across the class and increase the chances that they can engage with writing independently.

So then, what about gap-fill tasks?

Well, we need the pupil to see how they can get to writing competently and independently over time – constantly using the same scaffold doesn’t enable them to do this because the task always remains the same.

Let’s consider what a progression may look like for a pupil from scaffolded tasks to working independently with writing. It could look something like this:

This progression could be done over a course of lessons or over a much longer period of time. I often get asked about when to remove the scaffold. My answer is always the same – when you think the child no longer needs it.

If they no longer need it, it is because they have now reached that ‘comprehension’ stage and they are getting closer to the ‘solution’ stage, building their independence and competence up over time.

References:

Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G., 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), pp.89-100.

‘How are you going to challenge the highers?’

The title of this blog is a question I heard often as a novice teacher and still hear being asked today, years later.

I find this question problematic – mostly for these two reasons:

First of all, I take issue with the lack of clarity surrounding challenge.

What exactly constitutes a challenging task?

The amount of time we give for the task? The number of steps involved? The complexity of knowledge required to attempt the task? All of the above?

Without a clear idea of what made a task challenging, it was difficult for me as a novice to provide appropriate challenge for my students.

An issue I still see today when I visit classrooms, where teachers struggle to provide meaningful challenge, not for want of trying.

The solution, of course, can be found in better defining what we believe challenge to be.

While it is relative to both the content being taught and the learner, simplifying challenge into a single sentence could be defined as when prior knowledge meets unfamiliar context.

The second issue I took with the ‘pushing the highers’ question was the underlying assumption that only high-prior attainers should be challenged.

This notion disregards the need for all pupils to think hard in the classroom.

Focusing solely on challenging high prior attainers neglects the potential of other students who will also benefit from such academic rigour.

By exclusively targeting high prior attainers for challenging tasks, we risk perpetuating the inequality that exists between pupils.

So what?

1. As a profession, we need to better define what ‘challenging’ learning is.

2. We should ensure all pupils are challenged, all pupils think hard and all pupils are subject to our unapologetically high expectations (that are specific to the individual child).

Task Design Perspective: Beyond Poor Proxies into Working Memory Failures

I’ve written and spoken extensively on task design over the years. In that time, I have argued that the task design process must factor the actual implementation of the task into our thinking.

Specifically, the information gathered from classroom implementation of a task should factor into future design processes to prevent repeated issues. We need to know if a task has been successful or not – this means looking for evidence in the moment.

You may likely be familiar with Coe’s Poor Proxies for Learning (pictured above) – indicators that do not accurately represent learning.

Though not in direct contradiction to learning, these indicators are insufficient in identifying whether learning is indeed happening or not.

If nothing else, the Poor Proxies are a warning against the superficial and easily observable measures of engagement.

I imagine Coe’s intention in sharing this list was for teachers to dig deeper and try to uncover when learning is actually happening in their classroom.

His list serves as a reminder that we should question our assumptions about whether learning is happening – and it is this sentiment that got me thinking…

Should we perhaps instead look at what evidence there is to suggest that learning isn’t happening?

The work of Gathercole and Alloway (2004) on working memory failures immediately came to mind – they suggest 4 things we can look for to identify if pupils are struggling with learning:

Incomplete recall
Failing to follow instructions
Place-keeping errors
Task abandonment

Let’s explore each of these in further depth.

Incomplete recall

For example, this could present itself as pupils forgetting some or all of the words in a sentence, or of a sequence of words.

Working memory is responsible for temporarily holding and manipulating information. In cases of incomplete recall, it may suggest a challenge in maintaining and retrieving the necessary information during a task.

Failing to follow instructions

This may present itself as remembering only the part of a sequence of instructions or forgetting the content of an instruction (for example, the pupil remembers that they need their ruler but they can’t remember what for).

Working memory is crucial for holding and processing sequential information. Difficulties in following instructions may indicate challenges in holding the sequence of tasks or retaining the necessary details while executing them.

Place-keeping errors

This could perhaps mean repeating or missing out entire parts of a task.

Working memory aids in maintaining focus and attention during tasks. Place-keeping errors may suggest a struggle in sustaining attention and keeping track of the current position or step within a task.

Task abandonment

When the pupil gives up on a task entirely.

Working memory is essential for task initiation and execution. Task abandonment may signal difficulties in holding and managing the information necessary to complete a task, leading to frustration or disengagement.

The cautionary work of Coe, Gathercole and Alloway provides us with guidance with which to observe tasks during their classroom implementation. In particular, the ‘working memory failures’ prompt thoughtful reflection on the challenges pupils face in summoning, maintaining and manipulating information in working memory during the tasks we provide for them.

Be it Poor Proxies or Working Memory Failures, responsive teaching demands of us that we keep these assumptions in mind to identify whether pupils are in fact learning or not.

In defence of ‘teaching techniques’

There is ongoing edutwitter discourse surrounding teaching techniques – a recurring critique appears to centre on the perceived infringement upon teacher autonomy.

I think it is a valid point, but I believe the opposite to be true.

I respect the view that prescribing techniques may relegate teachers to mere implementers, stifling their responsiveness and undermining their professional judgement. But, standardising these techniques, in my opinion, only serves to develop teacher autonomy.

It offers up scaffolds upon which teachers can build their instructional arsenal. Such techniques are powerful tools, rather than constraints.

A well-grounded understanding of these pedagogical techniques enhances a teacher’s capacity to make informed decisions and deliver responsive teaching more easily and to a higher standard.

Building a repertoire of techniques ensures that teacher autonomy can be exercised within a guiding framework that is effective.

Scepticism of these techniques is fair – education is an evolving landscape and CPD continues to seemingly promote new techniques all the time.

These techniques can act as a roadmap for CPD and continuous improvement – it certainly feels like this is the case with instructional coaching as the current coaching method of choice, where a granular aspect of practice is homed in on, practised and embedded over time.

After all, one thing that differentiates experts from novices is an extensive knowledge base of both techniques and situations in which these techniques are applicable (be that knowledge tacit or otherwise).

What these techniques do not provide is a one-size-fits-all approach. Of course, there is much more to it. That being said, those armed with a repertoire of techniques are better placed to judiciously select them and adapt teaching for their pupils.

How do we foster teacher autonomy with techniques then?

Autonomy is intertwined with reflection. Awareness of techniques and the situations they are useful in can be built into the reflection process.

e.g. ‘That part of the lesson didn’t go as I intended. What could I do next time to ensure it does?‘

Another approach is to provide professional development pathways – allow more experienced teachers to pursue different elements of practice that they want to improve upon.

e.g. ‘I want to improve questioning to ensure I check for the understanding of all pupils. What techniques should I use to achieve this?’

While it can be argued that an emphasis on teaching techniques can curtail teacher autonomy, I’m convinced it’s a lot more nuanced than that.

These strategies, if developed and used appropriately, can enhance teacher independence and autonomy in the classroom.

Ultimately, they are a foundation upon which teachers can build their expertise and can provide direction when seeking to develop professionally.