LeaderTalk

The Science of Teaching

After exploring the artistic side of teaching, I suppose it’s only fair to redress the balance and look at teaching from a scientific perspective. A post form ‘the frustrated teacher’ a few months back explored this distinction and came down strongly in favour of seeing teaching as an art: I love the idea of ‘Double the pay, and see who shows up!’

Coming at teaching from the other perspective does make some sense though, and I think that the move to evidence based practice in medicine and social policy might yet be followed by a greater respect for research evidence in teaching too. There was a wonderful CalTech commencement talk by the great Richard Feynman on cargo cult science, a term he coined to refer to research which looks like science but lacks the scrupulous integrity essential to the scientific method - he cites educational research as an example here. Well, I don’t know that this is necessarily the case, but just because it’s difficult to conduct educational research scientifically doesn’t mean that regard for scientific method and basing practice on evidence isn’t of value.

It’s perhaps worth teasing out a few aspects of the scientific method and exploring how they relate to educational research and teaching.

A model: this is tricky - I don’t think there’s any sense of agreement on a ’standard model’ of how people learn - the set of conflicting or complimentary views here is very large, and whilst I suspect most teachers will take a pragmatic stance, the conceptual model that we hold of what makes for good learning is going to have a huge impact on our teaching. I wonder how teachers arrive at their own conceptual model; some will be down to training, some to reading, some, I’m sure, to conversations with others in school and wider PLNs, much, I suspect is based on how they themselves were taught. In a scientific approach to teaching, the model should be one which is continually weighed against the empirical evidence, and thus one which would change over a period of time, although perhaps not quite so rapidly as governments and school leaders might want it to. Present interest in neuroscience as an underpinning of pedagogy provides some hope for a common model, but is itself dependent on an agreed model of how the brain works.

Empirical evidence. We do, of course, spend plenty of time collecting empirical data on the effect our teaching has - this is what assessment is about after all.  Using that empirical data to inform our teaching is increasingly common, and ‘assessment for learning’ and school effectiveness research go some way to making teaching and school leadership more evidence based professions. The question of whether we’re collecting the right sort of evidence is, however, less clear - basing our teaching on assessment data only makes sense if the assessment data collected is an unbiased and accurate measure of learning, rather than the somewhat narrower criteria of test performance. The assessment data that’s collected is, itself, determined by the model held of what makes good learning - you have very different assessment regimes if you think education is about facts and functional skills or collaborative creativity.  This seems a long way from Popper’s notion of falsifiability: difficult to obtain evidence to falsify a theory if the way you obtain evidence is built on the assumption that a theory is true. The notion of induction is also generally lacking - there doesn’t seem much sense in which our models of good practice, at least as defined by government or inspection agencies, are derived from the empirical evidence in any clear way, else why would they change so frequently?

Analysis. Even with the above difficulties concerning assessment evidence, there is, I think, plenty we could do to analyse the data that we do collect, and I think much progress has been made in this area. It’s now common place to use annual assessment as a way of monitoring progress and prompting intervention. Less common, but by no means unheard of, is item by item, student by student, analysis, leading to interventions (iterative model changes?) in how a teacher approaches particular topics or to focussing support on individual students. As more school work goes online, within VLEs and PLEs, the sort of sophisticated datamining that the supermarkets and credit card companies use would be practical for schools, education authorities and central government - costs are, I fear, prohibitive for the former and the big brother aspect a little disturbing with the latter, but the barriers are no longer technolgical.

With a sufficiently large data set and statistical techniques such as factor analysis, it becomes possible to adopt a quasi-experimental approach to educational research. Hitherto, testing the effectiveness of a particular approach has relied on anecdotal evidence, comparisons with historical data, which are of limited validity as testing regimes evolve (become easier?) over time, or small scale randomized trials, which raise ethical concerns (why does my child get a laptop, but her friend at the next desk doesn’t?), or encounter huge difficulties in controlling for all the variables. Now however, statistical and computational advances make it, theoretically, possible to ‘measure’ the inputs and outputs of a programme, and identify which of the inputs make the most difference to the outputs, drawing conclusions which can go on to make for better teaching. Muijs and Reynolds (2000) provide an interesting early example of this approach.

Experiment needn’t be just this sort of large scale, data intensive study - the move we see towards action research projects as part of many teachers’ Masters programmes is a hugely encouraging one. Whilst these may not exhibit the standards of objectivity and control that would allow them to count as proper scientific experiments, there is nevertheless a respect for using evidence to inform practice that seems entirely appropriate to a scientific approach to teaching, and brings teaching closer into line with other professions now adopting a more evidence-based approach.

Peer review, at the basis of scientific publication and debate since at least the 17th century, would allow this sort of action research to cross institutional boundaries - there’s undoubtedly a role here for governmental organizations, such as the NCSL, OFSTED and local authorities in the UK, and the traditional subject associations have always promoted the sharing of good practice between schools. More interesting is the technologically supported move from the bottom up rather than the top down, with the sharing of good practice across personal learning networks in the blogosphere, twitterverse or at teachmeets and unconferences: the mode tends to be appreciative rather than critical, and there’s rarely as much data to support the practice as you’d expect in a scientific journal, but perhaps this will evolve over time…

Hand on heart, I’d admit to favouring a more artistic than scientific approach: both are of value, but, for me at least, teaching has at its core the personal relationship between a teacher and their pupils, and too much of this is about the complex interactions that are about character and personality for it to be reducible to “If I do this, they’ll learn better”, although the evidence developed through the community of practice has to be something on which we draw to inform and refresh our teaching.

References
Muijs D and Reynolds D, 2000, School Effectiveness and Teacher Effectiveness in Mathematics: Some Preliminary Findings from the Evaluation of the Mathematics Enhancement Programme (Primary), School Effectiveness and School Improvement 11:3 pp 273-303

The Art of Teaching

After a splendid summer holiday touring a number of north European cities, with visits to galleries, concert halls and churches, and the opening of our new performing and creative arts building, the arts have been much on my mind. They are set to form something of a focus to our work as a staff over the year ahead. I'm keen though to go beyond merely building on the work done in our music, art, drama and dance lessons; the opportunities afforded by making closer links between the arts and the rest of the curriculum are certainly to be seized, and I'm very excited about some of the ideas we've had: symmetry and pattern in maths, role play and other drama in the humanities, use of paintings as source material for history and geography lessons, cool digital arts stuff, etc. It promises to be an exciting year.

More exciting still though is the the notion of looking at our teaching as an art in itself; approaching our work in the classroom in a not dissimilar way to the way in which musicians, artists, actors and dancers approach their work. Three aspects of such an approach immediately come to mind.

Creativity. I'm eager to re-emphasize the essentially creative process of good teaching. A good lesson has, I think, at least something in common with the notion of a performance, with the uniqueness which that implies. The long tradition of teachers making their own resources in the primary sector is certainly one I'm keen to maintain, and of course digital technology should make it easier to adapt and refine resources from elsewhere - assuming they come with an open, creative commons licence that is. The notion of following lesson plans prepared in advance by the standards unit is, I'm afraid, anathema to me, although there's something to be said for using these as a starting point or inspiration: the MEP plans being a case in point. Working exclusively, or perhaps even mainly, from a published scheme, textbook or plans is, to my mind at least, hugely de-professionalising. What I'm really looking for though is a willingness to innovate, to push the boundaries, to try teaching things in a different way this time round, perhaps in a way that's entirely original. This is  going to be harder work, I know, but it's surely much more fun, and keeps the lessons fresh for teacher and student alike.

One can go further still, opening up the creativity to include the what as well as the how one teaches. I fear national curricula and exam specifications make this difficult, but surely not impossible, as these documents are minimal rather than maximal. I have fond memories of going way off syllabus to do stuff like Victorian mathematics (£.s.d, log tables etc) and cryptography back in my teaching days, creating resources from scratch myself, and providing a far richer mathematical diet for my pupils in the process.

Individuality. Not, of course, unrelated to the above, but I think if we are to see teaching as an art, then we have to allow a place for the individuality of the teacher - I think here about personalised teaching to sit alongside the personalised learning on which the DCFS places its emphasis. The system of  bringing a near random group of children of similar age and postcode together with a single adult places a heavy responsibility on that adult: there's far more to education than the skills, understanding and knowledge that we list in our curricula; the process of the formation of character is something that happens by example rather than instruction. I suspect that if most of us think back to the great teachers we had in our youth, then they will be the ones who brought something of themselves into the classroom; obviously a certain professional distance is expected, but we can contribute much to the all-round education of our pupils through sharing something of our all-round enthusiasms, rather than merely our subject expertise: something which extra-curricular activities, residential programmes, sports coaching and the house system perhaps still preserve. Given the choice, I think one looks for gifted eccentrics rather than team players - staff as jazz band rather than symphony orchestra, hard as that may be to manage.

The pursuit of excellence. I'm a great fan of opera: this summer was the first since moving down here that we didn't make it to Gyndebourne, but I remember reading that John Christie, who founded the thing, had this vision of a company that was relentless in the pursuit of perfection - something that remains a fond memory too of the choral singing back in my choir school days. I'm certain that this is something which there should be in artistic teaching too. I guess the notion of reflective practice comes close to this, as does our own school motto, "Be the best you can be". The pursuit of excellence is difficult though, because one so rarely has the time to do things perfectly - the time pressures and variety of commitments are the things that get in the way of truly artistic teaching; unlike the archetypal artist we just don't have the time to make every lesson a perfect one; that said, we do have the chance to edit, to review, to revise, to iterate towards that ideal, if not this year then for next: important as good planning is, its the critical evaluation of the lesson which allows the improvements to be made. I know that excellence such as that which characterizes great art is a high standard for this line of work, but perhaps for most of us it isn't the excellence that matters in the end, but the eagerness to aim for it. But then again, why settle for second best?

The other side of this is equally exciting - the way that artistic teaching, reflecting these qualities, leads to artistic learning, with just the same emphasis on creativity, individuality and the pursuit of excellence.

Inspection Introspection

Alton Convent has just emerged from its six yearly review inspection. For me, as the relatively new head of the prep department, and for my colleagues, the preparations for this has set much of our agenda over the last couple of term. In many ways this has been very positive: I for one feel I know my new school far better as a result of preparing and collating much of the paperwork that's been required, the desire to be at the top of our game for the brief period of the inspection has certainly given a sense of focus to much of the school improvement work we've been engaged in, and there is certainly a sense of the team being brought together in the face of shared adversity. On the other hand, many aspects of the agenda have been about demonstrating compliance with regulatory requirements or the independent schools inspectorate's view of 'good practice', both of which sit a little uneasily with our cherished independence, and, whilst I've tried hard to remain focused on longer term goals and the well being of pupils and teachers, I can't say with hand on heart that we've been unaware of the need for quick fixes and short term solutions that would impress our 'special visitors', although such fixes and solutions can be the seed of further developments.

The inspection of independent schools in the UK is interesting from both political and practical perspectives. The government's Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) is responsible for inspecting the standards of education in both maintained (state funded) and independent (fee paying) schools in England. About half of the independent schools (including pretty much all of the larger ones, and my own) are members of one of the associations that make up the Independent Schools Council. These associations traditionally took responsibility for inspecting their member schools, an arrangement which was preserved when the inspection of maintained schools changed dramatically in the 1990s with the expansion of the old and much respected HMI into the OFSTED of today, although OFSTED themselves conduct the inspections of the non-association schools, and 'oversee' the work of the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI). ISI's inspection framework has been developed in consultation with OFSTED and the independent school associations: part of it is focused on checking that schools meet all the relevant regulatory requirements, but the rest is about forming a judgement as to the quality of education provided by the school. This is where things get more interesting, since such judgements are (perhaps inevitably) made against some, often implicit, model of good practice laden with pedagogic assumptions, whereas in theory at least, and subject to the regulatory stuff, we enjoy full autonomy in how we educate the children entrusted to us, and are directly accountable morally to the children and financially to their parents: the market would ensure that if we're not doing a good job, parents take their children elsewhere and/or we would fail to attract new registrations, with direct financial implications.

There are some interesting practical differences between the way OFSTED conduct inspections now (although I can't speak about this with any degree of authority) and the ISI model.

ISI is based on a model of peer review, thus the vast majority of ISI inspectors are serving or recently retired independent school heads or teachers, whereas OFSTED teams are usually composed of folk who have this as their sole or main occupation. This does keep costs down for independent schools, ensures that many of the team have current school (and often classroom) experience, and know of the particular context, challenges and opportunities peculiar to independent schools; furthermore it provides one way in which the wisdom and experience of retired heads and teachers is not lost to the system. However, it's possible that ISI's inspectors don't always have the same breadth of experience of school inspection that an HMI or OFSTED inspector would have, and perhaps come to their occasional inspections with assumptions based on how things are done in their own school. Concerns such as these are, to a large extent, addressed through the training process, through inspection judgements being collective ones from the whole team (prep and senior schools here had a team of nine between them), and the role of the Reporting Inspector (RI), who will typically (but not invariably) be a retired HMI or OFSTED Registered Inspector.

Whereas OFSTED inspections now take place with almost no notice (a school might receive a phone call on Thursday that the team will visit the following Monday), ISI inspections are on a fixed six yearly cycle, thus we know that, unless the system changes, our next ISI visit will be in Spring 2013! I suspect that OFSTED's approach would certainly have involved less work and less stress, and might, it could be argued, be more likely to give the report's readers a more accurate impression of a school. That said, as the point of public exams is about learning not just assessment, so inspection ought to be for school improvement rather than just measurement. I think the long lead in to ISI visits can and does give a focus to school development and improvement, not just in terms of paperwork, but also in terms of the quality of teaching and learning, something which has to be at the heart of the inspection process and the school's own development agenda. My informal survey of fellow independent school maths and IT teachers back in 2003 suggested that the paperwork stuff can take over (78% indicated that policies and schemes of work had been extensively revised, whereas only 22% felt that inspection preparation had improved their teaching), but this certainly doesn't have to be the case. This emphasis on paperwork is compounded by the large amount of documentation that the school has to submit to the RI on her or his two preliminary visits to the school.

Under present arrangements, OFSTED place great emphasis on a school's own self-evaluation, and there is a sense in which one of the main tasks of an OFSTED inspection is to validate the school's own assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. Whilst there is an optional self evaluation form within the ISI framework, its role is not nearly so central to the inspection process: yes it will help set the agenda for the inspection and point up to the RI particular areas for the inspection team to focus on, but the framework does not allow RIs the same flexibility to focus on particular issues that's found in OFSTED's system. ISI inspections are 4-day visits of a fairly sizeable team with a fairly inflexible structure that requires inspectors to form their own judgements about most aspects of the school. I suspect this may change for the next cycle of ISI inspections, and again, with school improvement as the aim of the process, the critical self-review and reflection that ought to go into the SEF seems essential if a school is to move forward as a learning organization.

Although both approaches to inspection place much reliance on inspectors' qualitative judgements, OFSTED's approach places much more emphasis on quantitative data analysis, with the RAISEOnline system allowing OFSTED to make fairly rigorous comparisons of a school against objective benchmarks, form judgements about value added and allowing the school to track progress at the level of individual pupils. There's no compulsion on independent schools to participate in QCA's assessment arrangements, and indeed many choose not to, furthermore increasing numbers are opting out of GCSEs and A levels, in favour of IGCSEs and the International Baccalaureate, which they see as more academically challenging. Without a common assessment framework, benchmarking is harder, and value-added analysis is made harder by the apparent unwillingness of the DfES and OFSTED to publicly document the models underpinning RAISEOnline and its predecessors. Thus, whilst ISI do comment on a school's outcome and progress measures, I'm not convinced that this is with the same degree of rigour that would be found in OFSTED's analysis. This is, though, not necessarily a bad thing, as there's plenty about a school that's not measured by test outcomes, or perhaps even measurable, and the more qualitative analysis of a school that ISI focus on may well be more appropriate given the heterogeneity of the independent sector.

I don't think it appropriate to comment here about how our own inspection went, and the results are tightly embargoed until the report itself goes public in a couple of months or so anyhow. I can say though that I'm proud of the way my colleagues worked so well together, and of the evident sense of pride in the school amongst staff and pupils alike. It's important, I think, to maintain the sense of progress and development now that the focus of the inspection itself is past: there was, not unexpectedly, much sense of relief at the end of the inspection period, but for me at least this is because we can now focus on the strategic and visionary stuff, as well as the fundamentals of the well-being and education of our pupils, rather than an externally imposed agenda.