Indeed, which evidence? whose evidence? whose interpretation of evidence? how was the evidence obtained? is the evidence consistent? who was left out? over what time frame? is evidence of any associated negative impacts considered? etc etc etc.
I just reread this and it reminded me that 'evidence of good teaching' may not look like you expect it to. I am/was a very particular type of teacher, quite soft and focussed on maximising intrinsic motivation. As HoD, I regularly held meetings to help other teachers move from a controlling to more autonomous teaching style I was very often intrigued by how a teacher's perception of their teaching was inconsistent with mine and yet they were evidently quite successful. One, in particular, swore he was very much a controlling teacher, allowing little flexibility in student actions and behaviour. I knew he was very successful, with happy, successful students, so together we spent time unpacking what he was actually doing, as opposed to what he thought he was doing. In the end, it appeared to me that while having an outward appearance of control, his actions conveyed the message to students that he cared for them and more than anything was willing to do what he cold to help them be successful. In many small ways he facilitated their autonomy, while believing he was controlling them. The takeaway for me is that 'evidence' in teaching, is not always what we think it is.
Very interesting comments Mark and I would say I agree!
Our perception of our practice is often quite limited, and so the perspective of others to speak into our teaching is so valuable and important. It's just not a culture of our schools (at least I find).
"Evidence" in teaching is so complex isn't it. By any chance have you seen what Nicole Brunker is working on? Currently developing a green and white paper on broadening our perception of "evidence" in education. It's great to see!
Thanks for the link. In a general sense, it would be hard for me to disagree with any call to end the limited and limiting approach of EBP. The points made in Nicole's paper are academically, philosophically and functionally sound, particularly the reference to EIP, which to my mind sits above EBP in a hierarchy of good practice. While EBP reduces teaching to automatic responses, EIP lifts teaching into the multifaceted art form it really is. In a specific sense, EBP conflicts with my own preferencing of motivational aspects of learning. It has always appeared to me to ignore the student's role in the learning process, assuming it to be independent of teacher practice, which evidence shows is wrong.
Perhaps the evidence works for some, but in any classroom around the world it is not going to work for all. Teachers need more agency to use a variety of teaching styles to cater for the variety of students they have! We use Initialit which is a great program and does help students understand how to read so much better than other programs BUT it’s a one size fits all - we need to do better and think about who it doesn’t work for and how our classrooms can support them through extra teachers, smaller group instruction and individual teacher voice to make changes they think are appropriate for the cohort they have.
Well said Vanessa! We also need more teachers such as yourself that understand and acknowledge this reality, who can look beyond what is working to find those students that have been missed along the way. Keep it up!
Apologies for the delayed response here Chris, so great to hear your thoughts!
In many ways as you say, it is often not so much the pedagogy but the person behind it. After all, education is a fundamentally relational act and so we cannot pretend that this does not matter.
I feel I constantly come back to Dewey's idea of education as a continuing experiment. We will never find the "formula", although I am sad to see that some think they have (really, it seems they've found the formula for "some" or "most" or their community) and wish to impose their formula on everyone else.
What you're saying is an incredibly valid point in relation to schools "moving to explicit teaching".
I remember somewhere someone (or a paper) saying that often it is not that the intervention in itself was the thing that "worked", but the support, energy and resources invested into teachers that made the difference. Could have been inquiry learning for all we care, but it wasn't the pedagogy (or at least not totally).
Great comments Chris, please continue even if I take a while to get back to you!
Indeed, which evidence? whose evidence? whose interpretation of evidence? how was the evidence obtained? is the evidence consistent? who was left out? over what time frame? is evidence of any associated negative impacts considered? etc etc etc.
Apologies for the late response to this Mark! These are all such important questions to be considering when exploring "the evidence".
I just reread this and it reminded me that 'evidence of good teaching' may not look like you expect it to. I am/was a very particular type of teacher, quite soft and focussed on maximising intrinsic motivation. As HoD, I regularly held meetings to help other teachers move from a controlling to more autonomous teaching style I was very often intrigued by how a teacher's perception of their teaching was inconsistent with mine and yet they were evidently quite successful. One, in particular, swore he was very much a controlling teacher, allowing little flexibility in student actions and behaviour. I knew he was very successful, with happy, successful students, so together we spent time unpacking what he was actually doing, as opposed to what he thought he was doing. In the end, it appeared to me that while having an outward appearance of control, his actions conveyed the message to students that he cared for them and more than anything was willing to do what he cold to help them be successful. In many small ways he facilitated their autonomy, while believing he was controlling them. The takeaway for me is that 'evidence' in teaching, is not always what we think it is.
Very interesting comments Mark and I would say I agree!
Our perception of our practice is often quite limited, and so the perspective of others to speak into our teaching is so valuable and important. It's just not a culture of our schools (at least I find).
"Evidence" in teaching is so complex isn't it. By any chance have you seen what Nicole Brunker is working on? Currently developing a green and white paper on broadening our perception of "evidence" in education. It's great to see!
I am unaware of that paper. I'd like to read it.
It's currently in the works, but you can read her blog post for AARE here: https://blog.aare.edu.au/escape-oppression-now-disrupt-the-dominance-of-evidence-based-practice/
Would be interested to hear your thoughts!
Thanks for the link. In a general sense, it would be hard for me to disagree with any call to end the limited and limiting approach of EBP. The points made in Nicole's paper are academically, philosophically and functionally sound, particularly the reference to EIP, which to my mind sits above EBP in a hierarchy of good practice. While EBP reduces teaching to automatic responses, EIP lifts teaching into the multifaceted art form it really is. In a specific sense, EBP conflicts with my own preferencing of motivational aspects of learning. It has always appeared to me to ignore the student's role in the learning process, assuming it to be independent of teacher practice, which evidence shows is wrong.
Perhaps the evidence works for some, but in any classroom around the world it is not going to work for all. Teachers need more agency to use a variety of teaching styles to cater for the variety of students they have! We use Initialit which is a great program and does help students understand how to read so much better than other programs BUT it’s a one size fits all - we need to do better and think about who it doesn’t work for and how our classrooms can support them through extra teachers, smaller group instruction and individual teacher voice to make changes they think are appropriate for the cohort they have.
Well said Vanessa! We also need more teachers such as yourself that understand and acknowledge this reality, who can look beyond what is working to find those students that have been missed along the way. Keep it up!
Apologies for the delayed response here Chris, so great to hear your thoughts!
In many ways as you say, it is often not so much the pedagogy but the person behind it. After all, education is a fundamentally relational act and so we cannot pretend that this does not matter.
I feel I constantly come back to Dewey's idea of education as a continuing experiment. We will never find the "formula", although I am sad to see that some think they have (really, it seems they've found the formula for "some" or "most" or their community) and wish to impose their formula on everyone else.
What you're saying is an incredibly valid point in relation to schools "moving to explicit teaching".
I remember somewhere someone (or a paper) saying that often it is not that the intervention in itself was the thing that "worked", but the support, energy and resources invested into teachers that made the difference. Could have been inquiry learning for all we care, but it wasn't the pedagogy (or at least not totally).
Great comments Chris, please continue even if I take a while to get back to you!