Evidence based practice

06/06/2013 change, MEd, pedagoo, Reading 5 comments


Image by Kuebi

As a science teacher, I’m a big fan of Dr Ben Goldacre. I knew from the contents page that I would love his book ‘Bad Science‘, and I did. And, I’m currently reading (and enjoying) ‘Bad Pharma‘. So, it is with great trepidation that I dare to write a post which doesn’t entirely agree with his position on evidence based practice in education.

Firstly though, I’m so glad that the debate has been raised around evidence based practice and it’s fantastic to see this already transform into action in the form of the planned researchED conference. One of the biggest learning outcomes from completing my MEd has been an increased appreciation for the role of research in the teaching and learning process and a much stronger need to have a clearer ‘why’ underpinning my practice. I also agree with Dr Goldacre’s point around the need for teachers to engage in the research process. I also made the point in my first MEd essay that we as teachers operate very differently to doctors in terms of the control we have over our own practice, and the enquiries I’ve undertaken since have demonstrated to me the potential teacher research has in addressing this. I also of course agree with the potential of the web to bring researching teachers together and see the potential overlap with the Pedagoo idea.

So what don’t I agree with? It’s not that I disagree as such, I’m more concerned about the emphasis. In his paper Dr Goldacre rightly states that we should use the right research method for the right question, and even acknowledges the important role of qualitative research in education, but the majority of the piece focuses on the need for more quantitative randomised trials. I find this sort of evidence useful as a teacher, and I think Geoff Petty‘s work has been particularly successful at taking this sort of evidence and making it accessible to busy teachers. Whilst I wouldn’t argue against the need for more of these sorts of studies to gather more of this form of evidence, I don’t particularly think that should be our primary focus in this evidence based revolution.

Firstly, Dr Goldacre rightly points out that qualitative research can tell you why and how something works but then quickly moves back to the importance of quantitative trials. Surely as teachers the why and how are crucial. Do we want a profession that carries out quantitative studies that generates statistics which “proves” a technique? Or do we want a profession which can carry out much richer enquiries into their practice which provides them with a wider range of evidence which then allows them to tailor their approaches to different learners in different contexts? Yes, it won’t make for easy extrapolation, but it should make for much richer educational experiences for both the teachers and their students.

But also, education is not medicine. Placing the emphasis on quantitative research makes a number of assumptions about what it is we’re trying to achieve and how we’re trying to achieve it. Of course we want to use good strategies which improve attainment, which is what this sort of evidence is ideal for, but is that all we want as the outcome of our educational process? What about confidence? Happiness? Ability to manage relationships? Independence? Resilience? Do these educational outcomes matter too? I know these qualities will be at least as important in my own children’s lives as exam results. In fact, aren’t these qualities often crucial in order to achieve those attainment results? If we have happy, confident, independent and resilient students wouldn’t we expect those sorts of young people to cope rather well with exams? So, how do we measure these outcomes in randomised trials? My suggestion is that we don’t. We use qualitative research methods and we give this evidence the status it deserves. After all, education is a social enterprise, social science methodologies make perfect sense in this field and shouldn’t be down played or written off as ‘soft’ as they so often are.

Basically, I think we’re at risk of getting ahead of ourselves a little. We can all agree that we want more of an evidence basis to our practice and that teachers and learners would benefit from participating in the research process to a greater extent, but we must first agree what it is we want from our educational system and ensure that the research methodologies we use, and therefore the evidence gathered, are valid for those outcomes.

#tmlovelibraries

02/06/2013 TeachMeet No comments

Image by David Gilmour

I just thought I’d do a little post mainly thanking absolutely everyone involved in TeachMeet Pedagoo❤Libraries in Edinburgh yesterday, but with a few other thoughts too. As I travelled into Edinburgh on the train my nerves grew and grew, but I needn’t have worried. The venue was fantastic (thank you to Edinburgh Libraries), everything was ready to go on time (thanks Colm, Kirsty and David), folk got stuck in from the start and helped out welcoming everyone arriving (thanks Dave and Kenny), and most importantly of all…the workshops were fantastic. Many many thanks to all the workshop leaders who put themselves out there to share their practice…and also to everyone else for coming and joining in with such enthusiasm.

Obviously, it’s a little stressful putting together an event such as this but it makes it all worthwhile once I get to sit back and eavesdrop on the conversations in the workshops. There was clearly a high level of professional dialogue and the word of the day seemed to be passion.

The evening event was more of a challenge this time…at tmSLFringe we just went to the bar in the evening. This time I wanted to have a bit more structured sharing so we sat around one big table in the function room of a nearby pub and took turns sharing our practice for two minutes each. It was an experiment, but in the end I thought it worked well and was worth doing. We certainly had a fun evening and shared some interesting ideas.

For my two minutes in the evening I was planning to talk about something along the lines of my thoughts on risk…but I changed my mind once we got talking about Curriculum for Excellence. I kind of wished I hadn’t now as I don’t think I explained my point as clearly as I could have.

I think CfE is, by and large, a great thing. It is an opportunity for teachers who wish to innovate and improve their practice. I still remember the sense of permission I felt when I first read BtC3. However, CfE inevitably has its issues. There is a tendency to place the blame for those issues on others such as Senior Management Teams, Local Authorities, Education Scotland, SQA, Scottish Government, etc. Whilst all of these stakeholders have played their part in making CfE what it is, both positively and negatively, I find it disempowering to the teaching profession to pass all of the blame for any shortcomings in the curriculum to others.

We wrote Curriculum for Excellence in the form of seconded teachers and SQA appointees and we are the ones implementing it daily. AV Kelly makes very interesting points in The Curriculum about the fundamental role teachers play in the implementation of a curriculum but I worry that we won’t make the most of this potential until we stop always blaming others and accept the curriculum as our own, warts and all, and make it work for our learners.

And that takes me neatly back to Pedagoo. Part of the idea behind Pedagoo was to create a community where teachers can take control of our practice and professional development which ultimately impacts on the implementation of the curriculum. Pedagoo is a coming together of educators who are passionate about making the curricula we have work for our learners, and that couldn’t have been more evident than yesterday.

Thank you all again.

Holidays

19/04/2013 change No comments


Michael Gove made some controversial remarks this week which caught my attention. He proposed that schools have longer days and shorter holidays partly to make working parents’ lives easier. There was obviously a very negative reaction to this idea, and I think given the way the idea was presented a negative reaction was more than justified. But when I hear this sort of idea floated in this way I get more upset that it’s actually made it harder for these sorts of changes to happen, but for the right reasons.

I actually think that a more flexible school year might be beneficial for both students and staff. We all know that our holidays are not entirely spent doing what’s shown in the picture above. I believe we have a relatively unhealthy working pattern which involves periods of high stress interspersed with fixed holidays which are spent feeling guilty for not getting more of the stuff done that you can never get done in term time.

However, it’s not just the staff that might benefit. I was very lucky to attend the Scottish Summer School on School Leadership a few years ago. It was a three-day event involving a large number of education folk from across Scotland led by the Innovation Unit. It was a fantastic three days with really challenging input and each group had to finish the event by producing a kind of rethought education system based on the practices of a company or charity. You can see the products from my group here, but what surprised me most was the almost unanimous themes from all the groups. There must’ve been a good 150-200 people in the room and we pretty much all came up with a more flexible approach to schooling. For example, our group wanted to do things like make better use of the web to allow some self-directed learning, have schools open for longer hours but students and staff only attend/teach classes for a proportion of the time that the school is open etc. It was really surprising that if you started with a clean sheet of paper and the needs of the learner at the forefront of your thoughts that there was a consistency of opinion across the room – and it wasn’t for the status quo.

Obviously these would be quite radical changes, which would therefore be hard to achieve at the best of times. And so it’s frustrating that our ability it have what I think is a valid discussion and debate about these sorts of ideas are diminished by the remarks made this week. It’s yet another of those occasions when an issue which should be being debated positively by the profession itself is instead hijacked by a politician. I do wish we could take the politics out of education, as suggested by Mick Waters, which would allow us to positively discuss the merits of ideas such as this.

EDIT

Just remembered about this video which perhaps says it better than I ever could…

Outstanding?

18/04/2013 reflection 2 comments

When I first started this blog back in January 2007 I decided to focus it initially on my experiences of moving from teaching in England to teaching in Scotland. Obviously much has changed since then, but I do still keep a wee eye on what is happening down South and occasionally ponder the differences. Now, before I go any further I’m not one of those who claims everything is better in Scotland. I certainly enjoy living and working in Scotland (otherwise I wouldn’t be here!) but there were many things I thought England were doing better when I moved up and I’m sure this is still the case. They are surprisingly different systems; and better in different ways at different times in different places.

Having said this, I must admit to being a little concerned about the rise of the word ‘outstanding’ in England as applied to schools, teachers and lessons. It’s been a while now, but I don’t remember it being as part of the lexicon of teaching when I worked in England as it is now. Frustratingly, however, I’m not entirely sure what it is that’s even making me uncomfortable – which makes me very hesitant about writing this post. To try and help me out I decided to look up what it means in the context of a lesson. Here’s what I found from a 2011 Ofsted document on the TES website:

The quality of teaching and the use of assessment to support learning: Outstanding (1)
Teaching is at least good and much is outstanding, with the result that the pupils are making exceptional progress. It is highly effective in inspiring pupils and ensuring that they learn extremely well. Excellent subject knowledge is applied consistently to challenge and inspire pupils. Resources, including new technology, make a marked contribution to the quality of learning, as does the precisely targeted support provided by other adults. Teachers and other adults are acutely aware of their pupils’ capabilities and of their prior learning and understanding, and plan very effectively to build on these. Marking and dialogue between teachers, other adults and pupils are consistently of a very high quality. Pupils understand in detail how to improve their work and are consistently supported in doing so. Teachers systematically and effectively check pupils’ understanding throughout lessons, anticipating where they may need to intervene and doing so with striking impact on the quality of learning.
The evaluation schedule for schools, Ofsted, 2011

Apart from a few of the details and perhaps the tone, this isn’t wildly different from the equivalent in Scotland – the level 5 illustration for Quality Indicator 5.2 ‘Teaching for Effective Learning’ in How Good is Our School:

✪ Building on our shared values, we create a stimulating learning climate using skilful and well-paced teaching and learning approaches. Learners’ experiences are well matched to their needs and sustain their motivation and attention. We develop learners’ abilities to be curious and creative and to think critically. Tasks and activities in our classes and home-learning activities are well planned and involve learners as effective contributors, working independently and with others cooperatively in solving problems. We make full and effective use of ICT during teaching and learning.
✪ We share the purposes of lessons with learners. Learners know what they need to do to improve and to become successful. Our explanations and instructions are clear and build on previous learning and real-life experiences. We ensure that learners have opportunities to take responsibility for aspects of their own learning and their relationships with others. Learners enjoy their experiences and make progress in their skills as learners. They are engaged in learning and aware of themselves as learners. We use feedback effectively to promote learning.
✪ Our teaching fully involves learners and encourages them to express views and ask questions. We use skilled questioning and discussion to stimulate learners’ interest, make them think and build their confidence. We value, encourage and build upon learners’ responses.
✪ In lessons, we make sound judgements and respond quickly to ensure that our teaching meets the needs of individuals and provides appropriate support and challenge. We identify and address weaknesses in learners’ knowledge and skills.
How Good is Our School, HMIE, 2007

Although the above is a level 5 description, it is actually a 6-point scale, with level 6 being “outstanding or sector leading”.

So given the overlap in the actual standard, what is it that’s actually different? Well as far as I’m aware I’ve never encountered a teacher in Scotland who would describe themselves, or be described as, a ‘level 6′ teacher or as having taught a ‘level 6′ lesson in the same way as the word seems to be used in England to refer directly to the Ofsted grade descriptor. I’m not necessarily arguing that one approach is better than the other, but the difference does strike me as interesting.

Perhaps it is just the unfamiliarity with the approach in England which makes me feel concerned? Maybe it is better for teachers to be more familiar with their quality framework than perhaps teachers in Scotland are? Or perhaps it is concerning for teachers to be classified as ‘outstanding’ as it may lead to complacency and/or division?

I’d love to know what you think? Especially if you teach in England.

An Education Spring

17/04/2013 change, pedagoo No comments

The above talk by Mick Waters at Westminster is worth a watch. He doesn’t start until six minutes in if you want to fastforward it. He’s sharing some of his ideas from his new book “Thinking Allowed on Schooling” which also looks as if it might be worth checking out.

Having heard Mick speak in the past, why anyone would ask him to read something out as opposed to speaking his mind is beyond me. Despite this he does make some very interesting points, and he does get to speak more freely in the second half of the video when he sums up the event. In the video, and presumably the book, he is calling for a radical rethink when it comes to education – which he summarises by calling for an ‘education spring’. Although much of the specifics of the discussion are very England-focused, I think much of what he says applies in Scotland too. For example, although we don’t quite have the same politicisation of educational policy, as there is largely cross-party agreement on the direction of travel – this is not necessarily guaranteed in the future. And, I’m sure his idea for a NICE equivalent in education would be just as applicable North of the border. Plus, much of what he says on the role and evaluation of the teaching profession is relevant in Scotland also.

I think Mick is right to highlight the complex and high-level changes which would be required to enact a radical change in educational policy, but a spring would also imply that it starts with the grassroots. Being as I am quite interested in this sort of thing through my role in Pedagoo, it makes me wonder where something like Pedagoo fits in to this idea.

Pedagoo began life as a place to positively share classroom practice and there have been discussions quite recently about the possibility that it could also provide a space for teachers to more vocally oppose the policies of governments and their agencies. Whilst I appreciate this sentiment I strongly oppose(d) this widening of our remit – there are plenty of other outlets to communicate such sentiments in my opinion.

However, Pedagoo for me can still fit into this idea of a grassroots educational spring. Obviously it doesn’t by any stretch of the imagination play a massive role in achieving a radical rethink in changing educational policy, but in a small way I do believe that it helps us to positively provide “clarity on what the role of teaching should be in our society“, which is one of Mick’s four things which need to change. It is also an example of “teachers contributing to their own profession”. And I also believe that by speaking positively and publicly about our practice that we could in a small way be countering the perception one could have of teaching from the media as described by Mick.

So if you’re a teacher who agrees with what Mick Waters has to say and you’re not yet involved in Pedagoo – you should check us out!

« Older Entries