Beperken van belasting van het werkgeheugen als belangrijk instructie-principe (=ook centraal principe in onze vakdidactische publicaties over leren lezen -DSM, rekenen ...)

Educators would do well to recognise the motivating and engaging properties of clear, structured and well guided instruction, and the role this plays in students learning and achievemement

LRI involves the following at some point in the learning and

achievement process:

(1) Reducing the difficulty of a task during initial learning

(2) Instructional support and scaffolding through the task

(3) Ample structured practice

(4) Appropriate provision of instructional feedback, and

(5) Independent practice and guided autonomy.

These represent a useful organising frame- work for considering key elements of LRI.Here, these elements are briefly introduced.

(1) Reducing the difficulty of a task during initial learning

Pre-training

■Teacher provides early instruction on the core elements of a task (e.g.identifying name, definition, location,function of topics or components) to assist subsequent learning

Modelling important processes

■Teacher demonstrates how to complete a task; can also involvethink-aloud strategies as the teacher conducts a task

■Teacher shares examples of good practices and good work to provide clarity on what constitutes good workand how to do it

Segmenting

■Teacher breaks a task into bite-size components (or chunks) and encourages students to see the completion of each component as a success

Preliminary (and spaced) reviews

■Teacher and students review prior learning at the outset of a new task or lesson; teacher reviews at regular (spaced) intervals (e.g. review prior weeks learning at the start of each week)

(2) Instructional support and scaffolding through the task

Reducing split-attention

■Two or more stimuli are integrated where feasible to reduce splitting students attention across disparate stimuli (e.g. integrate the equation for finding an angle into the angle itself on a given diagram)

Integrating

■Teacher integrates the focus of a learning task with a meaningful problem (e.g. integrate instruction on punctuation into a students own essay)

Information integration sequencing

■Teacher integrates two successive pieces of instructional material into the one instructional element (e.g. integrate the narration of how lightening is formed with an animation of that process)

Harnessing different modalities

■Teacher presents different pieces of information (or stimuli) in a different modality (e.g. present an image with a narrative in order to reduce the burden on visual and auditory processers)

Avoiding redundancy and increasing coherence

■Where possible, teacher presents information once (avoiding redundancy) and organises material so that extraneous or overly elaborate material that may be tangential to essential learning is reduced or removed (increasing coherence)

Signalling

■Teacher provides cues to help the learner locate and focus on the essential material in a lesson or activity (e.g. teacher asks students to watch out for a particular event or character in a plot)

Organising information thematically

■Teacher identifies a major/main theme in a task or learning activity and explicitly connects instruction to this theme

Allowing appropriate instructional time

■Teacher schedules tasks and lessons to ensure sufficient instructional time occurs in a task, in a lesson, and across the day

Checking for understanding

■Teacher employs checking strategies such as frequently posing questions and asking students to summarise major points or repeat explanations

Worked examples (uitgewerkte voorbeelden)

■New material is presented to learners with completed samples of work that show how a particular problem can be solved or task is to be completed

Providing Templates

■Materials are provided to learners that are formatted or structured to help the learner stay on track or that list the important features to include or address in a task

Prompting

■Learners are strategically prompted to persist with and complete less structured tasks such as those found in comprehension and writing tasks (e.g. students are asked to identify the what, who, why, and when in a

Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagementstimulus passage; this helps them extract specific information or articulate an answer or response)

Personalising

■Teacher adjusts wording and/or administration of a task to involve the learner in a more personalised and individually-relevant way (e.g. Use instructions such as Your goal in thistask is to rather than The goal for this task is to )

(3) Ample structured practice

Deliberate practice

■Teacher ensures rehearsal that is relevant to a specific skill, usually also involving feedback, and conducted by the student on his/her own

Mental practice

■Learners imagine or mentally rehearse a concept or procedure (e.g. the student studies an example, then turns away and rehearses the example in his/her mind)

Guided practice

■Learners are systematically guided through the steps of learning or problem solving (e.g. prompting responses through a task or providing part of a solution for a student to complete)

(4) Appropriate provision of instructional feedback

Feedback

■Concrete and specific information is provided on the correctness of an answer or the quality of application

Feedforward

■Concrete and specific information is provided on how the answer or quality of the application can be improved in future schoolwork

(5) Independent practice and guided autonomy

Independent practice

■When skills and knowledge become automated and fluent, the learner is encouraged to attempt similar problem tasks independently

Guided discovery learning

■When the learner has engaged in successful independent practice, he/she is encouraged to undertake new tasks, move in new directions, or apply learning to real-world problems that further enrich learning.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bijlage

The Psychology of Education Section of The British Psychological

2 35th Vernon-Wall Lecture

Vooraf: CONCLUSION The bulk of research into instructional techniques that directly or indirectly reduce cognitive load (i.e. Load Reduction Instruction; LRI) has focused on academic learning and achievement. Findings support the role of LRI in students learning and achievement gains. Less attention has been given to the role of LRI in promoting students motivation and engagement.

The present review has harnessed motivation and engagement as a lens through which to consider LRI. It has examined key dimensions of motivation and engagement and explored the extent to which specific approaches and strategies under LRI address them.

The review has also considered the learning process more broadly and highlighted the role of guided discovery approaches in the learning sequence to appropriately manage cognitive load and generate greater autonomy and independent learning. Thus, it is emphasised that LRI encompasses both explicit instructional approaches and guided discovery-oriented learning and that this has significant implications for students academic motivation and engagement.

Taken together, educators would do well to recognise the motivating and engaging properties of clear, structured and well guided instruction, and the role this plays in students learning and achievement.

Foreword

School is academically demanding and becomes more so as students move from elementary school to middle school to high school. Across these stages of schooling (and year levels within them), there is an escalation in homework, frequency and difficulty of assessment, content to be covered, subject difficulty, and competing deadlines

This progressive escalation in challenge places increased cognitive demands on students. At the same time, there are well-documented declines in motivation and engagement as students move from elementary to and through high school. For example, Eccles and colleagues have identified significant

Can educators reduce students cognitive load and boost motivation and engagement? Integrating explicit instruction and discovery learning through Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) Andrew J. MartinLoad Reduction Instruction(LRI) is an umbrella term referring to instructional approaches that seek to reduce cognitive load in order to optimise students learning and achievement.

LRI typically encompasses explicit and direct instruction, and under particular conditions can also encompass less structured approaches such as guided discovery-, problem-, and inquiry-based learning. Theory and research support the role of LRI in students academic learning and achievement. Relatively less attention has been given to the role of LRI in students academic motivation and engagement. This review examines key dimensions of motivation and engagement and explores the extent to which specific approaches and strategies under LRI may promote them.

A major tenet of the review is that students are at first novices with respect to academic skill and subject matter and that a structured and somewhat directional approach to instruction that reduces cognitive load is important for achievement, motivation, and engagement in the early stages of learning. LRI helps build the content of long-term memory and develops a level of fluency and automaticity that frees up working memory to apply to a given task or problem. As discussed, this fluency and automaticity has implications for students motivation and engagement. Importantly, as core skill, knowledge and automaticity further develop, LRI emphasises the centrality of guided discovery-, problem-, and inquiry-based learning. Introduced at the appropriate point in the learning process, these scaffolded exploratory approaches can also be a means to manage cognitive load, generate autonomous learning, and provide a further basis for students motivation and engagement. The review concludes by showing how these instructional practices that unambiguously emphasise the role of the teacher are in fact predominantly student-centered and student-salient. Taken together, it is considered important to recognise the motivating and engaging properties of clear, structured and well guided instruction, and the implications this has for students learning and achievement outcomes declines in academic expectancy and valuing between elementary and high school. Once in high school, Martin (2007, 2009) has shown that both motivation and engagement decline as students move from early high school to middle high school and that this follows from higher levels of motivation and engagement in elementary school. Eccles and Midgley (1989) proposed that motivation and engagement decline across the transition from elementary to middle/high school because the developmental needs of adolescents do not fit with the change of context and demands in high school and nor do instructional approaches adequately meet the needs of the developing learner.

The escalation in demands through school brings into consideration the need to approach instruction in ways that appropriately manage the burden on learners where possible and feasible. Cognitive psychology has been informative in identifying instructional approaches that are directly geared to managing the cognitive load on students to better help them learn and achieve. This article considers numerous instructional approaches that explicitly or implicitly appropriately manage the cognitive burden on students as they learn. Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) is introduced here as an umbrella term that encompasses instructional models such as direct instruction and explicit instruction as well as some less structured approaches to instruction (e.g. guided discovery learning) that seek to optimally manage the cognitive burden on students in order to enhance their learning and achievement. To date, the bulk of research into LRI approaches has focused on their effects for learning and achievement.

As discussed in this review, findings support the role of LRI in generating learning and achievement gains. Although learning and achievement are desirable ends in themselves, there are other factors that are considered desirable academic ends. Motivation and engagement are two such factors salient on the psychoeducational landscape. Indeed, from a cognitive psychological perspective, motivation and engagement are recognised as important factors in more complex learning (e.g. Van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005) and factors that can increase the cognitive resources devoted to a task (e.g. Paas, Renkl & Sweller, 2003).

The present review considers the relationship between motivation, engagement, and LRI. It examines key dimensions of motivation and engagement and explores the extent to which specific approaches and strategies under LRI can address them. In so doing, it seeks to complement the large body of work into LRI and its achievement effects with closer consideration of its potential yields for students motivation and engagement.

Part 1. Load Reduction Instruction:

(i) definition and description of LRI, (ii) a review of human cognitive architecture as relevant to LRI, (iii) consideration of fluency and automaticity, (iv) a summary of LRI effects on achievement, (v) consideration of LRI for diverse learners and subject areas, and (vi) identification of specific Load Reduction Instructional elements.

Part 2. Motivation and Engagement: (vii) definition and description of motivation and engagement and (viii) a motivation and engagement framework for considering LRI.

Part 3. Load Reduction Instruction, Motivation, and Engagement: (ix) LRI approaches for specific motivation and engagement dimensions. Part 4. Load Reduction Instruction and the Broader Process of Learning: (x) the role of guided discovery learning and (xi) understanding the optimal learning sequence. Part 5. Looking Forward: (xii) Opportunities for future research in LRI, explicit instruction, motivation, and engagement.

Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) Instruction that appropriately reduces or manages the cognitive load on the student in the learning process.

Key elements (1) Reducing the difficulty of a task during initial learning (2) Instructional support and scaffolding through the task (3) Ample structured practice (4) Appropriate provision of instructional feedback (5) Independent practice and guided autonomy.

Major instructional approaches Explicit instruction and guided discovery learning.

Specific instructional strategies Pre-training; Modelling important processes; Showcasing; Segmenting; Preliminary (and spaced) reviews; Reducing split-attention; Integrating; Information integration sequencing; Harnessing different modalities; Avoiding redundancy; Increasing coherence; Signalling; Organising information thematically; Allowing appropriate instructional time; Checking for understanding; Worked examples; Providing templates; Prompting; Personalising; Deliberate practice; Mental practice; Guided practice; Feedback; Feedforward; Independent practice; Guided discovery learning.

Academic outcomes Learning, achievement, motivation, engagement.

Figure 1: Organising themes and processes for this review.

PART 1: LOAD REDUCTION INSTRUCTION Load Reduction Instruction (and Guided Discovery Learning) Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) is defined here as a mode of teacher-led instruction that involves the following at key points in the learning process: (1) Reducing the difficulty of a task during initial learning (2) Instructional support and scaffolding through the task (3) Ample structured practice (4) Appropriate provision of instructional feedback, and (5) Independent practice and guided autonomy A major tenet of LRI is that learners are at first novices with respect to academic skill and subject matter, that a structured and systemic approach to instruction is important in the early stages of learning, and that there is an appropriate time for guided discovery and exploratory approaches as novices become more developed in their learning ). Indeed, guided discovery learning can be another means by which to manage cognitive load for the student in the learning process. Accordingly, attention will also be given to the role of guided discovery learning as a part of LRI. As discussed below, following sufficient explicit input, guided practice and demonstration of independent learning, there is an important place for guided discovery learning, including with regards to motivation and engagement (Liem & Martin, 2013; Martin, 2013). Once learners progress beyond novice status and have sufficiently automated core skills and knowledge, they are ready to engage in meaningful discovery and exploratory learning that have motivational properties beyond the motivational yields experienced through LRI. LRI thus recognises that explicit and constructivist learning and teaching are inextricably intertwined such that the effectiveness of one is reliant on the effectiveness of the other. Although other frameworks have recognised the roles of both explicit and discovery approaches LRI is distinct in that its emphasis is on reducing or managing the cognitive burden on students as they learn. LRI is thus termed, framed, and developed deliberately to indicate why we engage its various instructional elements namely, to deliver instruction and instructional support so as to appropriately reduce and manage the cognitive burden on the learner.

The cognitive architecture of the human mind: Working and long-term memory When developing instructional approaches for students, it is important to understand the cognitive parameters relevant to learning. The architecture of the human mind and its memory systems is one of the core foundations underpinning the rationale for LRI approaches. This has implications for the development and delivery of LRI as well as the ordering and balancing of explicit instruction and guided discovery learning. Working and long-term memory are primary mechanisms for learning (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006; Sweller, 2012; Winne & Nesbit, 2010). Working memory refers to the conscious component of cognition responsible for receiving and processing information, performing tasks, solving problems, etc. particularly new information, new tasks, and novel problems. Learning is believed to occur when information is successfully moved from working memory and stored in longterm memory

. Figure 2 shows the process, with stimuli received by the sensory register (e.g. sound, sight, touch etc.) sent to working memory, information in working memory is encoded and sent to longterm memory, and information in long-term memory is retrieved to working memory to be applied as necessary. If working memory is overly burdened or overloaded then there is a heightened risk that instructional content is not understood, information is misinterpreted or confused, information is not effectively encoded in longterm memory, and learning is markedly slowed down (Rosenshine, 1986, 2009; Tobias, 1982). Given this, there is a need to deliver instruction, present instructional material, and organise learning tasks that do not overly or unnecessarily burden students working memory (Kirschner et al., 2006). It is also the case that working memory is limited. Indeed, because a major function of working memory in the classroom is to process novel, unfamiliar information that comes from others (via listening, observing, or reading), working memory limits are highly relevant at many points of the learning process. This presents a substantial challenge to teachers as effective instruction relies on them navigating this limited conscious aspect of the cognitive structure (working memory) when teaching new material and presenting novel subject matter (Sweller, Ayres & Kalyuga, 2011; Winne & Nesbit, 2010). It has been speculated that information stored in working memory has a capacity of about seven elements (or even as low as four elements plus or minus one element). Further, this can be lost within about 30 seconds unless rehearsed (Baddeley, 1994). Clearly, a vast body of instructional material comprises information that exceeds seven (or so) elements or requires the student to be able to retain extended or complex concepts in conscious working memory for more than 30 seconds.

This reality has led to research and theory into instructional approaches that aim to accommodate the boundary conditions inherent in learners working memory systems. Fortunately, long-term memory does not have the same limitations as working memory. Long-term memory has vast capacity. Thus, if information can be effectively and accurately stored in long-term memory and if working memory can efficiently access this long-term memory, successful learning can take place. Given this, there is a clear necessity to deliver instruction and develop instructional material that optimally assists the processing of information to long-term memory from working memory, the processing of information from long-term memory to working memory, and a working memory that is freed from unnecessary burden or load (Martin, 2015; Paas et al., 2003; Sweller, 2003, 2004; Winne & Nesbit, 2010). From a cognitive load perspective, learning thus very much relies on building long-term memory and effectively managing working memory to facilitate this (Kirschner et al., 2006; Sweller, 2012; Winne & Nesbit, 2010). According to Kirschner and colleagues: Any instructional theory that ignores the limits of

Figure 2: Process of sensory, working, and long-term memory.

working memory when dealing with novel information or ignores the disappearance of those limits when dealing with familiar information is unlikely to be effective (2006, p.77). Indeed, cognitive load theorists suggest three goals for designing learning: reduce extraneous cognitive load, manage essential cognitive processing, and foster generative processing (Mayer, 2004; Mayer & Moreno, 2010; Moreno & Mayer, 2010). In all cases, it is recognised that cognitive capacity is limited and so it is important to reduce load on learners in order to facilitate the learning process. Notably, when dealing with familiar, organised information held in long-term memory, there are no known capacity or duration limits on working memory. Thus, students are transformed when information is transferred to long-term memory and this explains why education is transformative (Sweller, 2012).

Fluency and automaticity According to Rosenshine (1986, 2009), fluency and automaticity are vital means of reducing the burden on working memory. This occurs when information is effectively stored in long-term memory and is accessed by working memory fluently and seemingly automatically. This frees up working memory that can then be used to process new information to long-term memory, to apply ones learning, or for higher order thinking and guided discovery learning (Rosenshine, 1986, 2009). That is, as longterm memory builds and automaticity develops, the learner is ready for greater discovery, exploration, and inquiry approaches to instruction. The pedagogical approach traversing this process is herein referred to as LRI. Indeed, it is claimed that it is this automaticity that demarcates novice learners from expert learners. Expert learners derive and build their skill by drawing on the extensive information stored in long-term memory and quickly selecting and applying it to solve new problems (Kirschner et al., 2006). Accordingly, the aim of education is to increase the information held in long-term memory and this is achieved through instruction that optimises the capacity of working memory and long-term memory to process new information efficiently.

Automaticity also demarcates the student who struggles academically from the student who does not (Martin, 2015). There are some students for whom working memory (or related executive functions) is impaired. These students are more likely to be cognitively overloaded than students without such impairments. Especially for these academically at-risk students, it is important that teachers implement instructional approaches that reduce the burden on working memory.

Accommodating the boundary conditions of human cognitive architecture as relevant to learning thus relies on the teacher to structure learning material and learning activities in a way that reduces ambiguity, enhances clarity, builds in sequencing, and harnesses scaffolds. In so doing, the teacher manages the learning and instruction process in a way that optimises learner and learning efficiency. Notably, recent developments in cognitive psychology that have been applied to educational processes provide guidance on how material can be organised and presented to learners to free up working memory, optimise long-term memory, and enhance the processing of information from long-term to working memory and in so doing, realise the aims of instruction intended to reduce the cognitive burden on students (Winne & Nesbit, 2010). However, as discussed below, as fluency and automaticity develop, the cognitive load inherent in instruction may be upwardly adjusted (e.g. via independent and guided discovery learning) to match the developing expertise of the learner.

Load Reduction Instruction and evidence:

Learning and achievement In numerous empirical studies, meta-analyses and reviews, the achievement-related merits of LRI approaches are evident (Cromley

Byrnes, 2009; Lee & Anderson, 2013; Liem & Martin, 2013; Mayer, 2004). Across numerous subject domains and skill sets to be learned, LRI is positively associated with learning and/or achievement (e.g. see Cooper & Sweller, 1987; Klahr & Nigam, 2004; Matlen & Klahr, 2010; Strand-Cary & Klahr, 2008; Sweller & Cooper, 1985). In early work, Adams and Engelmann (1996) examined the effectiveness of major educational approaches (including those aligned with LRI) on numerous educational outcomes.

Findings showed that explicit instruction, for example, yielded consistently positive effects on basic skills (e.g. word recognition, spelling, math computation) and cognitive skills (e.g. reading comprehension, math problem solving). Positive effects were also observed for motivational factors and affective outcomes (e.g. self-concept, attributions to success). In a meta-analysis by Haas (2005), the most effective method of teaching algebra was deemed to be explicit instruction. Its effectiveness was attributed to the focus on appropriate pacing and both guided and independent practice.

Borman and colleagues (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of numerous school reform programs. They found that explicit instruction evinced the strongest systematic evidence of effectiveness. In a meta-analysis across 304 explicit (direct) instruction studies, Hattie (2009) ranked explicit instruction 26th out of 138 effects on achievement, placing it among the most successful outcomes (p.205). Meta-analysis by Alfieri and colleagues (2011) showed that the specific techniques emphasised under LRI-oriented frameworks moderated the effects on achievement. For example, worked examples yielded the strongest results, followed by feedback, direct teaching, and explanations. When reviewing the range of meta-analyses conducted over the past two decades, Liem and Martin (2013) concluded that LRI approaches that allow teachers to be activators of student learning (Hattie, 2009) are well placed to alleviate cognitive demands and assistworking memory and long-

20-12-2016 om 12:50 geschreven door Raf Feys

0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
Tags:instructie, werkgeheugen, geheugenbelasting

Ook het Vlaams lager onderwijs kan een en ander leren van de 'traditionele' stijl en aanpak van de beroemde & veeleisende Michaela- secundaire-school in (Engeland) Deel 1

De klassieke aanpak in het Vlaams lager onderwijs vertoonde/vertoont heel wat gelijkenis met de traditionele, systematische en veeleisende aanpak van de Michaela-secundaire- school in Engeland. Die traditionele aanpak wordt echter geregeld in vraag gesteld - ook in de ZILL-leerplanoperatie van de katholieke koepel.

Deel 1 (later volgt deel 2)

Traditionalism is explicitly knowledge-led.

Imparting knowledge is at the very centre of what it does. Whereas primary schools (in England!), however didactic in their teaching methods, tend to be more skills-focused, with whatever knowledge the skills are currently wearing being seen as more of an accessory than the educational star of the show. That children may acquire some scientific knowledge as a result of learning the scientific skill of analysing results is seen as a fortunate by-product, collateral grace, as it were. Would a shift to the Michaela knowledge-led approach be suitable for younger children?

We first need to tease out what we mean by the Michaela approach. There is

(Deel 1)
*the advocacy of explicit, didactic teaching,
*the unequivocal stress on knowledge,

(Deel 2)

* the no excuses discipline policy,
*the commitment to reduce teacher workload,
*the way it works with parents and its professional development ethos.

Let us now consider each element one by one and reflect on whether this approach would work on Michaela Prime. Theres a lot to talk about too much for one blog so Im going to split this up. In this part one Im going to look at didactic teaching and the knowledge-led curriulum.

1.Didactic teaching

As I have already argued, as far as I can see, in the primary schools I have visited as well as the ones I work in, almost all of the teaching I see from year 1 onwards involves a teacher, standing at the front of the class and telling, explaining and modelling stuff to children. (De voorbije 15 jaar was er weer meer leerkracht-geleid onderwijs in Engeland; voorheen werd meer een kind- en ontwikkelingsgericht model gepratikeerd. )

After all, sound-grapheme correspondences are hardly going to explain themselves are they? Or what each numeral represents, or the maths operator signs. You cant discover what a fronted adverbial is all by yourself. For all of this you need experts who know what they are talking about.

As a result, in primary schools, we do bucket loads of standing up the front telling children stuff.

Occasionally this might be interrupted to do a special project for a few lessons. B.v. children might respond in a groovy way to initial teacher input, but the input is still teacher-led and imparts facts. E.g. year 1 children are taught didactically by their teacher that in the past, certain materials like plastic had not yet been invented, so toys were made out of other materials such as wood, china and metal. ... If you can do something in a way that is even more interesting than recording knowledge in an exercise book and it doesnt incur huge opportunity costs along the way then why not do the more engaging of the two options. Unless we want to make a fetish of avoiding engaging opportunities at all costs and are phobic about anything that might stray into being fun. ... So with the caveat that the younger the children are, the greater the need to embed some of their reading and writing and occasionally maths in a real world context, then I dont see any problem at all in saying that the vast majority of teaching at Michaela Prime will be didactic. As it already is in most primary schools, most of the time. Especially in the mornings when we teach English and maths. More of afternoons later.

2. A knowledge-led curriculum

Dominating all else in primary schools, warping all that lies within its purview is the accountability field. Since primary schools are held accountable via sats for English and maths and not for all the other subjects we are meant to teach, English and maths get the lions share of everything.

Now I really dont want to get too bogged down in the arid skills versus knowledge debate, which often seems to turn on semantics, but it seems to me that in learning English and maths learning how to use these tools (skills) is just as important and takes up more time than learning the knowledge inherent in these disciplines.

Certainly, previously there has been a tendency to see English and maths as all skill. Whereas reading and writing cannot even get started without knowing what words mean, what the sound-grapheme correspondences are, what the graphemes look like. However being able to blend those phonemes together into an actual word is surely a skill and one that can take some children a really long time to learn. Similarly, children just have to learn that certain numerals correspond to certain quantities whereas other squiggles are instructions (or operators) to do something with the numerals.

And while Id go to the stake for saying that children need to have automatic recall of their number bonds to and within first 10 and then then 20 and excellent times table knowledge, they also need to understand when multiplying numbers might be more useful than adding them. Is this a skill or knowledge? There are limits on transmission teaching especially in maths. I can explain to you again and again why multiplication is a quicker, more efficient method than using repeated addition, but at some point, each individual child has to get why to see it for themselves in some magical internal process that cant be drilled into being, but has to bedare I saydiscovered? But not discovered in a vacuum discovered by scaffolding from an expert other, as Vygotsky put it.

However, it is fair to say that in the stress primary teachers lay on children really grasping what the maths they are taught actually mean, there has, hitherto, been some throwing out of the baby with the bathwater. Not enough time spent on learning times tables, for example although the demands of first the SATS mental arithmetic test and now the arithmetic paper mean that every school I know has been drilling children in these for at least the last 5 years.

10 years ago we would have shied away from drilling until we were really sure the children understood what multiplication actually means these days we get that some children learn by rote and then understand whereas others understand and then learn by rote. My bête noire is poor knowledge of number bonds. How many children become overwhelmed by maths around about year 4 because they are still counting 5+7 on their fingers?! No wonder they find understanding column methods hard because all their working memory is taken up counting on from one 1-digit number to another. I blame the numeracy strategy for over-prioritising number lines over partitioning methods (5+7=5+5+2=12) that involve calculation allied with instant recall. We need to spend far longer on ensuring no child leaves ks1 without all their number bonds in and within 10 secure. Never mind the phonics check, bring in a number bonds check too even more important but harder to learn than times tables. We teach using the mathsmastery curriculum which does devote a considerable amount of time to number bonds. Not enough for all children to have them securely, unfortunately. So we drill the children in them frequently, often using this marvellous game (which also tests table knowledge for those further along the line).
So what with reading, writing and maths dominating the curriculum and teachers perceiving what they are doing as teaching skills (even though in fact they teach a fair bit of knowledge), and knowledge-heavy subjects such as history, geography and science having miniscule amounts of curriculum time, knowledge has taken a bit of a back seat. Or possibly has been relegated to the boot. So in the afternoons when primary schools finally get around to teaching something that isnt English or maths, at that point, it may be that some schools maybe most (who really knows) come over all progressive.

I confess a good few years ago we did have a brief dalliance with the International Primary Curriculum which does operate in a progressive paradigm both in terms of what the teacher does and what is taught; students first researching whatever they are meant to be learning about and then recording it. Its actually really hard for 9-year-olds to research stuff properly. The teacher usually ends up telling them or making resources where the knowledge they need is so explicit that they might as well have cut out the middle man and just told them in the first place. The naturally curious, self-motivated middle class girls quite liked it; everyone else found it frustrating and boring.

The IPC used to market itself by telling us about its exciting year 3 topic on chocolate. The logic seemed to be, because chocolate is nice to eat, learning about the history of chocolate will be more interesting than learning about the history of the Romans.

Actually both are fascinating but which is more important? Which is more powerful in helping you understand more about British and European history, how Christianity became a global religion?

Knowledge may be power, but some knowledge is more powerful than others. Since curriculum time is a precious, finite resource, we must spend it wisely on teaching areas with the biggest pay-offs for the children. The IPC developed in the context of International schools serving Western children of the oil industry employees in Middle Eastern states where learning about the Tudors was irrelevant to, say, Dutch, Swedish and Bengali children growing up in Qatar. So it intentionally had topics that were as generic as possible, focusing on transferable skills.

But for schools based in Britain, surely learning mainly about British history makes sense. And just as importantly, which has more resources readily available to the hard-pressed teacher, Aztecs or Romans? Which is more likely to further skew the teachers work:life balance in the direction of burnout?

I think we can all take it as read that they wont be doing the IPC at Michaela Prime. I think theyll be doing something more like what we started this September influenced a great deal by what I had read about Michaela and in particular blogs written by staff who work there.

I remember being particularly shocked when I read something by the headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh saying that we should expect children to remember the knowledge we teach them so that 5 years after we taught it, they still know it. I was shocked not because I disagreed but because up until then, I hadnt ever thought about what we taught the children except in English, maths and possibly science in that way. Before reading Katharine, if the National Curriculum said to teach year 4 the Aztecs, wed teach it. Whether they remembered anything about the Aztecs by the time they got to year 5 was not something that had ever, in my wildest dreams, occurred to me. But now someone had said it, of course it was important.

Why were we teaching history to primary pupils anyway? (Secret generally understood guilty primary teacher answer: to get them to do more writing, without calling it literacy and maybe to up the amount of art they do I mean writing in role as a soldier stationed at Hadrians Wall and making a papier mâché Egyptian mummy is history, isnt it?) So with Katharines words ringing in my ears, and then reading all about knowledge organisers from Joe Kirby and how they specify, in meticulous detail, the exact facts, dates, events, characters, concepts and precise definitions that all pupils are expected to master in long-term memory, I took another look at our curriculum and decided we could do better.

The overweening problem in the primary curriculum is time. With the mornings colonised by English and maths, that leaves us with 10 hours a week to teach 10 subjects plus PHSE, or 7 and a half if we want to include an end of day story, which we do. In our school, PE and music take up one afternoon being taught by specialists while teachers have PPA and French another part afternoon. So that leaves geography, history, RE, art, DT, science and computing crammed into 3 afternoons. 171 hours a year or, if we divide time equally between these 7, 28 and a half hours each a year.

Our solution was to divide the year into 3 week curriculum blocks, each fitting into a 12 week term. So in each term a year group will study four different subjects, each for 3 weeks*[2]. When the 3 weeks are over, even if the teacher hasnt finished, they have to start the next block on the next subject. This focuses the mind wonderfully unlike our old block system where topics went on and on endlessly and then we ran out of time for certain subjects altogether. Sometimes these terms are shorter than calendar terms for example in the Autumn term weve just had there were two spare weeks at the end for a mini topic on Christmas which included RE (based on some element of the significance of Christmas for Christians), rehearsing and doing a nativity play, a literacy focus on poems with a Christmas theme and a Christmas party.
Next term is 12 weeks and the final term is 13, giving us a spare week at the end of the year for taking your new class for a couple of days, doing some art for your new classroom, learning some more poems (we have a poetry week at the end of every half term with all classes learning a poem by heart and performing it on the Friday) some extra phse reflecting on the year and having a class party. When Easter is earlier it does mean the second term gets split across the Easter holidays which is annoying. Personally I am all in favour of decimalising the date of Easter but since I am unlikely to be Pope anytime soon, I doubt thats an argument Im going to win.

The teachers like the new system. It makes them feel less guilty. On top of everything else teachers endure, they feel guilt about not being able to teach all the subjects properly because there isnt enough time as if they had any control over that. Now they dont feel guilty. I say you must teach geography for the next three weeks and then stop and they do.

The finite number of lessons and not too distant cut off point make planning a sequence of 9 lessons really straightforward. No timewasting fluffy activities, lots of whole class reading and then some writing but proper geographical writing, not literacy with a vague geographical theme. Yes, Egyptian mummies and Roman shields still get made in art lessons! We can still use a topic approach the artwork just comes after the humanities. Often the humanities learning links to what we are learning in literacy. For example, year 4 study Beowolf in English, learn about the Saxons and Vikings in history and make a fabulous Grendel in art. The children seem to like it too. Certainly it could be dry and boring in the hands of a teacher with poor expository skills, but any teacher worth their salt will be able to bring the subject alive and make it engaging in its own right.

At Michaela they have subject teams who produce subject booklets for each year group. This is not an approach that transfers easily to a one form entry primary school! The main problems with introducing a knowledge-led curriculum into primary schools would seem to be logistical rather than pedagogical. We are not subject specialists.

There may well not be a single person on the staff team who has an A level let along a degree in the subject we want help with. Text books for the topics we want to teach dont exist. Non fiction books are expensive and not always pitched at the level wed want. For art and computing, we buy in expert help. For the content heavy humanities plus science, weve had a go this year. These CGP books for ks2 history were a start but contain far more information that it is possible to cover in the time given but we really need to write better material for ourselves for next year. That will be our job for staff meetings in the summer term.

At Michaela they do two trips a year the whole year group going out at the same time. I dont know whats typical for a secondary school, although I dont think my own children went much more frequently. However, Id want more trips than that. Maybe if the school were situated somewhere remote the cost:benefit analysis would be different, but since we are situated just outside the City of London and have three museums in walking distance (The Museum of London, the Museum of Childhood and the Geffreye Museum) and can get to Tate Modern and St Pauls Cathedral in 20 minutes on a bus and the South Kensington museums in not much longer, it would be criminal not to exploit this, especially since not many of our children visit this sort of place with their families. We tend to do a trip every half term trying to get it to fall within the weeks when that particular block is occurring. On top of that we have visitors into school the London Sinfonia with year 1, for example, or Spitalfields Music with years 3 and 5, or various arts organisations. Where possible we schedule these to happen in the morning to interrupt English and maths- subjects that get plenty of air time, rather than taking precious time away from subjects that do not get enough time anyway. Of course, trips need to be planned well to augment what is going on in class and not just as a diversion.

But how do we make sure that children remember what we have taught them? At Michaela the knowledge organisers are revised for homework. Pupils quiz themselves on one knowledge organiser from one subject every night. They cover up the concept, write out the definition and then check they have got it right, checking themselves again and again for at least 30 minutes until they are sure they are ready for their quiz in class the next day. Would that work with primary pupils?

At primary school, our first priorities are that children learn to read fluently and for pleasure and know their times tables and number bonds. Nothing is more important for their learning than this. So while we do give children their knowledge organisers for homework, it is a lot less intense than the Michaela regime, since we want them reading at home and learning their number facts at home. And doing some Matheletics.
So, the weekend prior to each block, the knowledge organiser is taken home and shared with parents. This is a good way of parents knowing what their child will be learning in the coming weeks. They are encouraged to read their knowledge organiser every day. Then the first weekend of the first week of the block, children do a multiple choice quiz with their parents based on the knowledge organiser, which they are encouraged to consult to find any answers they do not yet know.

The second weekend they do a second quiz, again consulting their organiser if they need to, then on the last Friday they do a final quiz in school without their knowledge organiser. Almost all children score 9/10 or 10/10 in these final quizzes. But here is the important part.

As Joe Kirby reminds us in his chapter on homework as revision, the overwhelming consensus from cognitive science is that we should quiz ourselves frequently on stuff we have learnt as testing, especially testing a few weeks after material has been learnt, interrupts forgetting. We havent been doing this long enough for us to see whether children actually are retaining information in the longer term. But Im certainly going to introduce end of year super quizzes to gauge how well it has worked. One thing I havent done yet is gather all the knowledge organisers and quizzes into one knowledge book; for each year group. This is then used not only for revision but also a source of work for if a teacher is off sick, a child is sent out of class or hasnt got their library book or PE kit etc. Then they read their knowledge book.

In conclusion, then, the didactic teacher-led approach of Michaela is easily transferable to a primary setting mainly because that is pretty much what most primary schools do anyway, at least from year 1 up and with the possible exception of the afternoons. Having a knowledge-led curriculum would have practical challenges given the primary teachers are generalists, and that the primary curriculum is ludicrously over full, but there is nothing inappropriate about a knowledge-led curriculum per se for younger children.

What Katharine and the Michaela gang have done is move the Overton window of educational debate towards the traditional. ...Only a very few of years ago, traditional teaching would have been laughed out of town. Now discussion of it flows through the blogosphere, the Battle Hymn is flying off the shelves and people flock to see Michaela with their own eyes.Kan het basisonderwijs

26-12-2016 om 10:25 geschreven door Raf Feys

24-12-2016 om 15:46 geschreven door Raf Feys

24-12-2016 om 15:42 geschreven door Raf Feys

24-12-2016 om 15:40 geschreven door Raf Feys

23-12-2016 om 14:46 geschreven door Raf Feys

23-12-2016 om 11:16 geschreven door Raf Feys

23-12-2016 om 10:18 geschreven door Raf Feys

23-12-2016 om 00:00 geschreven door Raf Feys

22-12-2016 om 18:15 geschreven door Raf Feys

22-12-2016 om 15:38 geschreven door Raf Feys

22-12-2016 om 12:00 geschreven door Raf Feys

21-12-2016 om 14:31 geschreven door Raf Feys

21-12-2016 om 00:00 geschreven door Raf Feys

20-12-2016 om 18:50 geschreven door Raf Feys

20-12-2016 om 12:50 geschreven door Raf Feys

19-12-2016 om 16:27 geschreven door Raf Feys

18-12-2016 om 17:20 geschreven door Raf Feys

18-12-2016 om 17:08 geschreven door Raf Feys

18-12-2016 om 17:00 geschreven door Raf Feys

18-12-2016 om 16:55 geschreven door Raf Feys