The inquiring teacher: Clarifying the concept of ‘teaching effectiveness’


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The inquiring teacher: Clarifying the concept of ‘teaching effectiveness’

  1. 1. The inquiring teacher: Clarifying the concept of ‘teaching effectiveness’ To support the First-time Principals Programme Module 2: Elements of teaching effectiveness
  2. 2. Three views of ‘teaching effectiveness’: <ul><li>the ‘style’ view </li></ul><ul><li>the ‘outcomes’ view </li></ul><ul><li>the ‘inquiry’ view </li></ul><ul><li>It will be argued that the INQUIRY framework offers the most defensible conceptualization of teaching effectiveness. </li></ul><ul><li>. </li></ul>
  3. 3. The style view Teaching actions Student outcomes
  4. 4. Effective teachers (style view)… <ul><li>Personality characteristics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>display warmth </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Teaching techniques </li></ul><ul><ul><li>provide an overview at the start of teaching something new </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Teaching approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>minimise the amount of time they are teaching the whole class from the front (direct instruction) </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. The style view Teaching actions Student outcomes FLAW 2 Debates about research findings FLAW 3 Complex context FLAW 1 Looks in wrong place
  6. 6. Flaw 1 (style view) <ul><li>Looks in the wrong place </li></ul><ul><li>What the teacher demonstrates (against a predetermined list of qualities deemed to be “effective”) rather than what is happening for the students . </li></ul>
  7. 7. Flaw 2 (style view) <ul><li>Debates about research findings </li></ul><ul><li>It assumes that the research generalizations are unequivocal. </li></ul><ul><li>But consider the debates about : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the use of rewards, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the role of questioning in discussion, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the use of storytelling and narrative in history </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>phonics and whole language. </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Flaw 3 (style view) <ul><li>Complex context </li></ul><ul><li>The teaching – outcomes relationship is complicated by context: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>nature of the students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the subject being taught </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the time of day </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the nature of the teaching environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the availability of resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>personal mood. </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. The style view The overriding question must always be: In the time available, which pedagogical pathway is likely to lead students to the biggest pot of educational gold? (Ackerman, 2003) <ul><ul><li>It is not what the teacher does </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>that matters – </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>it is what is happening for the students . </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. The outcomes approach Teaching actions Student outcomes
  11. 11. Teaching effectiveness (outcomes approach) <ul><li>... is determined by what students achieve. </li></ul><ul><li>The effectiveness of teachers is best determined by: </li></ul><ul><li>comparing the achievement of the students they teach. </li></ul><ul><li>comparing the added value they contribute to the achievement of the students they teach. </li></ul>
  12. 12. The outcomes approach Teaching actions Student outcomes FLAW 2 Diminishes student contribution FLAW 3 Measurement of learning FLAW 1 Prior knowledge
  13. 13. Flaw 1 (outcomes approach) Prior knowledge is a powerful influence on achievement. Unfair to compare summative achievements of students and to attribute the difference to superior or inferior teaching.
  14. 14. Flaw 2 (outcomes approach) <ul><li>Linking achievement to teaching actions diminishes the role of the student’s : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>personal organisation, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>interest, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>motivation, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>personal attributions of success or failure, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>beliefs about and motivations for particular subjects and tasks. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Influence rather than change. </li></ul>
  15. 15. Flaw 3 (outcomes approach) <ul><li>The complexities of measurement : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>socio-economic factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>bias to the easily measured </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>external assistance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ black” box. </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. The outcomes approach <ul><ul><li>While the assessment of teaching effectiveness must attend to student outcomes and a teacher’s role in developing these, outcomes do not determine effectiveness. </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. The inquiry approach More than style and it is more than outcomes . Continual interrogation of the relationship between these two dimensions with the aim of enhancing student achievement . Quality of inquiry into the relationship between teaching actions and student learning.
  18. 18. The inquiry approach Evidence 1 Question posing Data collection and analysis Teaching actions Student outcomes Inquiry 2 What are the possibilities? Evidence 2 Craft knowledge Researcher knowledge Working hypothesis Inquiry 1 What is happening? The cycle of inquiry established by the processes of Inquiry 1 and Inquiry 2 enhances the opportunity for teachers to learn about their own practice, and students to increase their engagement and success. Opportunity to Learn Pre- Inquiry What is worth spending time on?
  19. 19. Inquiry 1 Impact of teaching actions on student outcomes <ul><li>Posing questions about: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>outcomes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>alignment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>engagement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>success. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Collection of high quality evidence : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>student achievement data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>teacher documentation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>classroom observation: student responses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>student feedback. </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Inquiry 2 Identifying possibilities for improvement <ul><li>Sources: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the experiences of other teachers ( craft knowledge ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>researcher knowledge . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Seeking: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>strongest possible warrants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>evidence of impact on student learning. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Outcome: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>working hypotheses. </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Attitudes <ul><li>Openness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ordered, deliberate analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ideas from all sources. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Fallibility </li></ul><ul><ul><li>conjectures not absolute truths </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>hypotheses may fail but that it is important to keep searching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>searching for disconfirming evidence . </li></ul></ul>