Teach Secondary 13.7

Know your limits There’s an overwhelming quantity of educational research literature out there – only a fraction of which is actually important for teachers to know, argues Colin Foster ... D o you ever feel guilty for not being more knowledgeable about the latest developments in education research? Perhaps you’re one of those teachers who’ll happily dip into the research literature from time to time, in the hope of finding some useful information that might improve your teaching in some way. Often, however, seemingly relevant articles can be hard to access, locked behind paywalls or turn out to be written in near-impenetrable jargon. And even when you do manage to decode what they’re saying, they will frequently seem to state the obvious – things that surely every teacher knows, and has been doing every day of their career. Conversely, there will be some studies and papers addressing questions that no teacher ever thinks or cares about, with little practical relevance to the classroom. Given all this, why do any of us bother? Useful knowledge It’s worth considering what kinds of technical and research knowledge pertaining to education would actually be useful for teachers to have. Knowledge is always a good thing, of course – gaining knowledge is never going to make things worse – but given the many demands on teachers’ precious time, what kinds of information from the research literature should teachers prioritise finding out more about? And how much of it will really matter to classroom teachers? I was thinking about this recently, as I’ve been learning to swim. I can’t presently swim, but I do have a science degree, and know plenty of theory about how floating and sinking and swimming work. In this respect, at least, I’m the classic ‘armchair expert’ who is of no use in practice. I take lessons with a very good swimming teacher who is highly experienced and came well recommended. To be clear, I have no problems with him at all. However, I’ve noticed lately that he seems to display some of the classic misconceptions around floating and sinking that are well known to school science teachers. For example, he told me that it’s easier to swim in deeper water, since there’s more water underneath ‘ to hold you up ’. This isn’t how floating works, and is a commonmisunderstanding, possibly stemming from the (true) fact that air pressure is lower at the top of a mountain because there’s less weight of atmosphere pushing down on you from above. In case you’re wondering, no, I didn’t try to correct him! Maybe he’s right that it is somehow easier to swim in deeper water. I imagine he would know about something like that – but even if he is correct, his explanation for it is still wrong. And this got me thinking – does that matter ? It’s better to be right than wrong, of course. But would he be a superior swimming teacher if he had better scientific knowledge regarding such phenomena?Would it make much, or even any difference at all? Empirical generalisations We see this sort of thing all the time. A driving instructor will explain to the learner how the car’s gears work, to help the learner make better use of them. The learner happens to be a garage mechanic, and knows that the instructor’s explanation is a bit wrong – yet the instructor has nevertheless become a very good driver, presumably in part by basing their gear changing on this wrong understanding. Similarly, my swimming teacher has become a very good swimmer – and perhaps swimming teacher – without his misconception seeming to do himmuch harm. The psychologist Daniel Willinghamhas argued that the most useful kind of knowledge for teachers are what he calls empirical generalisations (see bit.ly/ ts137-TK1) – well-evidenced truths about the nature of learning, manifested consistently across many different “Empirical generalisations aremore useful to teachers than the latest scientific theories” teachwire.net/secondary 34