Science Education News (SEN) Journal 2017 Volume 66 Number 4 December 2017 | Page 47

GENERAL ARTICLES
Simplistic Advice for Teachers on How to Teach Won’t Work
By Vaughan Prain and Russell Tytler
way to teach. In this approach, the emphasis is on teachers
explicitly explaining course material, rather than highly-active
student roles.
These strategies seem plausible, but we have concerns about their
narrow view of teacher practice, their unconvincing “scientific”
evidence base, and their limited view of the curriculum, teacher
and student roles, and the capabilities required of students this
century.
Narrow teacher practice
These strategies may be individually useful, but fail to explain why,
when and how (and how often) any strategy might be used alone
or in combination with others. These lists also fail to recognise
that effective teaching is built on positive relationships with
students as individuals and as a class, and on responsiveness
and creativity in teacher practice.
Teachers must use their professional understanding and
reasoning to assess the value of the proposed strategies and
when, how and why they should be incorporated into their
teaching
Measurement methods
As noted in the work of multiple education experts, there are
flaws in the statistical methods on which these claims are based.
The main problems relate to how effect sizes are calculated
and comparing them across different contexts. Behind these
seductively precise numbers lie studies that vary considerably in
context, design and outcomes.
Big data analysis is now widespread in many fields, including
education. Education systems look for large-scale evidence-
based accounts of “what works” to frame teaching and learning
policy.
At the very least, teachers need to use their own professional
understanding and practical reasoning to assess the value of
the proposed strategies and when, how and why they should be
incorporated into their teaching. More analysis is also necessary
to identify the conditions under which what versions of these
strategies are useful.
After trying many methods, it seems timely and reasonable to use
big data sets, or aggregations of multiple studies, to identify effect
sizes of different teaching strategies and advise teachers on how
to optimise learning. Effect sizes entail comparisons of the extent
of learning outcomes, usually measured by standardised tests.
Departments of Education in Victoria and NSW are now applying
this approach to teacher guidance.
The limited curriculum
While this drive to base advice on solid evidence is positive,
the type of evidence being selected is questionable. It tends to
distort accounts of teaching and learning.
The strategies outlined in HITs also imply a very traditional view
of learning as mastery of pre-packaged teacher content. They
fail to suggest how teachers might promote student creativity,
critical thinking and problem-solving.
The first example is the Victorian High Impact Teaching
Strategies (HITS). Teachers are encouraged to set clear goals,
structure lessons, teach through explanation, model solutions,
provide feedback on what students should do next, let students
collaborate, and adjust each learning experience to individual
learners’ needs.
These lists also fail to acknowledge the possibility of students
making reasoning moves outside those orchestrated by the
teacher. By this we mean students might come up with productive
contributions that might surpass what the teacher has planned
for.
The second is the New South Wales example. Teachers are
advised that explicit teaching, based on effect size, is the best
However, these student capabilities are now seen as crucial
in many national curricula for promoting individual, group and
47
SCIENCE EDUCATIONAL NEWS VOL 66 NO 4