A more recent piece of research about student behaviour in australia could be good. Beaman is from 2007... well before the cataclysmic changes in the experience of our young people, brought about by e.g. social media and all teens having phones. 😬
The overall explanation of practices resonates with good classroom management techniques, and I particularly agree with the call out of how involuntary response protocols builds more accountability and therefore leads to fewer off task behaviors. My only wondering is whether there is a confounding variable here that educators and schools that use explicit instruction are also more likely to use structured routines and response protocols and not that there is anything about inquiry based learning that would prevent the use of these structures. I use both explicit instruction and inquiry learning in my classroom and my inquiry cycle group work is highly structured and routinized for students. I have not seen any difference in the amount of disruptive behavior from students during the different parts of the lesson because I’m applying the same high expectations and engagement protocols throughout, but I believe my highly structured approach to inquiry is less common. I’m curious if you have seen any studies that tried to hold those variables constant between the teaching methods.
You've hit on something a lot of people miss--inquiry-based learning (or project-based or group-based, etc.) isn't a free-for-all. It takes a lot of work (like, A LOT) on the part of the teacher to structure these activities so that they go off well. Work that you clearly are doing. Explicit instruction with a certain type of classroom management is...well...easier. I've certainly had classes where I chose the easier route, so no judgment. Like you, I don't believe in either-ors; a combination of techniques is the most effective form of teaching.
I feel like “highly structured” may be too vague of a term or could at least be defined in many ways. For example, the “structures” I used with inquiry are a routine way of assigning student groups via random picker wheel, use and reinforcement of consistent discussion norms (help, don’t tell or disagree with ideas, not people), and protocols for debrief (partner board swap, gallery walk, or one group teaches out). It’s more about using explicitly taught and reinforced routines that reinforce classroom management and then free up student thinking for engagement with inquiry and teacher focus on prompting student thinking rather than managing behavior. Is this similar to what you had in mind?
To an extent. All structure improves inquiry. But adding more of the teacher into instruction seems to make the difference. There is some research on PISA that shows that the teacher led inquiry survey questions shift inquiry from ineffective to more effective. So just the addition of “teacher explains…” rather than “students do x…” can mean the difference between learning happening and not happening.
Hi James, for this research it would be identified by teachers providing structure through breaking down tasks, opportunities to practise and then eventual independence and mastery
Work I did at a low SES, low performing school several years ago would support this. Year 8 focus was structured (not scripted), focus on explicit teaching. The added benefit beyond student learning and performance was self-esteem. The boys felt better about themselves as learners because they were scaffolded through the T/L cycle to achieve independence and success. Thanks, Rebecca.
I really appreciate this focus on application and effect of explicit instruction in the secondary context. So much discussion has thus far centred on its use in the primary setting.
Pleasure :)
A more recent piece of research about student behaviour in australia could be good. Beaman is from 2007... well before the cataclysmic changes in the experience of our young people, brought about by e.g. social media and all teens having phones. 😬
I think Angus is more recent.
I watched the fascinating video on Ms. Quinn's class in maths. How would something like this work in the Humanities or social sciences?
Do you mean Dani Quinn? We will be looking at the Humanities on our podcast soon.
The overall explanation of practices resonates with good classroom management techniques, and I particularly agree with the call out of how involuntary response protocols builds more accountability and therefore leads to fewer off task behaviors. My only wondering is whether there is a confounding variable here that educators and schools that use explicit instruction are also more likely to use structured routines and response protocols and not that there is anything about inquiry based learning that would prevent the use of these structures. I use both explicit instruction and inquiry learning in my classroom and my inquiry cycle group work is highly structured and routinized for students. I have not seen any difference in the amount of disruptive behavior from students during the different parts of the lesson because I’m applying the same high expectations and engagement protocols throughout, but I believe my highly structured approach to inquiry is less common. I’m curious if you have seen any studies that tried to hold those variables constant between the teaching methods.
You've hit on something a lot of people miss--inquiry-based learning (or project-based or group-based, etc.) isn't a free-for-all. It takes a lot of work (like, A LOT) on the part of the teacher to structure these activities so that they go off well. Work that you clearly are doing. Explicit instruction with a certain type of classroom management is...well...easier. I've certainly had classes where I chose the easier route, so no judgment. Like you, I don't believe in either-ors; a combination of techniques is the most effective form of teaching.
I think when inquiry is highly structured it probably isn’t really inquiry any more. My research is looking into this.
I feel like “highly structured” may be too vague of a term or could at least be defined in many ways. For example, the “structures” I used with inquiry are a routine way of assigning student groups via random picker wheel, use and reinforcement of consistent discussion norms (help, don’t tell or disagree with ideas, not people), and protocols for debrief (partner board swap, gallery walk, or one group teaches out). It’s more about using explicitly taught and reinforced routines that reinforce classroom management and then free up student thinking for engagement with inquiry and teacher focus on prompting student thinking rather than managing behavior. Is this similar to what you had in mind?
To an extent. All structure improves inquiry. But adding more of the teacher into instruction seems to make the difference. There is some research on PISA that shows that the teacher led inquiry survey questions shift inquiry from ineffective to more effective. So just the addition of “teacher explains…” rather than “students do x…” can mean the difference between learning happening and not happening.
Couldn’t agree more and my three teens concur - teachers take (or fail to take) a methodical, interactive lead and students follow suit…
Yes, students have no trouble meeting low expectations
Precisely!!!
I’ve taught for 22 years and I completely agree!
Thank you for sharing. I've only just come across your page but really enjoyed this. How are you defining explicit instruction?
Hi James, for this research it would be identified by teachers providing structure through breaking down tasks, opportunities to practise and then eventual independence and mastery
Work I did at a low SES, low performing school several years ago would support this. Year 8 focus was structured (not scripted), focus on explicit teaching. The added benefit beyond student learning and performance was self-esteem. The boys felt better about themselves as learners because they were scaffolded through the T/L cycle to achieve independence and success. Thanks, Rebecca.
I really appreciate this focus on application and effect of explicit instruction in the secondary context. So much discussion has thus far centred on its use in the primary setting.
Yes and it’s needed just as much in secondary, especially if it impacts behaviour