It is probably true that many primary schools continue to improve their effectiveness at teaching reading and writing. This improvement is a result of teacher knowledge about how best to teach reading and writing changing, and as teachers becoming aware they need to be explicit, work hard to check for understanding and build student knowledge.
The habit of planning and teaching explicitly also means reflective teachers and leaders are evaluating how effectively integrated or inquiry units are at building knowledge. I think, hope, that this means a move towards a more subject based approach to science and each of the humanities areas.
I like the idea that Tom Sherrington talks about in his book ‘The Learning Rainforest’ where he describes Mode A and Mode B teaching, as long as the Mode A teaching is the predominant method. It is a great framework for schools to evaluate what they do.
I also hope that the thinking about how important building subject knowledge is to reading, translates into looking more seriously at the flaws of self-selected independent reading that proliferates in primary schools.
Your experience of working on inquiry projects outside your area of expertise really resonates. I have also seen the folly of ‘real world” problems being presented to 12-13 year olds with little real world knowledge - resulting in all but the most able, being dis-engaged.
It’s interesting that whenever PBL is questioned, the reason for a lack of evidence in its favour is almost always “You’re not doing it right.” I’m glad you could back me on this Carolyn.
My place tried it over successive years in various formats ranging from week long off timetable intensives to shorter projects. It was quite unpopular with students and staff. It has been more effective within the usual classes, with subject teachers running their own inquiries however the less able students still struggle. When you pre-load vocab and scaffold heavily I’ve seen it work - but is that then explicit teaching followed by applied problem solving?
It is probably true that many primary schools continue to improve their effectiveness at teaching reading and writing. This improvement is a result of teacher knowledge about how best to teach reading and writing changing, and as teachers becoming aware they need to be explicit, work hard to check for understanding and build student knowledge.
The habit of planning and teaching explicitly also means reflective teachers and leaders are evaluating how effectively integrated or inquiry units are at building knowledge. I think, hope, that this means a move towards a more subject based approach to science and each of the humanities areas.
I like the idea that Tom Sherrington talks about in his book ‘The Learning Rainforest’ where he describes Mode A and Mode B teaching, as long as the Mode A teaching is the predominant method. It is a great framework for schools to evaluate what they do.
I also hope that the thinking about how important building subject knowledge is to reading, translates into looking more seriously at the flaws of self-selected independent reading that proliferates in primary schools.
Your experience of working on inquiry projects outside your area of expertise really resonates. I have also seen the folly of ‘real world” problems being presented to 12-13 year olds with little real world knowledge - resulting in all but the most able, being dis-engaged.
It’s interesting that whenever PBL is questioned, the reason for a lack of evidence in its favour is almost always “You’re not doing it right.” I’m glad you could back me on this Carolyn.
My place tried it over successive years in various formats ranging from week long off timetable intensives to shorter projects. It was quite unpopular with students and staff. It has been more effective within the usual classes, with subject teachers running their own inquiries however the less able students still struggle. When you pre-load vocab and scaffold heavily I’ve seen it work - but is that then explicit teaching followed by applied problem solving?