Agreed - much more labour intensive in the lesson for the teacher than allowing students to 'discover' things for themselves however, so much more engaging, effective and efficient. Avoiding the 'who can tell me..?" questioning and moving to picking non-volunteers for answers takes a little practice but once you set up a classroom culture where it is safe to make mistakes and students cannot 'opt-out' everyone benefits. Lemov has a great chapter on this in Teach Like a Champion.
Yes, the safety is key. One of the surprising things that my students connected was that the EDI made them also feel like they could ASK more questions of me. I think that constant back and forth, the concistency of seeing their peers give wrong answers without judgement, and then the praise and affirmation that comes with right answers creates a great culture of safety.
This was the kind of model I tried to use for most of my teaching career in the UK because as Carolyn O'Connor notes it is much more "engaging, effective and efficient". Over time I was able to develop my teaching and improved my practice thanks to Dylan Wiliam who introduced me to the enormously powerful "hands down" approach to asking questions (Wiliam refers to 'hinge' questions which are , planned in advance of the lesson) and the use of mini whiteboards to get instant (formative) feedback. I think the model you describe Rebecca should be the one all teachers use but I know that there is still such a long way to go. When I moved to international schools using the IB MYP programme, I was told that I had to be a facilitator, a "guide on the side" and I witnessed first hand how an inquiry based approach was not just highly inefficient but disempowered the teacher and disenfranchised the student. This, unfortunately, is still the norm in such 'progressive' schools and indeed in my own daughter's Australian primary school
It's a lot easier with low variance curriculum, I think. If curriculum is detailed then we can spend more time on those hinge questions and make sure they're doing what they're meant to do. Great to chat again.
My thought sequence reading this as a teacher in the US with more than 25 years experience:
1. Oh, this (minus the acronym) is one of the strategies they taught us in my M.Ed. program in the mid-1990s. It was seen as very cutting edge and made sense but then it went away. (At least in theory if not necessarily in practice.)
2. This is brilliant! I love it!
3. Oh, wait. Isn't this just kind of what we dinosaurs/reactionaries do all the time when nobody is watching?
Thanks for this Rebecca. This is a fantastic, concise step-by-step guide to a timeless method repackaged for a new era.
TBH I don't know how old it is. I know it's not exactly new. Yes, it was funny working in a proressive school - when the stakes were high, teachers would shut their doors and get on with explicit teaching in private. When the results were great, the school was able to celebrate their amazing progressive methods. High irony.
I don't think it's technically the same method per se. It's just that educational theorists who actually base their methods on research keep being forced to rediscover good teaching every time fashionable experts convince school leaders to thow it out for a generation or so!
TAPPLE is one strategy for imparting core knowledge. But there seems to be a missed opportunity here. Sure, Junior just learned the three kinds of rocks but what wasn’t learned BECAUSE of the mostly didactic process, was courage, or patience, or humility , or accountability or dozens of other meta skills that are as useful as knowing igneous rocks come from lava.
Now you may be thinking, that’s what sports, scouts, church and parents are for, and you wouldn’t be wrong. Much of our character development happens in these places.
But what if the teacher could choreograph this meta-learning alongside concept accretion. What if Junior walked out of the classroom, not only knowing the three kinds of rocks, but was also more honest, more self-aware, more magnanimous, more gracious, more able to separate the music from the noise? Times 16 years of formal education, imagine how different our world would look.
"I have a theory that this is part of workload issues for senior teachers: we spend a lot of our time mopping up all the guinea-pig teaching that happens in the younger years." That is both wrong and offensive. I have lots of experience working with both primary and secondary teachers and I can say for certain that primary teachers have a greater skill level than secondary.
yeah it's something my old boss Patrick Griffin used to talk about… University tutors blame high school teachers who blame primary teachers who blame Parents. When really we just all need to deal with the learners in front of us. it's not a very productive mode of thinking otherwise
I didn’t realise this post was 2 years old but I’m commenting anyway. I’ve been using TAPPLE with students’ names written on wooden sticks, and pre-planned questions however my main issue is getting students to actually do the pair-share.
I’m not sure if this is just a me problem but most of the time when I ask students a question about something I’ve just taught, they just don’t do the pair-share. Even though the answer is probably on the PowerPoint, or was just said by me 10 seconds earlier. Students just continue glazing at their laptops, even though I’m actively telling them (even by name) to tell the answer to the person next to them. When they are inevitably picked, they read the question slowly and form an answer in real time which is a huge pace killer and a waste of time.
I’m not really sure what to do about this. I’m not sure that laptops are the main cause of this either. I think even if there were no devices in the room students would still not do the pair-share and would just talk to their friend about something else. I’m determined to continue with this though because I know it works. Maybe I’m implementing it wrong. Any advice?
Hey James, I would try one thing at a time. First, move to no laptops during that instruction phase. Second, rehearse how a pair share is done. Depends on the age but give them a personal question like "what was the best part of yesterday" and rehearse partner A and Partner B. Last thing, try a think write pair share. It might take a little longer but you might get there. This is pretty common these days but worth persisting!
This post highlights the value of Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI) and the TAPPLE method in ensuring clear teaching and quick feedback. The key is balancing structure with flexibility, adapting to students’ needs, including gifted learners. Ultimately, it’s about using these tools to help students truly understand and grow.
Agreed - much more labour intensive in the lesson for the teacher than allowing students to 'discover' things for themselves however, so much more engaging, effective and efficient. Avoiding the 'who can tell me..?" questioning and moving to picking non-volunteers for answers takes a little practice but once you set up a classroom culture where it is safe to make mistakes and students cannot 'opt-out' everyone benefits. Lemov has a great chapter on this in Teach Like a Champion.
Yes, the safety is key. One of the surprising things that my students connected was that the EDI made them also feel like they could ASK more questions of me. I think that constant back and forth, the concistency of seeing their peers give wrong answers without judgement, and then the praise and affirmation that comes with right answers creates a great culture of safety.
This was the kind of model I tried to use for most of my teaching career in the UK because as Carolyn O'Connor notes it is much more "engaging, effective and efficient". Over time I was able to develop my teaching and improved my practice thanks to Dylan Wiliam who introduced me to the enormously powerful "hands down" approach to asking questions (Wiliam refers to 'hinge' questions which are , planned in advance of the lesson) and the use of mini whiteboards to get instant (formative) feedback. I think the model you describe Rebecca should be the one all teachers use but I know that there is still such a long way to go. When I moved to international schools using the IB MYP programme, I was told that I had to be a facilitator, a "guide on the side" and I witnessed first hand how an inquiry based approach was not just highly inefficient but disempowered the teacher and disenfranchised the student. This, unfortunately, is still the norm in such 'progressive' schools and indeed in my own daughter's Australian primary school
It's a lot easier with low variance curriculum, I think. If curriculum is detailed then we can spend more time on those hinge questions and make sure they're doing what they're meant to do. Great to chat again.
My thought sequence reading this as a teacher in the US with more than 25 years experience:
1. Oh, this (minus the acronym) is one of the strategies they taught us in my M.Ed. program in the mid-1990s. It was seen as very cutting edge and made sense but then it went away. (At least in theory if not necessarily in practice.)
2. This is brilliant! I love it!
3. Oh, wait. Isn't this just kind of what we dinosaurs/reactionaries do all the time when nobody is watching?
Thanks for this Rebecca. This is a fantastic, concise step-by-step guide to a timeless method repackaged for a new era.
Hi Gary,
TBH I don't know how old it is. I know it's not exactly new. Yes, it was funny working in a proressive school - when the stakes were high, teachers would shut their doors and get on with explicit teaching in private. When the results were great, the school was able to celebrate their amazing progressive methods. High irony.
So glad you got something out of it :)
I don't think it's technically the same method per se. It's just that educational theorists who actually base their methods on research keep being forced to rediscover good teaching every time fashionable experts convince school leaders to thow it out for a generation or so!
Yes, as my partner says, people love a system.
TAPPLE is one strategy for imparting core knowledge. But there seems to be a missed opportunity here. Sure, Junior just learned the three kinds of rocks but what wasn’t learned BECAUSE of the mostly didactic process, was courage, or patience, or humility , or accountability or dozens of other meta skills that are as useful as knowing igneous rocks come from lava.
Now you may be thinking, that’s what sports, scouts, church and parents are for, and you wouldn’t be wrong. Much of our character development happens in these places.
But what if the teacher could choreograph this meta-learning alongside concept accretion. What if Junior walked out of the classroom, not only knowing the three kinds of rocks, but was also more honest, more self-aware, more magnanimous, more gracious, more able to separate the music from the noise? Times 16 years of formal education, imagine how different our world would look.
Yes, I agree with you, it's just one strategy and a good one for ensuring students are all able to move onto those richer tasks.
"I have a theory that this is part of workload issues for senior teachers: we spend a lot of our time mopping up all the guinea-pig teaching that happens in the younger years." That is both wrong and offensive. I have lots of experience working with both primary and secondary teachers and I can say for certain that primary teachers have a greater skill level than secondary.
Hi Ben, I’m sorry I should have been clearer. I meant 7-10.
that tracks, but bear in mind that many of the same teachers who drop the ball in 7–10 are the same ones who complain about that in 11–12 😬
Absolutely. It’s a paradox. We all kick that can down the road and then complain in 11-12
yeah it's something my old boss Patrick Griffin used to talk about… University tutors blame high school teachers who blame primary teachers who blame Parents. When really we just all need to deal with the learners in front of us. it's not a very productive mode of thinking otherwise
I didn’t realise this post was 2 years old but I’m commenting anyway. I’ve been using TAPPLE with students’ names written on wooden sticks, and pre-planned questions however my main issue is getting students to actually do the pair-share.
I’m not sure if this is just a me problem but most of the time when I ask students a question about something I’ve just taught, they just don’t do the pair-share. Even though the answer is probably on the PowerPoint, or was just said by me 10 seconds earlier. Students just continue glazing at their laptops, even though I’m actively telling them (even by name) to tell the answer to the person next to them. When they are inevitably picked, they read the question slowly and form an answer in real time which is a huge pace killer and a waste of time.
I’m not really sure what to do about this. I’m not sure that laptops are the main cause of this either. I think even if there were no devices in the room students would still not do the pair-share and would just talk to their friend about something else. I’m determined to continue with this though because I know it works. Maybe I’m implementing it wrong. Any advice?
Hey James, I would try one thing at a time. First, move to no laptops during that instruction phase. Second, rehearse how a pair share is done. Depends on the age but give them a personal question like "what was the best part of yesterday" and rehearse partner A and Partner B. Last thing, try a think write pair share. It might take a little longer but you might get there. This is pretty common these days but worth persisting!
Thanks for your reply! I’ll give those things a shot next term and let you know.
This post highlights the value of Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI) and the TAPPLE method in ensuring clear teaching and quick feedback. The key is balancing structure with flexibility, adapting to students’ needs, including gifted learners. Ultimately, it’s about using these tools to help students truly understand and grow.