Peps

SUMMARY

• The idea that we should tailor our teaching to student learning preferences is unhelpful.
• A better (yet still related) maxim is to focus instead on the best medium for the message.
• Students with SEND stand to gain the most from evidence informed approaches.

👊

🎓 For more, check out this review of the evidence around learning styles, from Professor Daniel Willingham:

www.aft.org/ae/summer20...

What about students with SEN (Special Educational Needs)?

Well, SEN is an unhelpfully broad label… but in general (aside from highly specific needs), students with SEN need this approach more than ever...

because they are often less equipped to compensate for wonky teaching.

For me, our best bet is the idea that we should tailor the modality (speech, text, gesture etc.) of our teaching to the needs of the CONTENT, rather than the preferences of our learners.

Aka, the best medium for the message.

One way we can help counteract this unhelpful idea is to have a more informed idea on hand to replace it with.

(without a replacement, we just end up reverting)

Frontiers | How Common Is Belief in the Learning Styles Neuromyth, and Does It Matter? A Pragmatic Systematic Review A commonly cited use of Learning Styles theory is to use information from self-report questionnaires to assign learners into one or more of a handful of supp...

I’m pretty sure everyone reading this will be aware of this, despite studies showing that upwards of 80% of the global education profession still believe in learning styles 😱

www.frontiersin.org/journals/ed...

(you are in the minority)

Beware the myth: learning styles affect parents’, children’s, and teachers’ thinking about children’s academic potential npj Science of Learning - Beware the myth: learning styles affect parents’, children’s, and teachers’ thinking about children’s academic potential

AND it can prompt teachers (and parents and students) to assume that visual learners are smarter, creating unhelpful expectations around student abilities ⤵️

www.nature.com/articles/s4...

There are indications that it can be actively harmful.

For example, it can perpetuate a fixed mindset, where students believe their abilities are static rather than adaptable.

Not only is there no evidence to support this idea

(formally known as the ‘meshing hypothesis’), which makes it a poor use of teacher and student time (which could be spent on things which do support learning)

but...

Learning styles—the idea that individuals differ in the mode of instruction that is best for them, and that we should tailor our teaching accordingly—is one of the most pervasive myths in education.

Tailor to lesson content, not student preferences.

An alternative to the learning styles myth:

↓

SUMMARY

• A shared ‘pedagogical toolkit’ can be a powerful thing.
• It entails agreeing to a limited suite of tools, and how you’ll use them.
• Achieving alignment across staff has the potential to help your students learn more and your colleagues lives easier.

👊

And for the ultimate customisable toolkit, check out the fandabulous Steplab:

→ steplab.co

Evidence-based Kernels: Fundamental Units of Behavioral Influence Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review - This paper describes evidence-based kernels, fundamental units of behavioral influence that appear to underlie effective prevention and treatment for...

🎓 For more, see this paper on the fundamental units of behavioural influence:

link.springer.com/article/10....

Now, does all this reduce autonomy?

Well, it depends how we see our role and what we value more... doing things our own way or student learning & colleague workload.

The fewer tools we agree to include in our toolkit, the quicker they can be mastered and the more skilled everyone can get at using them.

And the more precise we our in our codification (exactly what to do, what to say, what to expect), the more powerful the overall effect.

This is why the classic advice of ‘co-constructing rules and routines with your class’ is so pernicious...

it dilutes school-wide norms, destabilises routines, and generates frustration (due to varying expectations between classrooms).

Thirdly, it’s more equitable.

(nuff said)

Secondly, when we run the same routines across multiple classrooms, ‘norm’ effects across your school are waaay stronger.

(which makes students feel like they belong more)

Why is a shared toolkit so powerful?

Firstly, when we run the same routines—such as how to call for silence, or orchestrate a classroom discussion—across multiple classrooms, students automate those routines waaay faster.

(which makes things much easier for new teachers)

This typically demands 3 levels of consensus:

1. Committing to using a shared toolkit
2. Agreeing what tools to include (and exclude)
3. Codifying (and practicing) exactly how to use them

One of the most reliable ways to achieve great behaviour for learning is through the development of a shared ‘pedagogical toolkit’ (or playbook).

This is a recurring feature of the most effective schools I work with.

To boost learning & reduce workload...

Agree the toolkit:

↓

SUMMARY
• Upstream thinking entails directing our efforts towards prevention as well as cure.
• When it comes to behaviour, this often involves investing in culture, motivation, and systems.
• The further upstream we intervene, the more leverage we typically have over outcomes.

👊

🎓 For more, check out this paper on how we can help students intervene upstream of themselves:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10...

The most effective schools are those which take steps to influence behaviour BEFORE it happens, as well as putting in place strategies for addressing it AFTER it has occurred.

Behaviour for learning is no exception.

When schools invest in upstream interventions—like culture, motivation, and systems—they are less likely to see undesirable behaviours manifest.

If we look, we can see upstream thinking in lots of places...

→ Hospitals save more lives when they focus on smoking cessation alongside cancer treatment.
→ Fire services reduce casualties when they invest in fitting smoke alarms alongside improving fire truck response times.

However, our efforts can sometimes be better directed at tackling problems before them occur… towards prevention.

This is 'upstream thinking’.

The further upstream we intervene, the closer we get to the cause, and the more leverage we gain over any outcome.

There are times when we can get trapped in this kind of 'downstream' thinking.

When we invest huge amounts of effort trying to deal with problems as they occur.