Promoting Explicit Teaching while Holding Your Nose?
I was recommended reading “Science for Children” by Marilyn Fleer by a colleague who knew that I am an advocate of explicit teaching in primary science. My colleague said that Fleer had a positive view on direct instruction and that I would find much to agree with in her book. My colleague was wrong.
Fleer argues in favour of explicit teaching as though holding her nose. Every positive point she makes about teaching explicitly (she calls “a transmission approach”) conveys warning that teaching this way is for the unconfident, the controlling and the lazy:
“A transmission approach to teaching science can be attractive to those for its apparent ease, efficiency and level of teacher control to those who do not recognise the potential problems.” p79
and
“Some teachers who lack confidence in teaching science might resort to a transmission approach because it appears to them the most straightforward strategy and one that will give them a high level of control over children’s learning.” p69
If the transmission effect is so unpleasant, when should you use it? Fleer advises:
“The approach might be justified when it is difficult to teach a topic in science in which hands-on direct experience of materials or process is not possible.” p79
Why does Fleer think that explicit teaching doesn’t involve hands-on direct experience? I think it’s because she conflates transmission with lecturing (p61). Many opponents of explicit teaching seem to imagine that teachers who use explicit teaching stand at the front of the class and hold forth for an hour. This is not explicit teaching – it is not even transmission: no one learns anything this way. It’s not explicit teaching: it’s bad teaching. No one is arguing for that!
Explicit teaching is much more nuanced (and much more effective) than the word ‘transmission’ suggests. Fleer and her colleagues who oppose explicit teaching do thoughtful, committed and highly effective teachers a disservice by misrepresenting them. I think they also do children a disservice, because explicit teaching has been shown to be effective in many instances and not simply teaching facts.
Fleer isn’t alone in her reservations against explicit teaching. I have spoken on this several times at the ASE conference and had to justify my position robustly, but I don’t think I’ve convinced anyone. What is going on?
Here is my hypothesis: we have a different philosophical view of what science is. I think the following paragraph provides the clue:
“A transmission approach to teaching emphasises the idea of science as a body of knowledge that has been generated over many centuries of investigation and theorising. Science is a complex accumulation of facts, concepts, theories and laws as a result of a rigorous investigation of the world. The approach fosters the misleading view that the production of this knowledge is the preserve of highly skilled and specialist scientists.” p67
Three sentences – the first two articulate my view of science beautifully, but the third one throws me. For me, the production of scientific knowledge is the preserve of highly skilled scientists. I don’t see the purpose of science education as the production of new knowledge: it’s the teaching of established knowledge; its application and an understanding of how it is generated. Some of the children I teach will go on to become scientists (I hope) but the majority are unlikely to. All of them will benefit from an understanding of how scientific knowledge is generated (so that they know they can trust climate scientists and chief medical officers) even if they aren’t creating new knowledge themselves. They will also be taught some of the most wonderful and inspiring knowledge about the world and how it works. I want all of them to know that they could become scientists through hard work and perseverance, but I don’t think they should all be scientists (any more than I think they should all be mathematicians, footballers or authors).
Fleet writes that the transmission approach may lead to “a lack of authentic participation in learning”. Some ‘authentic participation’ is valuable, but it isn’t the main goal for me. For the sake of argument, I think probably 20% of science lesson time should be enquiry. It will vary from topic to topic, but not wildly.
If my hypothesis is correct, we will need to work harder to find common ground. While I argue that a successful primary science education will ensure children know more science and be able to use it to solve problems; to understand the rigour of scientific claims and to appreciate the wonder of the universe (most effectively taught with a dominant element of explicit teaching), Fleer and her colleagues will argue that children learn best when they follow their interests with the guidance of teachers, learning how to be apprentice scientists. This miscommunication between those who promote enquiry in primary science and those who promote explicit teaching risk confusing and disrupting primary science teaching. Both ‘sides’ use pejorative and emotional language – I’m sure unintentionally. As a profession, I think we should try harder.
Ben
Reading for Learning 