I’ve been recommended a couple of books by thoughtful, well-meaning colleagues who know I favour ‘explicit teaching’. These are books which I was told offer a balanced view between ‘child centred’ approaches to teaching and ‘explicit teaching’. Both books are shockingly biased in favour of ‘child-centred’ approaches, using pejorative language against explicit teaching ad the teachers who use these techniques.
I was writing a blog about them, because I am worried that the colleagues who recommended them think that these books present a balanced approach, when they both are dismissive and even insulting to many teachers.
The worst of the two is Guy Claxton’s “The Future of Teaching” – trying to re-read it over half term has left me so cross that I don’t want to write about it. How dare he? And what was my colleague thinking of when she recommended it!? Anyway – someone else has written a review which reflects my opinion (https://not-matthew.blogspot.com/2021/08/book-review-future-of-teaching-guy.html). Don’t buy the book – if anyone wants mine they can have it.
The other book is less provoking, but still misleading: Science for Children by Marilyn Fleer (2015). I was told it offered a balanced view of appropriate pedagogies for primary science. The pedagogies are:
- Transmission approach. This is Fleer’s categorisation of direct instruction alongside lecturing and traditional teaching approaches. The term ‘transmission’ mis-represents this explicit teaching – few if any teachers believe that we just broadcast knowledge into the heads of our learners. We know that pupils have to construct their own schemas through thinking carefully about examples and explanations, practising over time and engaging with their teacher’s assessments and feedback. The child is still central, but the teacher is the expert thinking carefully about the content, sequence and tasks that will help the learner make sense and integrate new knowledge and skills into existing schemas. The term ‘transmission’ is misleading and reductive. Fleer warns us against being seduced by the transmission approach – finally saying that it can be used by certain teachers if they are creative and careful. It all sounds terribly worrying.
“A transmission approach to teaching science can be attractive for it’s apparent ease, efficiency and level of teacher control….. However,, a transmission approach to the teaching of science can be an effective strategy, depending on the teachers degree of care and creativity.”
Fleer p79
- Discovery approach. Fleer is much more comfortable with discovery as a learning approach, though she recognises that children may be discovering things that the teacher didn’t intend. I don’t intend to write much about this, other than to say I thought that no one promoted discovery learning any more – it’s far too difficult for children who don’t have developed schemas to be able to carry out minimally guided learning.
“In this chapter we take a look at one of the most internationally prevalent approaches to teaching science – an enquiry-based teaching approach.”
Fleer p107
- Inquiry-based approach. Fleer has nothing negative to say about this approach. She writes two chapters on it.
So, in conclusion – Fleer writes a misleading chapter on explicit teaching, recommends discovery learning with some caveats and then writes the rest of the book uncritically about enquiry approaches. Hardly the book I was recommended.
Conclusion
What can I infer from well-informed colleagues recommending books that misrepresent my position so badly? The misunderstandings between us are huge. It would be very simple to find equally misrepresentative writing against enquiry approaches (for example, deliberately conflating minimally guided discovery approaches with structured and guided enquiry approaches).
I intend to continue calling out colleagues who misrepresent explicit teaching and direct instruction, and will offer my support to colleagues who call out misrepresentation of enquiry approaches.
Ben
Reading for Learning 