In the post-pandemic world (if that is possible) the need for approaches to teaching and learning that better meet the needs of our students will be, perhaps, more necessary than ever.
[See Professor Geoff Masters’ piece - Time for a Paradigm Shift for a nice overview. SPOILER ALERT: put simply we seem to be trapped in purgatory, status quo of teaching, with an age-based curriculum, as opposed to a far more nuanced approach that seeks to target teaching for the various developmental levels of the students in our classes.]
Three inter-related approaches that are useful for thinking about how we might adapt our teaching & learning process to best meet the needs of our students include Learning for Mastery, Assessment for Teaching, and Responsive Teaching.
1. Learning for Mastery (Benjamin Bloom)
In the 1960s than Benjamin Bloom introduced the concept of “mastery learning”. Bloom (1968) suggested that the majority of students could master what was expected of them proposing that the purpose of instruction was to enable this. He also outlined that the fundamental task in education is to find and use strategies that take into account individual differences in such a way as to promote the fullest development of each and all individual students.
2. Assessment for Teaching(Emeritus Professor Patrick Griffin)
Emeritus Professor Patrick’s Griffin’s seminal work leading the Assessment Research Centre (University of Melbourne) has advocated a developmental model of learning that draws upon the work of Robert Glaser, Lev Vygotsky, and Georg Rasch. Through his work, Griffin has highlighted the underlying developmental nature of learning by which learners progress through increasing layers of competence along a developmental continuum/learning progression. Griffin’s approach also advocates for teachers, working together collaboratively, to interpret student assessment data, generated from assessments that have been constructed to yield developmental insights, to inform next steps.
3. Responsive Teaching (Harry Fletcher-Wood)
Harry Fletcher-Wood’s recent book (2018) has expounded based upon his experiences and evidenced informed views regarding the failing of formative assessment to yield impact aligned with its potential. A key concern raised relate to the confusion that formative assessment is a collection of techniques to use as opposed to an underlying philosophical way of engaging as a teacher. In response, Fletcher-Wood has proposed Responsive Teaching as a reframed formative assessment that is enhanced by current advances in cognitive sciences. His definition resonated with me: “responsive teaching blends planning and teaching, based on an understanding of how students learning from cognitive science, with formative assessment to identify what students have learned an adapt accordingly” Fletcher-Wood (p. 9).
Concluding Comments
Implied, if not central to each of these approaches, is the notion that all students can learn (and succeed) if the instruction is targeted appropriately. A key premise to Bloom’s (1968) learning for mastery is the obligation upon educators to find and utilise strategies to meet the needs of all students. Patrick Griffin’s (2014) work proposed the use of empirically derived assessments to situate each student in their learning journey and support teachers in planning the next steps. Finally, Harry Fletch-Wood (2018) has proposed Responsive Teaching as a way of conceptualising the use of formative assessment strategies and knowledge of how students learn teachers in the busyness of work.
Put together, these three approaches create a nice narrative. Indeed, Bloom reminds us of our moral imperative. Griffin provides a framework for conceptualising teaching (and learning) through a developmental lens. And, final. Fletcher-Wood provides the reminder of our moment by moment responsibilities to seek feedback and respond to meet the needs of all students.
Common to each of these approaches is a reliance on data. Whether it be ‘hard’ forms of assessment data (i,e. collected via tests and assessment tasks) or ‘softer’ forms of data gathered (i.e. collected moment-by-moment in the classroom) data is the essential key ingredient in responsive teaching.
Would you like to know more? Get in contact!
Dr Timothy O’Leary
timothy.oleary@educaiotnaldatatalks.com.au
Readings/References
Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1. Evaluation Comment, 1(2). Retrieved https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED053419.pdf
Flectcher-Wood, H. (2018) Responsive Teaching: Cognitive Science and Formative Assessment in Practice. Routledge: Oxon..
Griffin, P. (2014) Assessment for Teaching. Cambridge: Melbourne, Australia.