Revenge of the Vague Term

In the second post on the fascinating case studies presented by Professor Karl Maton this post focuses on a much poorer teacher explanation.

In this lesson the teacher sets out their stall in a theoretically good place, with a significant amount of time dedicated to student prior knowledge and misconceptions. However, there appears to be little in the way of structured challenge to these misconceptions over a protracted length of time (40 minutes). The opportunity for student talk and the sharing and reinforcing of misconceptions provides a sizeable opportunity for "deconstructively unalignment" to occur. Ican only feel that this at best is an opportunity lost.

A video is hown, as the previous teacher did, in the realms of “edutainment” as we have seen this worked for the last teacher who repeatedly and pointedly “brought the knowledge” home to where the learning intention was. This teacher also set a relevant directional focus with the instruction  "highlight on your list what is wrong". Yet it is unlikely that students will learn very much from this task as the cognitive demand of watching a video and assessing 40 minutes of self generated material on novice learners,( i.e. students at the beginning of a topic) would be too great. Like the previous teacher the "what and why" is present, but without the same impact, possibly as the students are described as watching the video for 45 minutes with teacher interjections. It is easy to see a lack of structure, and as a result  a lack of focus on content.

Following the video the teacher asks a  question which is tantamount to "what's inside the my head?" where the answer sought is a specific response as the sole cue to move the lesson. An answer that is not even part of the History curriculum, which makes it harder to return to the knowledge "back home"  This highlights that one of the parts of a teacher pedagogical content knowledge is the curriculum, I would speculate that this teacher is not as au fait as they could be, and have therefore headed down an avenue that on the surface seems to do as the previous teacher did, in building on students broader knowledge. The difference being that this teacher selected medicine as a focus whereas the previous one chose hygiene as a way of relating their experiences with teaching medieval history. As a non historian, this seems arbitrary but the difference it made to teacher dialogue and student learning is tangible.

This teacher then does talk of hygiene, and the phrase "it is not the most effective method" is certainly heading in the right direction, but it is too vague  to make the link back to the historical conditions of the time. A lack of detail prevents the students making the connection. Juxtapose this with the previous teacher who sagely link hygiene to the occurrences of a siege. What is said follows...

This has the effect of setting up the teaching focus well way from the "homeward" direction.

A quick review of the technical language reveals why. This  used in this input are as follows. 

• medieval
• European
• ointments
• antibacterial

Whereas the previous talked of

• Siege
• Castles
• Disease
• War

Making it abundantly clear that Expert teachers focus significantly more on content than on classroom processes. 

What appears to be clear is that this teacher has planned the lesson, or at least the tasks of the lesson. i.e. Students will brainstorm, then watch a video and then correct their ideas, but the plan has not considered how the content will work with this methodology. Indeed none of the talk mention the spread of disease- which may or may not be inferred; or the fact that they should be thinking about castles and sieges. Indeed the word "Garlic" appears three times. The content is simply not being attended to.

The final line of "Um we did watch some of this. do you want me to skip forward?" reveals an anxiety, and a lack of knowledge and direction. In fact the whole input  has many vagueness traits. 

These being:

1. “Some” : which is used twice, and is an approximation, casting doubt that any of the ointments work or not.

2. “Well... “ is the start of a bluffing phrase indicating that the teacher has insufficient Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and is ill prepared for a complex explanation. This is clearly evident. 

3. “Probably”, is used twice and is the expression of a reservation or doubt  which can lead to students being less likely to accept the information as helpful.

4.”I think it’s got more to do with…” Is another expression of doubt. 

5. Repetition. The phrase "antibacterial element" is used twice which constructs a word maze, signalling a false start to an explanation. The teacher could be aware that the explanation is not going where it needs to be. 

6. Anaphora. Approximately (sic) 8% of the words are pronouns. Using excessive pronouns rather than a direct reference to the content can make it more difficult for students to follow the content, albeit a small mercy in this case. 

7. “Um” is vocal filler also breaks teacher fluency. 

8. Recovering phrase "do you want me to skip forward?” is perhaps the clearest indication that this teacher has lost track of where the explanation is heading.

This is clearly a short extract, and to analyse this I am making a lot of assumptions, yet it is clear is that his explanation is off track, being made up on the spot without prior thought to the direction it needs to head. It is the sheer number of these behaviours that ring a bell for me in terms of the quality of this teachers talk. All in all it is the PCK that is missing. It is knowledge of how the subject is learned, what students will find difficult and how teach and activities support the learning of the content and would allow  a coherent purpose to the discussion.

Although only a short extract from a lesson the lens of LCT does help us examine our teaching and explanations. This non-example of good teacher explanations poses three areas for us to consider in our planning.

Firstly what is the PCK for this content. What exactly do the students need to know? What are the effective ways to breakdown and join up the content to students? What do I need to tell them? How do I make this clear? 

Secondly is the need for constructive alignment. How do I ensure that classroom talk, and activities support the intentions? What is the prior knowledge and experience that can be built upon to ensure students can access the ideas? How do I bring this knowledge “home”?  Constructive alignment sound slike the easiest thing in the world, but this example where a “lesson”, has been planned throws the difficulty into stark relief. It is hard and requires us to plan the learning of content rather than mere activity. 

Finally, the communication skills of the teacher are key. They are also telling about the lack of teacher preparation. A key aspect of teacher clarity is the avoidance of vague terms, so planning or teacher development needs to consider not just what to say but how to say it.