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.

A Portrait of Expertise.

There are only a few pieces of writing that have struck a pedagogical chord with me. The ones that have made you stop and think again about the how, the why and the complexity of what we do as teachers are rare. One such piece is "Knowledge and Teaching: foundations of the New Reform" by Lee Shulman. It is an odd piece, not research, not necessarily for teachers but an opinion piece on policy and reforming teacher education way back in 1987. In 1987 I had an embryonic quiff and had started to like the Smiths.

The first two sentences of the article nails it, and was perhaps true until Graham Nuthalls work came along. It says:

"Richly developed portrayals of expertise in teaching are rare. While many characterisations of effective teachers exist, most of these dwell on the teachers management of the classroom"

In researching my forthcoming book, The Expert Teacher, this pretty much describes alot of what is out there.

Shulman develops what is believes is more important:

"We find few descriptions or analyses of teachers that give careful attention not only to the management of the students in the classrooms, but also to the management of ideas with classroom discourse". (my emphasis are italicised and Shulmans is in bold.

This is still true today. We rarely speak of management the learning of ideas in teacher texts, yet it is entirely right that both are necessary for a successful lesson/class/teacher. For me,this makes Nuthalls studies so enlightening,as he  pursued the ideas during the process of learning to give real insight. In identifying the management of ideas Shulman creates a purposeful way of introducing the very important concept of Pedagogical Content knowledge: the knowledge teachers have that allows them to manage ideas in the classroom.

The second paragraph of the article then provides the most wonderful portrait of expertise, written by the mysterious Gudmundsdottir. (Sadly, the full text is to be found in an unpublished Doctoral dissertation called Knowledge use among experienced teachers: Four case studies of high school teaching) This piece of writing is one that I keep re-reading, as it is both succinct and rich. What follows are my thoughts and interpretation of this portrait of an expert teacher.

The first four words of the portrait tell us exactly how teachers develop. It takes time. 25 years of time. Time that the profession is rapidly loosing. Nancy, the subject of the portrait is a teacher who is part of "continuing study" of experience teachers. Continuing study instantly suggests that mere snapshots are not enough in capturing the nuanced complexities of what teachers do. Again, my mind is reminded of the complexities that Nuthalls work revealed. For instance. 

Nancy depth of knowledge of her subject and pedagogy is highlighted which begins Shulmans definition of Pedagogical Content Knowledge.  It is this unique combination of knowledge that makes a teachers professional knowledge unique, purposeful and special. 

The initial descriptive of her classroom does exactly what Shulman says usual classroom descriptions do: it describes the management of the classroom. Nancy "tempers boisterousness" and behaves like a "symphony conductor" Nancy teaches, prompts thinking and students interaction with her and the ideas being taught. It is clear that Nancy knows her students and everything that is occuring in her classroom, and it is the "substantial interaction" that would allow allow her make the assessments to make decisions about pacing, ordering and necessary structuring described. 

However, this is not what makes this portrait special. As yet there has been no mention of the management of ideas. But what follows reveals the innerworkings of an expert teachers mind.

Nancy knows what she expects of the students with this particular piece of content, and how their knowledge will develop. Additionally she has already worked out the questions and teaching prompts needed for a range of teaching situations. She refers to:what the students may need to do; her questions; what is most important.There is purpose and priority in her thinking and it is clear that she is combing knowledge of the content and of pedagogy. 

Shulman describes this as a"conceptual framework", that she uses guide "her own sequencing of material and formulation of questions" and how to "divide [the content] appropriately for assignments and activities". Over the years  teachers develop their PCK,  and this was the first glimpse we were given. 

So far the following ideas of what expert teachers know have been highlighted:

1. What the key ideas are for each topic
2. How to use these key incidences are for differing pedagogical purposes.
3. What content is most difficult.
4. How to organise the content for differnt students.
5. Where to place emphasis and
6. How to place knowledge into themes.

A framework for trawling through our PCK in more detail can be found here.

What follows in the portrait deepens what we understand about expert teachers. The day Nancy arrives to work ill, barely able to speak. Nancy's teaching style, previously described as pretty much evrything passing "through Nancy" transforms into much more student led teaching style,that remains organised that allowed a students to engage with the content with care. Expert teachers have this flexibility as they have PCK, their knowledge goes beyond merely knowing the subject well, they know, and can apply their rich knowledge of pedagogy to different situations, students and content. Importantly they know that successful teaching looks has more than one "style".  What is especially glorious about this article is the celebratory feeling it gives about teacher knowledge. Nancy's ability is described as "dazzling" and "virtuosity" of the learners in her care. For me the focus on classroom management belies the ability and professional knowledge that the teaching profession has.







Shulman closes this section with two key questions, that bring me back to this article.

1. What is it important for me to believe, understand  and know to allow me teach as well as I possibly can? What are the gaps? What is next for me to develop?

2. What can we do to help other teachers teach with Nancy's skill? 

The second is question is as important as the first. Teacher collaboration and sharing of practice are key to our development. PCK gives us the framework through which we can become expert. 

The article then goes on to discuss and structure PCK in a more formal way, and is worth the read. But for me the work of Nancy is inspiring and she is the teacher I wish to be. 

Using PCK to plan teacher explanations: Keys and Sequencing

In this sequence of blog posts, I have been interested in two ideas: Teacher Clarity of Explanation and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), and thus far never the twain shall meet. But this is simply not the case. The difference between a good teacher explanation and a poor one is PCK. PCK is not just an understanding of your subject, but also of good general pedagogy. They inform one another. What I hope to do in this post is to exemplify this interaction. It begins with a general idea and will become more specific. So what do we need to know about what makes a successful  teacher explanation.

“Understand that there are three factors in making a great explanation” Brown

At the heart of this is an understanding that every good explanation has important constituents: an explainer, a problem to be explained and some explainees (otherwise known as students). For each explanation, we must consider the problem the content itself presents as well as the knowledge and skills of the students so that the input is pitched correctly. We must display sensitivity both to the elements of the explanation the task itself demands and to the social situation of each teaching problem (“how do I teach x and y to Bob?”). In considering both we break down the problem the explanation presents so that the solution can be strategised about and planned.

To plan explanations, the following sequence seems prudent: (modified from Brown)

1.    Analyse topics into main parts or ‘keys’.

2.    Establish links between parts and consider their "best" sequence.

3.    Determine rules (if any) involved.

4.    Specify kinds or purpose of explanation required (context setting, interpreting, thinking, unpicking examples, describing, linking cause and effect and so forth).

5.    Adapt plan according to learner characteristics

How well teachers identify the “Keys” of the explanation is central to their ability to explain; more effective teachers use a greater number of keys. Five kinds of  “key” have been described. For research purposes, Brown and Armstrong assigned each key a cognitive level (1 the least, 5 the most), and I have left these in place as they found that good explainers tended to make higher cognitive demands on their students. This does not mean that they always use for example level 4 type explanations, however; they tend to use a wider variety, and in doing so include more at a higher level.

Cognitive Level	Explanation - Key types
1	Stating, defining, describing (simple e.g. what something is), classifying, designating.
2	Comparing, descriptive explanation describing process or structure in detail (e.g. how something works), interpretive (clarifies, exemplifies the meaning of things).
3	Reason giving, causes, motives.
4	Conditional Inferring (If…then…).
5	Evaluating.

In order to best sequence may or may not be as straight forward as how the content presents itself. Beware that although certain content appears to naturally fit one of the sequences, it may not be the model that serves the learning of the content that best of all. This is particularly problematic if you aren’t aware of all the other options. For years, I’ve taught the topic of digestion by  applying the logic of that the process itself begins in the mouth and so that my teaching should begin with the mouth and then work down through the digestive tract. The result of this was that, however well the students could identify the organs, they still struggled to explain the big idea of what digestion is. It was not until I re-jigged the sequence of teaching from a part-to-part-to-part structure to a whole-to-part structure did my students start to become competent in both. So now I begin with digested food molecules in the blood being absorbed from the small intestine because they are small enough to pass through its lining. This then naturally leads to a teaching sequence based on what happens to food to make the its molecules small enough to be absorbed. I now find that each organ that I teach about is easily linked to that original idea, giving my teaching a clearer purpose and  that the students have a full understanding of the holistic process of digestion.

The all important alternatives have been succinctly summarised by Rothwell and Kazanas, who propose 9 approaches to sequencing instruction. Each sequence will serve a different type of content knowledge and will help to  place each learning task into a context set by what goes before it. It also provides a useful set of options when you feel that your current order of explanation is not working for your students.

1.      Chronological sequencing.

2.      Topical sequencing.

3.      Whole-to-part sequencing.

4.      Part-to-whole sequencing.

5.      Known-to-unknown sequencing.

6.      Unknown-to-known sequencing.

7.      Step-by-step sequencing.

8.      Part-to-part-to-part sequencing.

9.         General to specific sequencing.

Further Reading.

Brown and Armstrong in Wragg Classroom teaching Skills

Rothwell and Kazanas 1998 Mastering the instructional design process: a systematic approach

E C Wragg and G Brown (1993) Explaining Routledge

Teacher clarity: Don’t be vague.

Don’t be vague, is a pretty vague way of saying how to improve teacher clarity, but it is not without validity. Unclear language, in explanations, has a negative effect upon student learning (Hargie 2006). 

Given the amount of talk teachers do it is inevitable that vagueness will occur to a certain extent,. It only becomes a problem  when teacher explanations have excessive amounts of vagueness (in excess of 7.2 vagueness terms per minute). At this point student achievement and perception of clarity in the lesson are negatively affected.  Errors are more common than we think, with an average of from three to five vagueness terms per minute of teacher talk, and an average of four word mazes per minute of teacher talk. (Snyder 1991)

Vagueness can be located in the two facets of teacher talk: What is said, and , how it is said. 


The following table categorises vague terms and teacher errors made during presentation or explanations, not as a checklist to plan what to say, but more as a way of focusing where professional learning might be most useful. The signs are that even a narrow focus on one aspect can have a positive influence on teacher clarity.(Smith 1982)

What.

Vagueness terminology	Teachers may...	Examples of terminology
Using approximation with setting definitions or with quantities.	Lack specificity in what is communicated. Not set clear boundaries of where rules apply.	Other people, somewhere, under certain conditions. pretty much, nearly, almost, sort of. A bunch of, most of, a couple, some.
Bluffing phrase that make uncertain things sound certain.	Lack sufficient PCK. Be ill prepared for a complex explanation.	Actually, and so forth, anyway, or As a matter of fact: Of course...
When we describe possibility. or When a negation evades a clear response.	Indicate a lack of clarity or lack of definite knowledge. lead to reduced student confidence in teacher.	Maybe, might, could be, Chances are, Perhaps or not always, not quite, isn’t necessarily
When a multiple ideas are needed at once.	May gloss over complexity	aspects, types, lots, factors, kinds or Generally, often, probably, Ordinarily
Anaphora	Use excessive pronouns rather than a direct reference to the content. This may make the explanation more difficult to follow.	I, she, he, the former, the latter, them.

How.

During explanations, novice learners can be distracted by accidental teacher word mazes. Student can get lost, and miss the point we are trying to make in the twists and turns of what is said. This can be as simple as repeating a phrase, repeating a phrase, that can then disjoint, can then disjoint, the meaning of the sentence. (You see what I did there)

Presentational Vagueness	Teachers may...	Examples
Recovering	Lose track of where the explanation is heading.	Anyway, to cut a long story short, you know, do you understand?
Admission of Error	break fluency reduce student confidence	I guess.., I’m sorry, Excuse my mistake, I don’t know
Utterances such as vocal fillers	break fluency making it more difficult to follow the ideas.	Urn, Err, Basically, Em. Look, Right, Well and stuff.
Word mazes that confuse the meaning of your statements.	make a false start to an explanation. not make sense halt in speech	Repeating phrases,
Improper pacing occurs	speak too quickly or do not allow sufficient time for students to process information.	The last five minutes of the lesson and you realise you have not explained something...
Express our reservations	lead to doubt of a point of view or fact. lead to student being less likely to accept the information as helpful.	apparently, appears, relatively, seems

To reduce our, unintended, vagueness is once more about professional learning. As Smith concludes:  

“Teachers can be trained to significantly reduce the frequencies of vagueness terms they use. Such training involves intense focus on vagueness terms per se and on preparation of lessons to eliminate vagueness terms. Interestingly, it appears that teachers can reduce mazes by-simply presenting lessons and reviewing their presentations.”