Teaching or the New Pedagogy?

Originally published 16.2.2017

In this article, which was published in 2017, I looked back at some of the trends apparent within English pedagogy during New Labour. Subsequent to this, in the time of the UK Coalition, and then Conservative governments, there was was certainly a welcome shift in the state administration of teaching, with a greater focus on what might best be called didactics. This put a greater emphasis on subject oriented, and teacher led, activity within the classroom, although I would suggest that the English state school classroom was still over managed by the state.

Teaching or the New Pedagogy?

Teachers today face ever greater regulation of the way they conduct themselves in their classrooms. Ministers, and their managers, tell them that sessions must start with teaching objectives, learners must be demonstrably ‘active’ and that lessons should end with a plenary in which student understanding is summarised. Individually, there is nothing wrong with these techniques, but the steady accumulation of pedagogic prescriptions is disempowering teachers by limiting their scope for creative decision making in the classroom. In fact this New Pedagogy, it will be argued, represents a real barrier to teaching.

Resisting the New Pedagogy

Perhaps the first stage in resisting the New Pedagogy is to remind ourselves that it hasn’t always be so. Once upon a time a Labour Education Secretary proudly declared that he didn’t know ‘nowt about the curriculum’, let alone how it might be delivered. Admittedly, that was some time ago, but more recently, as Robin Alexander usefully reminds us, the then Tory Education Secretary Kenneth Clarke politely wrote to Primary Heads stating that: “questions about how to teach are not for Government to determine.” (Alexander, 2008, p44) So is hasn’t always been the case that government has interfered in classroom practice and so it need not be in the future.

Equally, we might add that in schools, in this country at least, serious engagement with pedagogic matters has generally been avoided. At least this was Brian Simon’s conclusion when he penned his celebrated essay Why no pedagogy? in 1981 (Simon, 1981). One of Simon’s main observations, amongst a great many other insights, was that it was only in Europe, with its Piagets and Vygotskys, that teaching has been theorised. In England, by contrast, there has been no such tradition, which Simon links to the historic influence of the public school system in which the ‘religion of games’ dominated over more scholarly pursuits.

Simon’s essay is instructive at a number of levels. Most importantly, he illustrates both the continuities and changes in pedagogy. Today, in contrast to Simon’s time, pedagogy is very much center stage, with significant government interventions, major research initiatives, and generous allocations of teacher development time. In some respects it has displaced the curriculum. So the question we confront is not why no pedagogy, but why so much? His essay also offers a useful evaluation of the quality of pedagogic discourse that existed at the time of his writing. For Simon discussions of pedagogy tended to be eclectic, incoherent, a-theoretical and pragmatic - in the sense that they followed rather than led experience. Most importantly, they were conservative, in that they took institutional arrangements as given. At this level, we shall see that not much has changed.

Principled Pedagogy?

Simon’s initial focus in his essay was the work of a now defunct body that went by the name of the Schools Council. Today, perhaps the most apt comparator is the activities of the Economic and Research Council’s (ESRC) Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP). For those who are not familiar with this programme, it has involved more the 700 academic researchers and a budget in excess of £43m. Principally it has aimed, amongst other objectives, “to conduct research with the potential to improve outcomes for learners in a very wide range of UK contexts across the lifecourse.” (TLRP, 2010, p1)

Many of its individual projects have real merit, particularly those that relate to Information and Communications Technologies, but for our purposes the most important aspect of this initiative is a short document it produced in an attempt to distill its findings and raise the quality of teaching in this country. This outlines ‘ten evidence-informed pedagogic principles’ and they amply illustrate the many weaknesses of contemporary pedagogic discourse, at least as teachers experience it. (TLRP, 2008)

The first and most important point to be made about the principles is that they are presented in a highly generic fashion. So whilst components parts of the TLRP have investigated practice in particular disciplinary areas, such a Science, in this document the overall findings are presented in a format that strips teaching of its specific content. So rather than suggestions as to how to best teach Physics, or English Literature, we have global insights into the learning process as a whole. This is typical of the New Pedagogy and teachers often find it banal and infuriating precisely because it fails to provide any meaningful insights at the level of subject based practice. Ultimately, there may be some generic processes common to all learning, but for teachers and students alike it’s the particular topic of learning that is the most salient feature of classroom practice. Indeed, for most teachers it is their organising principle and the methods they adopt are derived from an estimation of how they might effectively engage a class with a particular set of ideas.

The TLRP’s ten principles not only dissociate content and method, they are also staggeringly platitudinous. The second principle of the TRLP states, for example, that: “effective pedagogy engages with valued forms of knowledge”. But is there any conceivable position other than this? Has it ever been seriously argued that: “effective pedagogy engages with value-less forms of knowledge”? Or perhaps, more interestingly, that “effective pedagogy engages with valued forms of ignorance”? (ibid, p1)

At the same as being platitudinous, the TLRP’s principles offer a view of learning that tends to neglect the capacity of learners to develop and in doing so it erases the specificity of the various phases of education. In the introduction to the principles the authors seem to make a virtue of this by pointing out that they are “applicable to all sectors”. The confusion this causes is illustrated by principle 4, which states that: “effective pedagogy requires learning to be scaffolded.” Further on it is explained that learners require “intellectual, social and emotional support” and that when these supports are “removed” learning “needs to be secure.” (ibid, p2)

Again, at a very, very, basic level it might be conceded that there is some truth in this principle, as all pedagogy implies one who is able – the teacher – providing a structure that allows one who is less able – the student - to progress. However, surely the most significant issue that a teacher has to engage with is how the levels of support differ in their type and intensity dependent on the competence and psychology of the learner. A student at reception level in primary education, to put this point baldly, surely has qualitatively different needs to one who is in the final stages of their A Levels? By equating the two the TLRP attributes too much agency to the former and too little to the latter.

There is much more that could be said about the TLRP’s evidence-informed pedagogic principles, no least that they appear to be devoid of any recognisable theory, but hopefully what we have considered so far provides a brief taster of the quality of pedagogy discourse that teachers experience. To summarise. First, the New Pedagogy tends to dissociate content and method and in doing so provides little useful guidance to the subject-teacher. Second, the New Pedagogy offers highly stereotyped views of the learner. In the TLRP’s case there is no differentiation of the levels at which they learn, but perhaps more typically, students are often presented as fragile learners. Finally, the New Pedagogy is highly platitudinous, often making remarkably superficial observations in relation learning, typically with no theoretical underpinning. Indeed, the New Pedagogy often presents itself as a practical ‘toolkit’, rather than a unified set of ideas.

Pedagogy Institutionalised

The quality of pedagogic discourse that teachers experience has not improved greatly since Simon wrote his famous essay. There is just more of it. But one reasonable objection to the critique offered so far is that for all its faults the New Pedagogy is perhaps relatively innocuous. It might dissociate content and method, it might state the obvious, but platitudes never broke any bones. Teachers, our objector might add, are a practical breed and have always had to deal with and dismiss nonsense produced by academics, so the opposition of pedagogy and teaching is false.

This objection might have some basis if it were not for the fact that one of the distinguishing features of the New Pedagogy is that it is associated with institutional frameworks that are highly controlling. Today, teaching is assessed and measured through external inspections by OfSTED, and perhaps more intrusively, through internal school and college observation processes that mirror OfSTED’s thinking. Here, the New Pedagogy is tightly prescriptive in terms of its expectations, which limits teachers’ operational freedom by establishing a template of officially sanctioned ‘best practice’.

OfSTED’s latest Annual Report provides a good illustration of this. In a section on the theme of teaching and learning it states that there is “very clear and precise evidence of the components of good teaching” and that they apply “consistently across phases and subjects.” (OfSTED, 2009, p105) In relation to this, it cites four key markers of excellence: the application of good subject knowledge; clear direction and good lesson structure; skillful questioning and opportunities for exploratory learning; as well as the effective use of assessment for learning.

In relation to the first of these, we might be pleasantly relieved that subject-knowledge is given first priority, but the report adds that “on its own it is not enough”, as its delivery needs to fit in with the framework of the New Pedagogy. Further on this is described in more detail. In relation to “direction” it is stated that that lessons must have a “clear purpose that the learner understands”. Hence, the now common practice of setting out learning objectives at the start of lessons and ensuring that these have been understood by learners. Further, with respect to “exploratory learning” it notes that “good teachers support learning by providing time for thinking and discussion” - cue active learning , including small group work and in class student presentations. Finally, under the section on assessment for learning, it points out that outstanding teachers “regularly revisit and reinforce objectives at key points and are skillful in drawing learning together”, which relates to the expectation that lessons should always end with a plenary in which ‘what we have learned’ is vocalised. (ibid, p105-9)

Individually, of course, each one of these examples of ‘excellence’ need not represent anything especially damaging in terms of classroom practice. One might observe that they propose a form of education that is perhaps rather rigidly pre-determined, with little scope for open discussion. It might also be added that the New Pedagogy establishes a perhaps rather unrealistic expectation that each session will end with a group ‘eureka’ moment. But that said, there is nothing wrong with activities, or plenaries, or perhaps even learning objectives.

The important point, however, relates not to the individual components of OfSTED’s pedagogical framework, but to the overall effect of promoting a template of ‘best practice’ to which teachers are expected to conform. What this does is establish the principle that a single common method can be imported into one’s classroom, irrespective of the group dynamic, or the particular content of the lesson. When followed, this disengages teachers from the analysis of their practice and ultimately creates a situation in which it is quite legitimate for a teacher to say that whilst a lesson may not have been effective, it was not their fault. I describe this as zombification - the dissociation of mind and body - but Michele Ledda has perhaps made the point more clearly. He argues that in the recent period intensive and intrusive regulation has undermined teachers scope for professional judgment, making teachers significantly more accountable, but also less responsible, as responsibility requires that teachers make decisions for themselves (Ledda, 2009).

Pedagogy Critiqued

At this point our objector might reasonably comment that teachers are not observed all that often and for the most part they are free to go about their business as they see fit. Indeed, there is some truth to this claim, but it is important to keep in mind that the New Pedagogy creates a new set of professional expectations. Many teachers may continue to exercise autonomy and judgment, and to reflect critically on their practice, but there is a real danger that this may soon become the exception rather than the norm. In other words, the New Pedagogy creates a professional culture in which expertise and delivery have become separated. And this is unlikely to create engaged and committed professionals who take full responsibility for their classrooms.

For this reason the New Pedagogy seems unlikely to achieve the results intended. Here it is useful to return briefly to Simon’s essay, as it makes an eloquent case for a ‘science of teaching’, which he saw as central to raising education standards for all. This approach has an obvious appeal, but what it misses, crucially, is that education is not a technical process which can be perfected as if were a circuit board. Education is an encounter between individuals who give meaning to the situation they find themselves in and for this reason there can be no universally applicable science of teaching, especially if this is conceived in terms of the standardisation of practice. Theory is useful, as it helps to clarify and inspire our work. But any attempt to regulate classroom encounters is likely to be counter productive, as it will lead to a dull uniformity, which is highly unlikely to engage either teachers, or students.

At a broader level, Robin Alexander has provided a particularly acute analysis of government’s ongoing attempts to shape classroom practice. One of his most profound observations relates to the fact that interventions at the level of technique are often based on an underestimation of the significance of the social context. Governments, especially ours, will often search the world’s education systems looking for successful methods, forgetting that it was the situation that gave a particular method its force. As Alexander puts it, this approach: “encourages the assumption that you can detach an education strategy from the values and conditions that give it meaning and ensure its success.” (Alexander, 2008, p17)

Beyond the New Pedagogy

Pedagogic ideas and practices have become real barriers to teaching. Pedagogic discourse is typically platitudinous, whilst institutional approaches associated with it are tightly prescriptive. Up and down the country the New Pedagogy is disabling teachers by distracting them from their subjects and limiting their room for maneuver in the classroom. Too many teachers now shuffle mindlessly into class and enact the commandments of the New Pedagogy’s sorcerers in the Department of Children, Families and Schools and OfSTED. Most worryingly, it is creating a new generation of zombie pedagogues, whose minds have become terminally detached from their bodies. If nothing else this leaves students thinking they are immersed in the latest twisted version of the Resident Evil video game. They deserve better. It is hoped that this essay will begin to challenge this state of affairs.

The New Pedagogy offers very little to teachers, governments or students. It promotes an unthinking and formulaic approach to classroom practice and undermines teachers’ sense of responsibility. Ultimately, it is based on the mistaken and highly simplistic assumptions about the ways in which educational relationships can be managed. There is an alternative. Instead of focusing on technique, government and teachers should focus on meaning and content. By clarifying why we educate and what students really need to know teachers and pupils will be given energy and purpose. From this standards will rise organically for all.

Bibliography

Alexander, Robin (2008) Essays on Pedagogy Oxon, Routledge

Simon, B (1981) Why No Pedagogy in England? in Simon, B et al eds. Education in the Eighties: The Central Issues London, Batsford

Teaching and Learning Research Programme (2008) TLRP’s Evidence Informed Pedagogic Principles available at www.tlrp.org, printed 4.1.2010

Teaching and Learning Research Programme (2010) Aims available at www.tlrp.org, printed 4.1.2010

OfSTED (2009) The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s

Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills 2008/09 London, The Stationary Office

Ledda, M (2009) Why Has OfSTED Failed? available at http://educationopinion.blogspot.com/, printed 4.1.2010

This chapter was originally published by The Standing Committee for the Education and Training of Teachers in the The Role of the Teacher Today (2017)

Picture: Mental Arithmetic in the Public School of S. A. Rachinsky by Nikolay Bogdanov-Belsky, 1895. Taken from Wikicommons.