I totally see how this is useful, especially for groups that struggle at self-management, but I wonder how to build on this so that over time everyone, even groups that start pretty low on the self-management scale, can get better at working independently and in looser, less controlled environments. My worry is that students would become completely reliant on teachers for controlling and managing their learning environments if they only experienced this style of teaching. What do you think?
2. As long as you don't institutionalize this form of teaching ("The Pershan Academy for Fussy Instruction") then the kids will let you know when they're ready.
3. When I'm teaching like this, and I notice that independent work is going well, I'll often let it go for longer. Why not? So partly the answer is to be open to being surprised by students and following their lead -- but knowing how to take the reins back when needed.
I think this is what “responsive teaching” is supposed to mean. And sort of does? It just is ill-defined because the set of things the teacher responds to and the set of responses is so open to interpretation. But narrow and specify both sets and we’d have something meaningful.
Another potential descriptor is "controlling". What you've outlined is a model of teaching in which the teacher controls exactly what every single student is supposed to be doing at every moment. It's less a model of learning and more a model of classroom management. Or just... manage your classroom so well that everyone is always on task and they'll probably learn a lot regardless of how you teach.
Absolutely, this is definitely controlling. (That, undoubtedly, is part of what makes it somewhat annoying.) But when the going gets rough, the teacher should get controlling. In my experience the alternative is far more disappointing to everyone.
Also controlling has a different meaning when it comes to teacher behaviour research. It means controllling use of rewards and punishments, controlling language. Asking students to do more and faster learning tasks isn’t controlling. It’s just brisk pace, which is something Archer promotes. I like switching modes because it snaps students out of whatever learning or behavioural rut they’re in.
Yeah, I'm not saying if it's good or bad. It's probably mostly good. When I observe my kids' elementary school teachers, i'm always taken aback by how tightly everything is controlled. Totally unlike how I run my classroom, but they're probably doing a better job!
College instructor here, and I appreciated this post and will likely steal from it. The idea reminds me of how I've learned to plan vacations with my teenage daughter: Script every minute of it, with a mix of things, and then stick to the script unless there is some good reason not to.
The best vacation she or I have ever had was one where literally I had every half hour mapped out with a variety of things to do, some fun ("Hike at such-and-such trail") and some boring/normal ("Walk to the rental car place before driving to the trail"), and all choices for activities, restaurants, etc. made in advance. It was a little controlling, sure, and we went off-script a few times but at no point were we sitting around staring at each other asking "What do you want to do now? I don't know, what do YOU want to do now?" etc etc. because in those situations, she'll totally disengage. But ask her about this particular vacation and she'll be talking about core memories made.
This description of fussy teaching is very much in line with Rosenshine’s principles which are applicable across all ages, levels of development and subject matter.
I like this approach for a smaller intervention groups where all students are more or less in the same place and where students aren’t accustomed to being engaged in intellectual work for an entire class (hence need for intervention).
High haptic , or low latency—the hippie types probably love low latency; tho prep wise it definitely isn’t and I’m sure that’s even more of a stretch across subjects
I was a student in the 1960’s/70’s and this sounds like a lot of the methods used by old teachers—ones who had been trained prior to the ‘60’s. Young teachers seemed more comfortable with allowing more unstructured time. I remember a lot of group recitation in 2nd and 3rd grade—when I had teachers who were probably in their ‘50’s…at the time they seemed ancient. The older teachers seemed to be good at assessing who needed highly structured lessons and almost no free time and who could quickly master a lesson and could be trusted to go off and read a book while the rest of the kids worked on memorizing multiplication tables or whatever it was. I do remember art (drawing, paper cutting, etc.) and independent reading being available to keep kids who had completed their work quiet so that the teacher could focus on the kids who needed more help.
There are always kids who will need a ton of structure to accomplish any learning, and kids who will chafe at that—the old ladies seemed to have a good sense of who needed what, and were able to divide up the class effectively.
I totally see how this is useful, especially for groups that struggle at self-management, but I wonder how to build on this so that over time everyone, even groups that start pretty low on the self-management scale, can get better at working independently and in looser, less controlled environments. My worry is that students would become completely reliant on teachers for controlling and managing their learning environments if they only experienced this style of teaching. What do you think?
Some quick thoughts on this good question:
1. Sometimes it's just a matter of age.
2. As long as you don't institutionalize this form of teaching ("The Pershan Academy for Fussy Instruction") then the kids will let you know when they're ready.
3. When I'm teaching like this, and I notice that independent work is going well, I'll often let it go for longer. Why not? So partly the answer is to be open to being surprised by students and following their lead -- but knowing how to take the reins back when needed.
I think this is what “responsive teaching” is supposed to mean. And sort of does? It just is ill-defined because the set of things the teacher responds to and the set of responses is so open to interpretation. But narrow and specify both sets and we’d have something meaningful.
Another potential descriptor is "controlling". What you've outlined is a model of teaching in which the teacher controls exactly what every single student is supposed to be doing at every moment. It's less a model of learning and more a model of classroom management. Or just... manage your classroom so well that everyone is always on task and they'll probably learn a lot regardless of how you teach.
Absolutely, this is definitely controlling. (That, undoubtedly, is part of what makes it somewhat annoying.) But when the going gets rough, the teacher should get controlling. In my experience the alternative is far more disappointing to everyone.
Also controlling has a different meaning when it comes to teacher behaviour research. It means controllling use of rewards and punishments, controlling language. Asking students to do more and faster learning tasks isn’t controlling. It’s just brisk pace, which is something Archer promotes. I like switching modes because it snaps students out of whatever learning or behavioural rut they’re in.
Yeah, I'm not saying if it's good or bad. It's probably mostly good. When I observe my kids' elementary school teachers, i'm always taken aback by how tightly everything is controlled. Totally unlike how I run my classroom, but they're probably doing a better job!
I wouldn't say it's universally good/bad. I'd say it's a style of teaching that I use when I need it.
College instructor here, and I appreciated this post and will likely steal from it. The idea reminds me of how I've learned to plan vacations with my teenage daughter: Script every minute of it, with a mix of things, and then stick to the script unless there is some good reason not to.
The best vacation she or I have ever had was one where literally I had every half hour mapped out with a variety of things to do, some fun ("Hike at such-and-such trail") and some boring/normal ("Walk to the rental car place before driving to the trail"), and all choices for activities, restaurants, etc. made in advance. It was a little controlling, sure, and we went off-script a few times but at no point were we sitting around staring at each other asking "What do you want to do now? I don't know, what do YOU want to do now?" etc etc. because in those situations, she'll totally disengage. But ask her about this particular vacation and she'll be talking about core memories made.
This description of fussy teaching is very much in line with Rosenshine’s principles which are applicable across all ages, levels of development and subject matter.
I’m curious if you’ve ever taught SRA Direct Instruction curriculum. Because engagement is very, very high.
.. maybe high and warm demand?
I'll bite.
This is counterdistracting teaching. Or perhaps, teaching to counterdistract.
I'm also open to The Controlling Sage on the M'fing Stage.
We shall keep worshipping.
But seriously, I like counterdistracting.
Demand Attention Pedagogy. "DAP them up."
That would sell.
This is how I teach Alg1. A funny thing about this approach is that your curricular materials become really hard to share with another teacher.
If someone asks what I’m doing to introduce slope today, it’s a sequence of 6 mini activities, not one big packet.
I like this approach for a smaller intervention groups where all students are more or less in the same place and where students aren’t accustomed to being engaged in intellectual work for an entire class (hence need for intervention).
High haptic , or low latency—the hippie types probably love low latency; tho prep wise it definitely isn’t and I’m sure that’s even more of a stretch across subjects
I was a student in the 1960’s/70’s and this sounds like a lot of the methods used by old teachers—ones who had been trained prior to the ‘60’s. Young teachers seemed more comfortable with allowing more unstructured time. I remember a lot of group recitation in 2nd and 3rd grade—when I had teachers who were probably in their ‘50’s…at the time they seemed ancient. The older teachers seemed to be good at assessing who needed highly structured lessons and almost no free time and who could quickly master a lesson and could be trusted to go off and read a book while the rest of the kids worked on memorizing multiplication tables or whatever it was. I do remember art (drawing, paper cutting, etc.) and independent reading being available to keep kids who had completed their work quiet so that the teacher could focus on the kids who needed more help.
There are always kids who will need a ton of structure to accomplish any learning, and kids who will chafe at that—the old ladies seemed to have a good sense of who needed what, and were able to divide up the class effectively.
You’ve got something here.
I’m the fussiest! Every kid, every question! 🙋♀️