I’ve discovered another Trifecta. I hold a great deal of admiration for Stacy Hurst, Lindsay Kemeny, and Donell Pons, hosts of Reading Horizons Literacy Talks podcast. That admiration led me to title them, “The Trifecta.” As I continue to learn about the science of learning, I’m recognizing another Trifecta: the science of reading, the science of teaching, and the science of learning.
The first time I remember hearing about the science of teaching was two years ago when listening to an Edview 360 podcast featuring Louisa Moats and Anita Archer. It blew my mind! I had been so consumed with learning about the science of reading that I didn’t realize there were other education “sciences” that play an equally, if not more important, role in student learning than the science of reading alone.
Upon finishing the book Harnessing the Science of Learning by Nathanial Swain, I’ve been thinking about how to summarize all that is contained in the book. There. Is. So. Much. And it’s really, really good stuff. One result of finishing the book is continued desire to add Science of Learning and Science of Teaching Resource pages to this blog. Stay tuned.
Additionally, much of what I’ve read has impacted my thoughts around and approaches to differentiation in the classroom. Just when a building in our district turned their attention to professional development around differentiation, I was reading Harnessing the Science of Learning and was filled with uneasy feelings.
I kept finding instances of contradictions between differentiation and the principles behind the science of learning. I’ve come to terms with some of the uneasiness, and have reconciled some of the differences. My biggest take-away is this (from Chapter 11 of Harnessing the Science of Learning): “…differentiate by the support we provide to students, rather than differentiate by curriculum.” In other words, don’t decide “…that some content is just too hard for some students.” It’s not. It is up to us to know our students in order to provide the right levels of support. Powerful stuff.
In a recent video highlighting connections between the science of learning and the science of reading, the amazing Stephanie Stollar discusses how the two sciences are connected, versus being two completely separate entities.
She describes the science of reading as a subset of the science of learning. She reminds us of two critical points when we think about the science of learning: 1) “…we are teaching in ways that make it more likely for the learning to happen.” and 2) “We need to focus on how they are learning over what they are learning.”
Stollar’s second point pairs well with a point that Nathaniel Swain makes in Chapter 12 of Harnessing the Science of Learning: “…focus on the how to teach rather than just what to teach.”
When working with teachers, one of the most common areas for improvement that I see is around using explicit instruction. I hear teachers express a desire to allow their students to engage in productive struggle (probably a good thing) without first giving them a foundation of knowledge. There is no productive struggle to engage in if I have nothing to struggle with – nothing to “hang my hat on” – nothing that has been explicitly taught or clearly explained.
I haven’t yet read the book Just Tell Them by Zach Groshell, but I absolutely get why that title was chosen.
Just the other day, I listened to an interaction between a teacher and a student and thought about the phrase, “Just tell them.” The interaction occurred during a reading intervention, where the student was struggling with reading syllables in words. Instead of the teacher saying something like, “That syllable is ‘un’. What is the syllable?” and waiting for the student to read, “un,” the teacher allowed the student to struggle-and-guess and struggle-and-guess and struggle-and-guess. This went on for each and every syllable in 10 or more multi-syllabic words.
I didn’t address it, as I was in the room to discuss a different student with a completely different intervention. In that case, just a few days earlier, I had witnessed the teacher engaging in playful banter with the student (great for building/maintaining relationships!), but the banter was occurring in the middle of the intervention… several times… with a student who has significant gaps in their reading skill. Save that playful banter for before and after the intervention, not in the middle where a swift pace, frequent feedback, and a focus on the skill are critical.
My frustration was initially with the teacher. Upon further reflection, my frustration is with the lack of training that teachers have received around how students learn. There are significant gaps between what is known about how students learn and the instruction that takes place in classrooms. These gaps are not unique to our district, state, or country.
My area of instructional focus is usually on reading instruction, but I know this: the principles of the science of teaching and the science of learning apply in all content areas. Teach important concepts explicitly and systematically, use frequent checks for understanding, provide frequent and spaced practice opportunities, and provide timely positive & corrective feedback.
Perhaps most of important of all: the science of teaching and the science of learning have huge implications for supporting student behavior. My colleagues and I have been intrigued by the following quote (source unknown): “The results we are getting align perfectly with what we are currently doing (or allowing).”
We get what we allow, and we cannot assume that students know what our expectations are, no matter their age, and no matter how many times we have “taught” them. If we want students to meet behavior expectations, we need to explicitly teach expectations, with examples and nonexamples, with ample practice, while monitoring student understanding, and with a plan for intervening for students who struggle to meet the expectations.
As buzzwords go in education, there is a genuine fear that the sciences I’ve written about today will become just that: buzzwords. They are much, much more than that. Swain wraps up his book with a call to action that was difficult not to include in its entirety. The conclusion promotes school improvement around the science of learning as “being informed by evidence” versus “being informed by ideology:”
“It is about a duty to act when there is strong evidence that such changes are ‘helpful for all children, harmful for none, and crucial for some’ (Snow & Juel, 2005).
Morally, how can we ignore this call?”