Interesting Findings on Teaching and Learning
I’ve just finished Richard E. Nisbett’s most recent book, Intelligence and How To Get It:
Why Schools and Cultures Count. While the larger purpose of the book is to explore the controversy surrounding the relationship between genes and intelligence, I was most interested in his chapter on “Improving the Schools.” Through a careful analysis of credible educational research, he provides fascinating insights that may challenge some of our cherished beliefs about teachers and instructional methods.
Not surprisingly, Nisbett’s survey of the research leads him to conclude that “teacher quality matters a lot” in determining student outcomes. But some of his specific findings raise intriguing questions about the determinants of teacher quality:
- Teacher certification and credentialization - including master’s degrees - are unrelated to student outcomes.
- Teacher experience does count. First-year teachers are not as good as they will be, and the process of learning to teach well continues for a few years.
- Most faculty evaluation systems are not particularly good at rewarding the best teachers or weeding out the worst ones. There is some evidence that providing incentives to the most successful teachers results in improved educational outcomes.
With regard to instructional models:
- The evidence on the benefits of small classes is mixed, and smaller classes are of most benefit to children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
- Extremely promising evidence shows that interactive computerized instruction can be very effective, especially for mathematics and science training.
- Some types of cooperative learning, in which students work together toward common educational goals, have proven to result in huge gains in student performance.
- Effective tutors employ a number of very specific strategies that can be taught to aspiring teachers.
Nesbitt’s conclusions suggest some provocative questions that trustees might raise, particularly at a time when the ultra-expensive educational delivery model practiced by most independent schools is seeming ever more unsustainable. For example:
- If the evidence for the benefits of very small classes is mixed and the evidence for the benefits of computerized instruction is strong, are we investing too much in the former and too little in the latter?
- Are all of our teachers familiar with the research about best practices in cooperative learning and one-on-one tutoring? Are they expected to incorporate this knowledge into their teaching?
- Do our faculty evaluation, professional development, and compensation policies make sense in light of the evidence about the relationship between student outcomes and teacher training and incentive structures?
- How do we ensure that first-year teachers - particularly in critical positions such as first grade - are appropriately mentored? How do we make sure that our students are not shortchanged if they are assigned to a rookie teacher?
While I would never argue that the Board of Trustees should substitute its educational judgment for those of the educational professionals it employs, I do think that trustees should not be reluctant to request information about the empirical evidence underlying proposed approaches to teaching and learning.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment