Comment: How do we learn to work with intelligent machines?

I discussed something related to this earlier this year (the algorithmic de-skilling of clinicians) and thought that this short presentation added something extra. It’s not just that AI and machine learning have the potential to create scenarios in which qualified clinical experts become de-skilled over time; they will also impact on our ability to teach and learn those skills in the first place.

We’re used to the idea of a novice working closely with a more experienced clinician, and learning from them through observation and questioning (how closely this maps onto reality is a different story). When the tasks usually performed by more experienced clinicians are outsourced to algorithms, who does the novice learn from?

Will clinical supervision consist of talking undergraduate students through the algorithmic decision-making process? Discussing how probabilistic outputs were determined from limited datasets? How to interpret confidence levels of clinical decision-support systems? When clinical decisions are made by AI-based systems in the real-world of clinical practice, what will we lose in the undergraduate clinical programme, and how do we plan on addressing it?

Knowledge is more important than money

Those who work really hard throughout their career but don’t take time out of their schedule to constantly learn will be the new “at-risk” group. They risk remaining stuck on the bottom rung of global competition, and they risk losing their jobs to automation, just as blue-collar workers did between 2000 and 2010 when robots replaced 85 percent of manufacturing jobs.

Simmons, M. (2017). 5-Hour Rule: If you’re not spending 5 hours per week learning, you’re being irresponsible.

As I mentioned in my Plans! post from a few days ago, I’m trying to make more space in my day for reading. It’s partly because I enjoy reading more than almost anything else and partly because of my growing conviction that reading is one of the most important things I could be doing with my time. Reading is also a pre-requisite for being able to write well and I’d like to improve my writing quality and output during 2019. This post is really just a writing exercise where I expand on one of the points that I made in the post I just mentioned, providing some background and rationale for why I want to read more (this may become a short series of posts where I unpack my thinking around my plans).

In the early stages of your career, you want to focus on building what Cal Newport calls career capital, which is a shorthand for the kind of credibility that you can only get through hard graft. It’s the characteristic that makes people trust you because you’ve demonstrated a track record of consistently good work. It’s not just about showing up on time; it’s about how you show up. While career capital can be turned into financial reward, it’s really unlikely (unless you come from old money) that you can have money without first putting in the work. So it seems to me that you should make choices, especially early on in your career, that increase your chances of learning something new rather than looking for a bigger paycheque. Promotions are fine things to aim for but they won’t always lead to better opportunities in the long-term if they’re not associated with a high level of career capital (and yes, it’s possible to promote without having done the work).

Kevin Kelley said that you should “move into spaces that increase your options” but you can’t do this without first having a solid foundation of broad and deep knowledge of the world, or at least in your domain of interest. There are few opportunities available for those who are left behind and in the second decade of the 21st century, it’s become increasingly clear that many professionals are at risk of being left behind. Automation and machine learning are likely to make many tasks that we consider routine, redundant. Imagine if 25% of your daily work was automated away; what would you do with those extra 2 hours? Will you simply work fewer hours (at lower pay)? Or will you be ready to fill that time with meaningful tasks that machines can’t automate?

I started this post by saying that knowledge is more important than money because a high salary is a poor indicator of your ability to adapt to automation, whereas knowledge is the one thing that can help you to move quickly. The only way to plan for an uncertain future is to keep learning and one of the best ways to learn is to read.

adapting to constant change

The human work of tomorrow will not be based on competencies best-suited for machines, because creative work that is continuously changing cannot be replicated by machines or code. While machine learning may be powerful, connected human learning is novel, innovative, and inspired.

Source: Jarche, H. (2018). adapting to constant change.

A good post on why learning how to learn is the only reasonable way to think about the future of work (and professional education). The upshot is that Communities of Practice are implicated in helping us adapt to working environments that are constantly changing, as will most likely continue to be the case.

However, I probably wouldn’t take the approach that it’s “us vs machines” because I don’t think that’s where we’re going to end up. I think it’s more likely that those who work closely with AI-based systems will outperform and replace those who don’t. In other words, we’re not competing with machines for our jobs; we’re competing with other people who use machines more effectively than we do.

Trying to be better than machines is not only difficult but our capitalist economy makes it pretty near impossible.

This is both true and a bit odd. No-one thinks they need to be able to do complex mathematics without calculators, and those who are better at using calculators can do more complex mathematics. Why is it such a big leap to realise that we don’t have to be better image classifiers than machines either? Let’s accept that diagnosis from CT will be performed by AI and focus on how that frees up physician time for other human- and patient-centred tasks. What will medical education look like when we’re teaching students that adapting while working with machines is the only way to stay relevant? I think that clinicians who graduate from medical schools who take this approach are more likely to be employed in the future.

Another Terrible Idea from Turnitin | Just Visiting

Allowing the proliferation of algorithmic surveillance as a substitution for human engagement and judgment helps pave the road to an ugly future where students spend more time interacting algorithms than instructors or each other. This is not a sound way to help writers develop robust and flexible writing practices.

Source: Another Terrible Idea from Turnitin | Just Visiting

First of all, I don’t use Turnitin and I don’t see any good reason for doing so. Combating the “cheating economy” doesn’t depend on us catching the students; it depends on creating the conditions in which students believe that cheating offers little real value relative to the pedagogical goals they are striving for. In general, I agree with a lot that the author is saying.

So, with that caveat out of the way, I wanted to comment on a few other pieces in the article that I think make significant assumptions and limit the utility of the piece, especially with respect to how algorithms (and software agents in particular) may be useful in the context of education.

  • The use of the word “surveillance” in the quote above establishes the context for the rest of the paragraph. If the author had used “guidance” instead, the tone would be different. Same with “ugly”; remove that word and the meaning of the sentence is very different. It just makes it clear that the author has an agenda which clouds some of the other arguments about the use of algorithms in education.
  • For example, the claim that it’s a bad thing for students to interact with an algorithm instead of another person is empirical; it can be tested. But it’s presented here in a way that implies that human interaction is simply better. Case closed. But what if we learned that algorithmic guidance (via AI-based agents/tutors) actually lead to better student outcomes than learning with/from other people? Would we insist on human interaction because it would make us feel better? Why not test our claims by doing the research before making judgements?
  • The author uses a moral argument (at least, this was my take based on the language used) to position AI-based systems (specifically, algorithms) as being inherently immoral with respect to student learning. There’s a confusion between the corporate responsibility of a private company – like Turnitin – to make a profit, and the (possibly pedagogically sound) use of software agents to enhance some aspects of student learning.

Again, there’s some good advice around developing assignments and classroom conditions that make it less likely that students will want to cheat. This is undoubtedly a Good Thing. However, some of the claims about the utility of software agents are based on assumptions that aren’t necessarily supported by the evidence.

Teaching, learning and risk

I’ve had these ideas bouncing around in my head for a week or so and finally have a few minutes to try and get them out. I’ve been wondering why changing practice – in higher education and the clinical context – is so hard, and one way that I think I can make some sense out of it is to use the idea of risk.

To change anything is to take a risk where we don’t know what the outcome will be. We risk messing up something that kind-of-works-OK and replacing it with something that could be worse. To change our practice is to risk moving into spaces we might find uncomfortable. To take a risk is to make a decision that you’re OK with not knowing; to be OK with not understanding; to be OK with uncertainty. And many of us are really not OK with any of those things. And so we resist the change because when we don’t take the risk we’re choosing to be safe. I get that.

But the irony is that we ask our students to take risks every single day because to learn is to risk. Learning is partly about making yourself vulnerable by admitting – to yourself and others – that there is something you don’t know. And to be vulnerable is to risk being hurt. We expect our students to move into those uncomfortable spaces where they have take ownership of not knowing and of being uncertain.”Put your hand up if you don’t know.” To put your hand up and announce – to everyone – that you don’t have the answer is really risky.

Why is it OK for us to ask students to put themselves at risk if we’re not prepared to do the same. If my students must put their hands up and announce their ignorance, why don’t I? If change is about risk and so is learning, is it reasonable to ask if changing is about learning? And if that’s true, what does it say about those of us who resist change?

Interrogating the mistakes

We tend to focus our attention on the things that students got right. This seems perfectly appropriate at first glance because we want to celebrate what they know. Their grades are reported in such a way as to highlight the number of questions answered correctly. The cut score (pass mark) is set based on what we (often arbitrarily) decide a reasonably competent student should know (there is no basis for setting 50% as the cut score, but that’s for another post). The emphasis is always on what is known rather than what is not known.

But if you think about it getting the right answer is a bit of a dead end as far as learning is concerned. There’s nowhere to go from there. But the wrong answer opens up a whole world of possibility. If the capacity to learn and move forward sits in the spaces taken up by faulty reasoning shouldn’t we pay more attention to the errors that students make? The mistakes give us a starting point from which to proceed with learning.

What if we changed our emphasis in the curriculum to focus attention on the things that students don’t understand? Instead of celebrating the points they scored for getting the right answer could we pay closer attention to the areas where they lost marks? And not in a negative way that makes students feel inferior or stupid. I’m talking about actually celebrating the wrong answers because it gives us a starting point and a direction to move. “You got that wrong. Great! Let’s talk about it. What was the first thing you thought when you read the question? Why did you say that? Did you consider this other option? What is the logical end point of the reasoning you used? Do you see now how your answer can’t be correct?” Imagine a conversation going like that. Imagine what it would mean for students’ ability to reflect on their thinking and practice.

We might end up with some powerful shared learning experiences as we get into students’ heads as we try to understand what and how they think. The faulty reasoning that got them to the wrong answer is way more interesting than the correct reasoning that got them to the right answer. A focus on the mistakes that they make would actually help improve students ability to learn in the future because you’d be helping to correct their faulty reasoning.

But we don’t do this. We focus on counting up the the right answers and celebrating them, which means that we deflect attention from the wrong answers. We make implicit the idea that getting the right answer is important and the getting the wrong answers are bad. But learning only happens when we interrogate the faulty reasoning that got us to the wrong answer.

Accepting the default configuration

In almost every situation we come across in learning, we accept the default configuration. It’s not because we’re lazy but probably that we’re not even aware that alternative configurations exist. The first time this came to my attention was when I realised in the late 1990s that Windows was not the only computer operating system that existed. Not only were there other options but those options were – IMO – superior in almost every way.

We see the same thing in the default keyboard layout. The QWERTY configuration is not the optimal keyboard layout. It was created to slow typists down because the keys on the typewriters they were typing on jammed. The QWERTY keyboard configuration has been with us ever since. It’s called dominant design, the idea that certain design configurations are common, not because they are the best of competing alternatives, but because of a choice that someone has made.

The problem with dominant design is that almost all innovation is aimed at improving the dominant design rather than exploring competing alternatives. Think about the learning management system. It’s very hard to argue that this is the optimal online learning environment, nor is it a very good content management system. And yet, almost all effort at improving online learning is aimed at making the LMS better. Wouldn’t it be better to invest our time, energy and money into creating something better?

If you’re reading this you probably spend a lot of time writing and you probably use Microsoft Word. You probably use it because it came installed on the computer you’re using and you may not be aware that there are many other options for word processing. You probably type your documents in Calibri because that’s what Microsoft decided to set as the default. This isn’t an inherently bad thing but it has consequences. The fact that you type a document using the default configuration means that your document won’t display accurately on my computer because I don’t run Windows, I don’t have Word, and I don’t have Calibri installed. Is this your fault? Of course not. You just accepted the defaults.

What about classrooms? The configuration of things in space influences the nature of the interactions we can have in those spaces. In the classroom desks and chairs are almost always set up in rows. There is a front and back to the room. The teacher stands in the front. The students sit, facing the teacher. There is a power relationship that is set up by how we configure our bodies in space. Who stands and who sits. Who sits where? Who has to raise their hand to speak? Why have we decided to keep this up? These defaults determine how we teach. Is it because this configuration of physical space represents the optimal learning environment for our students or do we just accept the default?

I’m not saying that all defaults are bad. In cases where you’re not familiar with the field, you should probably accept the default settings. Computer security comes to mind. But, if you’re prepared to dig into the details a bit, then I’m sure you’ll find some settings that you’d rather change. Facebook privacy comes to mind. You don’t have to install open source software on your computers – although that would be a great start – and you don’t have to become an expert on everything you use. But you do need to know that every situation comes with a default configuration that someone else has set, and that you can change the settings.

The next time you are about to start something, ask if there are any changes you can make that will enhance the experience. Ask how much freedom you have to change the things you use. If you have no power to change the defaults then you’re accepting the choices that others have made about how you can teach. Just know that they didn’t make those choices based on what is best for students’ learning.

altPhysio | Creating value

This is the second post in a series of exploring what a next-generation physiotherapy school might look like. Many of the ideas are not fully formed and some have very little evidence to support them. This is OK. Push back is welcome. Here’s the second interview.

Q: Now that you’ve provided the background and context for why the school was necessary, tell us what the first step was. Where did you begin?

As with all things in learning we knew we had to start with the students and their perceptions of the curriculum. The curriculum is a series of signals we send students about what we value but how those signals are mis/interpreted is important. We know that people’s beliefs inform their behaviour so we asked our students what they believed was important. Lecturers believe everything they do has value but students make their own judgements about about what is valuable independently of what lecturers say. The conventional wisdom in the past was that everything a lecturer said was valuable and it was valuable simply because they had said it.

However, if the student doesn’t see the value proposition of what you’re saying or asking them to do then its utility is limited. When we tell students to pay attention because what we’re saying will be important one day (e.g. in clinical practice in the third year) the message we’re actually sending is that they don’t need to pay attention now. If the information is only useful later then that’s when they’ll look it up. Why waste resources in the present if the benefits are only useful at some future, undetermined time?

Like it or not, students are doing a cost-benefit analysis for every task you set them. They evaluate the cost of the task in terms of time and effort, against the perceived benefits of doing the task. For example, what is the cost of attending a lecture versus the benefit? If the cost (time and effort) is perceived to be higher than the benefit, they might skip the lecture. And in many cases they are probably right to do so. If classroom time is spent sharing content then the student is making a strategic decision about better allocation of their limited resources (i.e. time and effort) because they can get content anywhere at any time.

Q: So what did you do about that? How did you correct the students’ reasoning?

We didn’t try to correct it. We tried to understand it and work with it. Now we’re always asking, “How is this task going to help to change our students’ thinking and behaviour in ways that are useful for them today?” In the case of a lecture we make sure that attendance has real world value today and don’t simply offer the promise of future value or threat of immediate punishment.

What would happen if there was no requirement to attend class and no negative consequence for being absent? Would students attend? If the answer is no, then you should think carefully about the value you think you provide.

At altPhysio we don’t take roll call and there is no attendance requirement in any part of the programme. Once we had taken that decision the pressure was on us to make sure that the time we spend with students has  measurable value for them. We begin by assuming that students come to altPhysio with ambition and the capacity to achieve great things. Then we help guide them to open up their thinking and give them space to take responsibility for their learning. Everything we do in the curriculum is about empowering students and developing their agency to act in the world. We give them challenging tasks that force them to go beyond what they believed they were capable of and in doing so, set up conditions that show them how far they can go.

Students don’t hate working hard; they hate being bored. It turns out that they really do care about learning, it’s just that we force them to care about marks instead.

Q: How do we get students to care about their learning, as opposed to caring about marks?

Learning happens in the mind of the student and only in the mind of the student. A learning environment is therefore just a series of contexts to try and get students to value their learning. An intrinsically motivated student could probably get through our exams with nothing but a curriculum outline and an internet connection. So we asked how to get our students intrinsically motivated rather than satisfy a set of external conditions that were not always tied to outcomes that they valued. The problem was that most of our curricular interactions sent very strong signals that 1) we were in charge, and 2) what we valued was all that mattered.

The locus of control for (almost) all students sits outside themselves. We tell them where to go, when to get there, what to read, what would happen if they pushed back, etc. In the past our students had no control over their learning and it was clear in every aspect of the curriculum that lecturers had all the power. It’s hard to be internally motivated when you have no power. For example, if classroom attendance is compulsory (i.e. there is a mandatory cost) and students perceive that it has little value, but they have no option to make a choice about attending, then you’re sending a signal that they have no power in the domain of their learning.

Q: What is wrong with students being externally motivated? Does it really matter, as long as they get the work done? Pass the exams?

The problem with an external locus of control is that it sets up a context where students are responding to a system of reward and punishment that is determined by others, rather than responding to what they value. “Success” in that system is determined by how well you learn the rules for gaining rewards and avoiding punishment. It has nothing to do with what students believe is important for their own learning. Our old curriculum – as the expression of what lecturers value – only required that students passed a series of assessment tasks. Their own beliefs about what was important were not integrated into the system. In effect, it didn’t matter what was important to them.

Q: OK, so you realised that the curriculum was “telling” students to think and behave in ways that were not consistent with what you valued. What next? How did you get students’ values to align with lecturers’ values?

We asked ourselves what conditions would help students think and behave in ways that would most likely approximate the patterns of thinking and behaviour we expected to see in qualified professionals. In other words, how do you get students to think and behave like professionals? To come to class; to show up on time; to put maximum effort into their assignments; to do extra reading?

Once we had a better idea of students’ strategic thinking about the curriculum and how they assigned value to tasks, it gave us insight into how we designed those tasks. Our curriculum therefore had to describe a learning environment where thinking and behaving like a professional had a higher value for students who aligned with it, than for those who didn’t. For example, if we said that attending class was important, then there had to be something that happened in that class that gave a strategic advantage to those who attended compared with those who did not.

Q: What is the take home message here about providing value for students?

We used to look at students’ learning needs as a series of physical, social, financial and psychological factors that would positively influence their learning. And those things are obviously important. But we realised that a missing piece in our framework for understanding students was their rationalisation for compliance (or non-compliance) with the curriculum requirements. What were the underlying beliefs they had with respect to the inherent value of the tasks we were asking them to complete?

We needed figure out how to design our curricular interactions in order to maximise the utility of that time for students. We could no longer expect them to comply with our instructions simply because we told them that they should. The curriculum does not have any inherent value simply because we say it does. We need to intentionally design activities so that the value proposition for students outweighs the costs.

We want students to do what we ask them but we want them to do it because it has real value for their current and future practice, not because of a system of reward and punishment that we control. We can no longer afford to take students’ presence and attention for granted.

Psychology’s top 20 principles for enhancing teaching and learning

Every once in a while an article is published that you know is Important and that you should take Note of, and in this post I’m going to summarise a paper that I think fits into that category. It’s a recent publication in Mind, Brain and Education that attempts to summarise and explain the Top 20 principles of teaching and learning, as determined by the last few decades of psychological research. The article is called Science Supports Education: The behavioural research base for Psychology’s top 20 principles for enhancing Teaching and Learning, and it’s by Lucariello, Nastasi, Anderman, Dwyer, Ormiston, and Skiba. See the bottom of this post for the abstract and citation information.

After a brief introduction and description of the Methods the article gets stuck into the principles, which I’ll list and describe below. For some reason, Principle 8 – on the development of student creativity – is not included in the paper and no explanation is given for the omission.


Principles 1-8: How do students learn?

1. Students’ beliefs or perceptions about intelligence and ability affect their cognitive functioning and learning: If students believe that intelligence has a fixed value, they are less likely to learn than if they believe that intelligence can be changed. Teachers should communicate to students that “…failure at a task is not due to lack of ability and that performance can be enhanced, particularly with added effort or through the use of different strategies.”

2. What students already know affects their learning: Students prior knowledge influences how they incorporate new ideas because what they already know interacts with the new material being learned. This is an especially important concept when considering students’ misconceptions and how those misconceptions impede new learning. Teachers could create tasks that give students an active role in confronting and then reducing their cognitive dissonance.

3. Students’ cognitive development and learning is not limited by general stages of development: Cognitive growth is uneven and not linked to stages. Therefore, teachers’ ideas around how, and what new material should be presented, are more effective when they can take into consideration the domain-relevant and contextual knowledge of their students.

4. Learning is based on context, so generalizing learning to new contexts is not spontaneous, but rather needs to be facilitated: In order for learning to be effective, it should generalise to new or different contexts and situations. However, student transfer of knowledge and skills is not spontaneous or automatic. Teachers could therefore teach concepts in multiple contexts so that students can recognise contextual similarities, and focus on the application of their knowledge to the real world.

5. Acquiring long-term knowledge and skill is largely dependent on practice: What people know is laid down in long-term memory and information must be processed before it can move from short-term to long-term memory. This processing is accomplished through different strategies, and practice is key. Teachers should consider a variety of frequent assessment tasks given at spaced intervals (distributive practice). In addition, interleaved practice (a schedule of repeated opportunities) to rehearse and transfer skills or content by practicing with tasks that are similar to the target task, or using several methods for the same task, is also recommended.

6. Clear, explanatory, and timely feedback to students is important for learning: Students should receive regular, specific, explanatory, and timely feedback on their work. Feedback is more effective when it includes specific information that is linked to current knowledge and performance to clear learning goals. Teachers should consider providing feedback on assessment tasks – particularly after incorrect responses – in order to improve classroom performance in the future.

7. Students’ self-regulation assists learning and self-regulatory skills can be taught: Self-regulatory skills include setting goals for learning; such as planning, and monitoring progress; and self-reflection, which consists of making judgements about performance and self-efficacy in reaching goals. Self-regulatory skills include the regulation of motivation, which consists of students’ knowledge, monitoring, and active management of their motivation or motivational processing. Teachers can teach these skills directly to learners, by modelling strategies or coaching on their effectiveness. Teachers can also provide opportunities for learners to set goals and manage their attainment and for self-appraisal. A reflective community also can be established by teachers.

8. Missing from this paper

Principles 9-12: What motivates students?

9. Students tend to enjoy learning and perform better when they are more intrinsically than extrinsically motivated: Learners who are intrinsically motivated engage in academic tasks for the pure enjoyment of such engagement, and are more likely to achieve at higher levels and to continue engaging with activities in the future. Intrinsic motivation is linked to effective learning because students persist longer at tasks, experience lower levels of anxiety and develop positive competence beliefs. Learners who are extrinsically motivated engage in tasks in order to receive a reward or avoid a punishment, and are at risk for a number of problematic long term outcomes. Teachers can facilitate intrinsic motivation by de-emphasising high-stakes assessment, by allowing students to engage in projects they are interested in, encouraging students to take academic risks and by ensuring that students have enough time to engage with tasks.

10: Students persist in the face of challenging tasks and process information more deeply when they adopt mastery goals rather than performance goals: When teachers emphasise test scores, ability differences, and competition, students are more likely to adopt performance goals. Moreover, when test scores and grades are presented publicly, students are encouraged to focus on performance goals. In contrast, when teachers emphasise effort, self-improvement, and taking on challenges, students are more likely to adopt mastery goals. At the same time, they are likely to use effective and more complex cognitive strategies, to persist at challenging tasks, to report being intrinsically motivated, and to report feeling efficacious. Mastery goals are therefore more likely to be adopted when grades and test scores are shared privately and not compared across individuals.

11. Teachers’ expectations about their students affect students’ opportunities to learn, their motivation, and their learning outcomes: In classroom settings, teachers’ expectations for students’ successes and failures influence student achievement and motivation. When educators hold high expectations for their students, they often rise to the occasion and achieve at high levels (provided that the necessary support structures are in place). In contrast, when teachers hold low expectations for student success, students may come to believe that they lack skills and abilities, and thus confirm the teachers’ expectations. It is important to understand that teachers may interact differently with students, and provide differential instruction, based on their expectations for each student’s success or failure, regardless of how accurate those expectations are.

12. Setting goals that are short term (proximal), specific, and moderately challenging enhances motivation more than establishing goals that are long term (distal), general, and overly challenging: Goal setting is the process by which an individual sets a standard of performance and is important for motivation because students with a goal and adequate self-efficacy are likely to engage in the activities that lead to achievement of that goal. Three properties of goal setting are important for motivation. First, short-term goals are more motivating than long-term goals because it is easier to assess progress toward short-term goals. Students tend to be less adept at thinking concretely with respect to the distant future. Second, specific goals are preferable to more general goals because it is easier to quantify and monitor specific goals. Third, moderately difficult goals are the most likely to motivate students because they will be perceived as challenging but also attainable.

Principles 13–15: Why are social context, interpersonal relationships, and emotional well-being important to student learning?

13. Learning is situated within multiple social contexts.

14. Interpersonal relationships and interpersonal communication are critical to both the teaching–learning process and the social–emotional development of students.

15. Emotional well-being influences educational performance, learning, and development.

These principles are interrelated and are represented in theory and research relevant to schools as systems that support psychological (social and emotional) well-being as well as cognitive development and academic learning. According to developmental–ecological theory, the child or learner is best viewed as embedded within multiple social contexts or ecosystems (e.g., school, family, neighbourhood, peer group), that influence learning:

  • Microsystem: student-teacher and student-student interactions influence learning
  • Ecosystem: microsystem interactions occur within a school where policies and norms (teaching and learning practices and organisational structure) influence learning
  • Macrosystem: ecosystems interact (e.g. school and families) within a society which reflects culture, values and norms

These interactions within and between systems influence students’ learning significantly, and are documented more extensively in the article (pg. 61-62).

Principles 16–17. How can the classroom best be managed?

16. Expectations for classroom conduct and social interaction are learned and can be taught using proven principles of behaviour and effective classroom instruction.

17. Effective classroom management is based on (1) setting and communicating high expectations, (2) consistently nurturing positive relationships, and (3) providing a high level of student support.

Classroom management is a fundamental, bedrock set of
procedures and skills that establish a climate for instruction and learning. Class and school rules must be positively stated, concrete, observable, posted, explicitly taught, frequently reviewed, and positively reinforced. This allows students to learn the social curriculum in each classroom and enables teachers to develop classroom climates that maximise student engagement and minimises conflict and disruption.

Classrooms that are structured to offer multiple opportunities for students to respond facilitate the development of quality teacher–student relationships, which in turn lead to fewer behavioural problems and increased academic performance. Students who are at risk for classroom disruption may need more attention to relationship-building in order to develop and maintain connections in the classroom.

Culturally responsive classroom management is an approach that aims to actively engage students by offering a curriculum that is relevant to their lives. Teachers demonstrate a willingness to learn about important aspects of their students’ lives and create a physical environment that is reflective of students’ cultural heritage. Culturally responsive teachers understand the ways in which schools reflect and perpetuate discriminatory practices of the larger society and are characterised as “warm demanders”; “strong yet compassionate, authoritative yet loving, firm yet respectful”.

Finally, a high ratio of positive statements / rewards to negative consequences, and nurturing an atmosphere of respect for all students and their heritage, builds trust in the classroom that can prevent behavioural conflict.

Principles 18–20: how to assess student progress?

18. Formative and summative assessments are both useful, but they require different approaches: Formative assessments are carried out during instruction and are aimed at improving learning in the classroom setting. Summative assessments measure learning at a given point in time, usually at the end of some period of instruction where they are used to provide a judgement about student learning. The goal of both formative and summative assessments is to produce valid, fair, useful, and reliable information for decision making. Teachers can also use their understanding of assessment information to decide whether they covered the material that they intended to cover, or to judge how effectively they met the objectives for student learning.

19. Students’ skill and knowledge should be assessed with processes that are grounded in psychological science and that have provided well-defined standards for quality and fairness: Valid and reliable assessments enable teachers to make inferences about what students are learning. To understand the validity of an assessment, there are four question that need to be considered:

  1. How much of what you intended to measure is actually being measured?
  2. How much of what you did not intend to measure actually ended up being measured?
  3. What consequences, either intended or unintended, occurred with the assessment?
  4. Do you have solid evidence to support your answers to the first three questions?

Validity is a judgement, over time and across a variety of situations, about what inferences can be drawn from the test data, and the consequences of using the test. Valid assessment entails specifying what an assessment is supposed to measure. Teachers can improve assessment quality by aligning teaching and testing. However, they should also:

  • Be mindful that valid tests in one context may not be valid for another
  • Ensure that high-stakes decisions be based on multiple measures, not on a single test
  • Examine outcomes for any discrepancies in performance among different cultural groups

20. Good use of assessment data depends on clear, appropriate, and fair interpretation: Effective teaching depends heavily on teachers being informed consumers of educational research, effective interpreters of data for classroom use, and good communicators to students and their families about assessment data and decisions that affect them. The interpretation of assessments involves addressing the following questions:

  1. What was the assessment intended to measure?
  2. On what are comparisons of the assessment data based? Are students being compared to one another? Or, are responses being directly compared to samples of acceptable and unacceptable responses?
  3. Are scores being classified using a standard or cut point, such as letter grades, or another indicator of satisfactory/unsatisfactory performance?How were these standards set?

Awareness of the strengths and limitations of any assessment is critical. Such awareness enables teachers to make others aware of important caveats, such as the imperfect reliability of scores and the importance of using multiple sources of evidence for high-stakes decisions.


And there you have it. Twenty principles (19 without the one on fostering student creativity) on how best to go about enhancing teaching and learning practices in the classroom. While I don’t think it’s feasible to try and incorporate all of these principles in every classroom session, it’s definitely worthwhile having these at the back of your mind when planning assessment tasks, assignments, lectures and activities in class. I also recommend reading the whole paper which provides additional insight and links to further reading that would be useful to dig into.

Abstract

Psychological science has much to contribute to preK-12 education because substantial psychological research exists on the processes of learning, teaching, motivation, classroom management, social interaction, communication, and assessment. This article details the psychological science that led to the identification, by the American Psychological Association’s Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education, of the “Top 20 Principles from Psychology for PreK-12 Teaching and Learning.” Also noted are the major implications for educational practice that follow from the principles.

Citation: Lucariello, J. M., Nastasi, B. K., Anderman, E. M., Dwyer, C., Ormiston, H., & Skiba, R. (2016). Science Supports Education: The behavioural research base for Psychology’s top 20 principles for enhancing Teaching and Learning. Mind, Brain and Education, 10(1), 55–67.