"Pedagogy, like language itself, can either liberate or imprison ideas, inspire of suffocate constructive thinking."

Pedogogy is the method and practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept." the relationship between applied linguistics and language pedagogy"

Pedagogy is the discipline that deals with the theory and practice of teaching. Pedagogy informs teaching strategies, teacher actions, and teacher judgments and decisions by taking into consideration theories of learning, understandings of students and their needs, and the backgrounds and interests of individual students. Pedagogy includes how the teacher interacts with students and the social and intellectual environment the teacher seeks to establish. Spanning a broad range of practice, its aims range from furthering liberal education (the general development of human potential) to the narrower specifics of vocational education (the imparting and acquisition of specific skills).

Instructive strategies are governed by the pupil's background knowledge and experience, situation, and environment, as well as learning goals set by the student and teacher. One example would be the Socratic schools of thought.

The teaching of adults, as a specific group, is referred to as andragogy.

What are the pedagogy in teaching?

School pedagogy is the art and science of teaching and refers to the styles and methods of instruction used in the teaching profession, including grading practices, assessment, and instructional strategies.

What is the meaning of pedagogical skills?

Pedagogy can be defined as the art of teaching. ? Pedagogy involves being able to convey knowledge and skills in ways that students can understand, remember and apply. ? Pedagogical skills can generally be divided into classroom management skills and content-related skills.

Effective and appropriate pedagogy

Appropriate pedagogy

Effective teachers carefully plan and implement appropriate pe-dagogy.

Learning is dependent on the pedagogical approaches teachers use in the classroom. A variety of pedagogical approaches are common in schools, but some strategies are more effective and appropriate than others. The effectiveness of pedagogy often depends on the particular subject matter to be taught, on understanding the diverse needs of different learners, and on adapting to the on-the-ground conditions in the classroom and the surrounding context. In general, the best teachers believe in the capacity of their students to learn, and carefully utilize a range of pedagogical approaches to ensure this learning occurs.

Issues and Discussion

Pedagogy and its Forms: Pedagogy refers to the “interactions between teachers, students, and the learning environment and the learning tasks.” This broad term includes how teachers and students relate together as well as the instructional approaches implemented in the classroom. Pedagogical approaches are often placed on a spectrum from teacher-centred to learner-centred pedagogy; though these two approaches may seem contradictory, they can often complement each other in the realisation of educational goals—for example, a teacher-centred approach may be useful to introduce a new theme, while a learner-centred approach may be necessary to allow students to explore these ideas and develop a deeper understanding.

• Teacher-Centred Pedagogy: Teacher-centred pedagogy positions the teacher at the centre of the learning process and typically relies on methods such as whole-class lecture, rote memorization, and chorus answers (i.e., call-and-response). This approach is often criticized, especially when students complete only lower-order tasks and are afraid of the teacher. However, whole-class teaching can be effective when teachers frequently ask students to explain and elaborate key ideas, rather than merely lecture.
• Learner-Centred Pedagogy: This pedagogical approach has many associated terms (e.g., constructivist, student-centred, participatory, active), but generally draws on learning theories suggesting learners should play an active role in the learning process. Students therefore use prior knowledge and new experiences to create knowledge. The teacher facilitates this process, but also creates and structures the conditions for learning. Considerable research and advocacy has promoted learner-centred pedagogy in recent years for economic, cognitive, and political reasons. Some research suggests this approach can be very effective but it is also difficult to measure consistently. It is often challenging for teachers to shift from teacher-centred pedagogy to learner-centred pedagogy, and so considerable support may be needed if this is an important goal for a given education system.
• Learning-Centred Pedagogy: “Learning-centred pedagogy” is a relatively new term that acknowledges both learner-centred and teacher-centred pedagogy can be effective, but teachers must consider the local context, including the number of students in the class, the physical environment, the availability of teaching and learning materials, etc. It suggests that teachers should be flexible and carefully adapt their pedagogical approaches based upon the school environment.

Effective and Appropriate Pedagogical Approaches: Effective pedagogy can lead to academic achievement, social and emotional development, acquisition of technical skills, and a general ability to contribute to society. Among these varied learning outcomes, academic achievement is the easiest to measure, but the others are also important to consider when trying to reform and monitor ongoing changes to pedagogical practice.

Pedagogical effectiveness often depends on ensuring that the approach is appropriate for specific school and national contexts. For example, certain learner-centred techniques that are effective in classrooms with fewer students may be difficult to accomplish in crowded or under-resourced classrooms (see below). Yet, some strategies have been shown to be more effective than others in a broadly-applicable way. These include the following: 1) strong grasp of pedagogical approaches specific to the subject matter and age of the learners (also called pedagogical content knowledge); 2) appropriate use of whole-class, small group, and pair work; 3) meaningful incorporation of teaching and learning materials in addition to the textbook; 4) frequent opportunities for students to answer and expand upon responses to questions; 5) helpful use of local terms and languages; 6) varied lesson activities; and 7) a positive attitude towards students and belief in their capacity to learn.

Pedagogy and the Education System: National examinations, curriculum standards, and other education system policies influence teacher pedagogy. For example, national exams that primarily test discrete factual knowledge, rather than comprehension or analysis, discourage teachers from using pedagogy that develops higher-order critical thinking skills. For this reason, if education planners wish to change pedagogical practice, it is not sufficient to simply issue new pedagogical guidelines—they will also have to explore ways to align other policies and practices throughout the system.

Inclusiveness and Equity

Teacher expectations of disadvantaged students: When teachers have a positive attitude towards their students, they are more socially responsive and attentive, they more often tailor their instruction to particular student needs, and they are more successful at drawing on students’ experiences to make lessons meaningful and contextually relevant. Conversely, students from disadvantaged social groups, such as females, minorities, or the disabled often suffer from teacher prejudices, which translate into low expectations of these students’ capacities. Teachers who have low expectations of their students make less of an effort to help them learn, in addition to discouraging them in other subtle ways, with the final result that these students often achieve lower academic performance.

Adapting pedagogy to mixed-level, large, and under-resourced classrooms. What constitutes effective pedagogy is often context-dependent; therefore teachers need to receive specific preparation in how to make contextual adaptations to their teaching approaches through both pre-service and in-service training. In mixed-level classrooms, teachers need to have a deep understanding of students’ different ability levels in order to alter their instruction and activities to meet the needs of each student. Group work can also be helpful for students of different ability levels. When teaching in large classes it is vital to maintain classroom routines. Many excellent teachers set up routines for group-work, peer review, distributing papers, etc., to help reduce chaos and increase instructional time. There are also specific techniques for effective use of questions and encouraging discussions in large classrooms. In under-resourced classrooms, teachers need to be especially creative about how to use locally-available materials, and how to connect lessons to observations of the social and natural environment. These approaches can, in fact, strengthen teaching even in well-resourced classrooms since teaching and learning materials are most beneficial when they are relevant to students’ lives

History

The educational philosophy and pedagogy of Johann Friedrich Herbart (4 May 1776 – 14 August 1841) highlighted the correlation between personal development and the resulting benefits to society. In other words, Herbart proposed that humans become fulfilled once they establish themselves as productive citizens. Herbartianism refers to the movement underpinned by Herbart's theoretical perspectives. Referring to the teaching process, Herbart suggested 5 steps as crucial components. Specifically, these 5 steps include: preparation, presentation, association, generalization, and application. Herbart suggests that pedagogy relates to having assumptions as an educator and a specific set of abilities with a deliberate end goal in mind.

Pedagogical approaches

Critical pedagogy

Critical pedagogy is both a pedagogical approach and a broader social movement. Critical pedagogy acknowledges that educational practices are contested and shaped by history, schools are not politically neutral spaces and teaching is political. Decisions regarding the curriculum, disciplinary practices, student testing, textbook selection, the language used by the teacher, and more can empower or dis empower students. It recognizes that educational practices favor some students over others and some practices harm all students. It also recognizes that educational practices often favour some voices and perspectives while marginalizing or ignoring others. Another aspect examined is the power the teacher holds over students and the implications of this. Its aims include empowering students to become active and engaged citizens, who are able to actively improve their own lives and their communities.

Critical pedagogical practices may include, listening to and including students’ knowledge and perspectives in class, making connections between school and the broader community, and posing problems to students that encourage them to question assumed knowledge and understandings. The goal of problem posing to students is to enable them to begin to pose their own problems. Teachers acknowledge their position of authority and exhibit this authority through their actions that support students.

Critical pedagogue Ira Shor, who was mentored by and worked closely with Freire from 1980 until Freire's death in 1997, defines critical pedagogy as:

Habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning, root causes, social context, ideology, and personal consequences of any action, event, object, process, organization, experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media, or discourse. ( Empowering Education, 129)

Critical pedagogy explores the dialogic relationships between teaching and learning. Its proponents claim that it is a continuous process of what they call "unlearning", "learning", and "relearning", "reflection", "evaluation", and the effect that these actions have on the students, in particular students whom they believe have been historically and continue to be disenfranchised by what they call "traditional schooling".

The educational philosophy has since been developed by Henry Giroux and others since the 1980s as a pr axis-oriented "educational movement, guided by passion and principle, to help students develop a consciousness of freedom, recognize authoritarian tendencies, and connect knowledge to power and the ability to take constructive action". Freire wrote the introduction to his 1988 work, Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning. Another leading critical pedagogy theorist who Freire called his "intellectual cousin", Peter McLaren, wrote the foreword. McLaren and Giroux co-edited one book on critical pedagogy and co-authored another in the 1990s. Among its other leading figures in no particular order are bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins), Joe L. Kincheloe, Patti Lather, Antonia Darder, Gloria Ladson-Billings, Peter McLaren, Joe L. Kincheloe, Khen Lampert, Howard Zinn, Donaldo Macedo, Sandy Grande, Michael Apple, and Stephanie Ledesma. Educationalists including Jonathan Kozol and Parker Palmer are sometimes included in this category. Other critical pedagogues known more for their Anti-schooling, unschooling, or deschooling perspectives include Ivan Illich, John Holt, Ira Shor, John Taylor Gatto, and Matt Hern.

Critical pedagogy has several other strands and foundations. Postmodern, anti-racist, feminist, postcolonial, and queer theories all play a role in further expanding and enriching Freire's original ideas about a critical pedagogy, shifting its main focus on social class to include issues pertaining to religion, military identification, race, gender, sexuality, nationality, ethnicity, and age. Much of the work also draws on anarchism, Gy?rgy Lukács, Wilhelm Reich, post colonialism, and the discourse theories of Edward Said, Antonio Gramsci, Gilles Deleuze (rhizomatic learning) and Michel Foucault. Radical Teacher is a magazine dedicated to critical pedagogy and issues of interest to critical educators. Many contemporary critical pedagogues have embraced Postmodern, anti-essentialist perspectives of the individual, of language, and of power, "while at the same time retaining the Freirean emphasis on critique, disrupting oppressive regimes of power/knowledge, and social change".

We cannot simply attempt to cultivate the intellect without changing the unjust social context in which such minds operate. Critical educators cannot just work to change the social order without helping to educate a knowledgeable and skillful group of students. Creating a just, progressive, creative, and democratic society demands both dimensions of this pedagogical progress.

Developments

Like critical theory itself, the field of critical pedagogy continues to evolve. Contemporary critical educators, such as bell hooks and Peter McLaren, discuss in their criticisms the influence of many varied concerns, institutions, and social structures, "including globalization, the mass media, and race/spiritual relations", while citing reasons for resisting the possibilities to change. McLaren has developed a social movement based version of critical pedagogy that he calls revolutionary critical pedagogy, emphasizing critical pedagogy as a social movement for the creation of a democratic socialist alternative to capitalism.

Joe L. Kincheloe and Shirley R. Steinberg have created the Paulo and Nita Freire Project for International Critical Pedagogy at McGill University. In line with Kincheloe and Steinberg's contributions to critical pedagogy, the project attempts to move the field to the next phase of its evolution. In this second phase, critical pedagogy seeks to become a worldwide, decolonizing movement dedicated to listening to and learning from diverse discourses of people from around the planet. Kincheloe and Steinberg also embrace Indigenous knowledges in education as a way to expand critical pedagogy and to question educational hegemony. Joe L. Kincheloe, in expanding on the Freire's notion that a pursuit of social change alone could promote anti-intellectualism, promotes a more balanced approach to education than postmodernists.

We cannot simply attempt to cultivate the intellect without changing the unjust social context in which such minds operate. Critical educators cannot just work to change the social order without helping to educate a knowledgeable and skillful group of students. Creating a just, progressive, creative, and democratic society demands both dimensions of this pedagogical progress.

One of the major texts taking up the intersection between critical pedagogy and Indigenous knowledge(s) is Sandy Grande's, Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought (Rowman and Littlefield, 2004). In agreement with this perspective, Four Arrows, aka Don Trent Jacobs, challenges the anthropocentrism of critical pedagogy and writes that to achieve its transformative goals there are other differences between Western and Indigenous worldview that must be considered. Approaching the intersection of Indigenous perspectives and pedagogy from another perspective, critical pedagogy of place examines the impacts of place.

In the classroom

Ira Shor, a professor at the City University of New York, provides for an example of how critical pedagogy is used in the classroom. He develops these themes in looking at the use of Freirean teaching methods in the context of the everyday life of classrooms, in particular, institutional settings. He suggests that the whole curriculum of the classroom must be re-examined and reconstructed. He favors a change of role of the student from object to active, critical subject. In doing so, he suggests that students undergo a struggle for ownership of themselves. He states that students have previously been lulled into a sense of complacency by the circumstances of everyday life and that through the processes of the classroom, they can begin to envision and strive for something different for themselves.

Of course, achieving such a goal is not automatic nor easy, as he suggests that the role of the teacher is critical to this process. Students need to be helped by teachers to separate themselves from unconditional acceptance of the conditions of their own existence. Once this separation is achieved, then students may be prepared for critical re-entry into an examination of everyday life. In a classroom environment that achieves such liberating intent, one of the potential outcomes is that the students themselves assume more responsibility for the class. Power is thus distributed amongst the group and the role of the teacher becomes much more mobile, not to mention more challenging. This encourages the growth of each student's intellectual character rather than a mere "mimicry of the professorial style."

Teachers, however, do not simply abdicate their authority in a student-centred classroom. In the later years of his life, Freire grew increasingly concerned with what he felt was a major misinterpretation of his work and insisted that teachers cannot deny their position of authority.

Critical teachers, therefore, must admit that they are in a position of authority and then demonstrate that authority in their actions in supports of students... [A]s teachers relinquish the authority of truth providers, they assume the mature authority of facilitators of student inquiry and problem-solving. In relation to such teacher authority, students gain their freedom--they gain the ability to become self-directed human beings capable of producing their own knowledge.

— Joe L. Kincheloe, Critical Pedagogy Primer

And due to the student-centeredness that critical pedagogy insists upon, there are inherent conflicts associated with the "large collections of top-down content standards in their disciplines". Critical pedagogy advocates insist that teachers themselves are vital to the discussion about Standards-based education reform in the United States because a pedagogy that requires a student to learn or a teacher to teach externally imposed information exemplifies the banking model of education outlined by Freire where the structures of knowledge are left unexamined. To the critical pedagogue, the teaching act must incorporate social critique alongside the cultivation of intellect.

Joe L. Kincheloe argues that this is in direct opposition to the epistemological concept of positivism, where "social actions should proceed with law-like predictability". In this philosophy, a teacher and their students would be served by Standards-based education where there is "only be one correct way to teach" as "[e]veryone is assumed to be the same regardless of race, class, or gender". Donald Sch?n's concept of "indeterminate zones of practice" illustrates how any practice, especially ones with human subjects at their center, are infinitely complex and highly contested, which amplify the critical pedagogue's unwillingness to apply universal practices.

Furthermore, bell hooks, who is greatly influenced by Freire, points out the importance of engaged pedagogy and the responsibility that teachers, as well as students, must have in the classroom:

Teachers must be aware of themselves as practitioners and as human beings if they wish to teach students in a non-threatening, anti-discriminatory way. Self-actualisation should be the goal of the teacher as well as the students.

What is pedagogy?

What is pedagogy?

Many discussions of pedagogy make the mistake of seeing it as primarily being about teaching. In this piece Mark K. Smith explores the origins of pedagogy and the often overlooked traditions of thinking and practice associated with it. He argues that a focus on teaching as a specialist role is best understood in other ways. Pedagogy needs to be explored through the thinking and practice of those educators who look to accompany learners; care for and about them; and bring learning into life. Teaching is just one aspect of their practice. He also looks to some of the issues facing the development of pedagogical thinking.

In recent years interest has grown in ‘pedagogy’ within English-language discussions of education. The impetus has come from different directions. There have been those like Paulo Freire seeking a ‘pedagogy of the oppressed’ or ‘critical pedagogy’; practitioners wanting to rework the boundaries of care and education via the idea of social pedagogy; and, perhaps most significantly, governments wanting to constraint the activities of teachers by requiring adherence to preferred ‘pedagogies’.

A common way of approaching pedagogy is as the art and science (and maybe even craft) of teaching. As we will see, viewing pedagogy in this way both fails to honour the historical experience, and to connect crucial areas of theory and practice. Here we suggest that a good way of exploring pedagogy is as the process of accompanying learners; caring for and about them; and bringing learning into life.

The nature of education

Our starting point here is with the nature of education. Unfortunately, it is easy to confuse education with schooling. Many think of places like schools or colleges when seeing or hearing the word. They might also look to particular jobs like teacher or tutor. The problem with this is that while looking to help people learn, the way a lot of teachers work isn’t necessarily something we can properly call education.

Often teachers fall, or are pushed, into ‘schooling’ – trying to drill learning into people according to some plan often drawn up by others. Paulo Freire (1972) famously called this ‘banking’ – making deposits of knowledge. It can quickly descend into treating learners like objects, things to be acted upon rather than people to be related to. In contrast, to call ourselves ‘educators’ we need to look to acting with people rather on them.

Education is a deliberate process of drawing out learning (educere), of encouraging and giving time to discovery. It is an intentional act. At the same time it is, as John Dewey (1963) put it, a social process – ‘a process of living and not a preparation for future living’. As well being concerned with learning that we set out to encourage – a process of inviting truth and possibility – it is also based in certain values and commitments such as a respect for others and for truth. Education is born, it could be argued, of the hope and desire that all may share in life and ‘be more’.

For many concerned with education, it is also a matter of grace and wholeness, wherein we engage fully with the gifts we have been given. As Pestalozzi constantly affirmed, education is rooted in human nature; it is a matter of head, hand and heart (Brühlmeier 2010). We find identity, meaning, and purpose in life ‘through connections to the community, to the natural world, and to spiritual values such as compassion and peace’ (Miller 2000).

To educate is, in short, to set out to create and sustain informed, hopeful and respectful environments where learning can flourish. It is concerned not just with knowing about things, but also with changing ourselves and the world we live in. As such education is a deeply practical activity – something that we can do for ourselves (what we could call self-education), and with others. This is a process carried out by parents and carers, friends and colleagues, and specialist educators.

It is to the emergence of the last of these in ancient Greece that we will now turn as they have become so much a part of the way we think about, and get confused by, the nature of pedagogy.

Pedagogues and teachers in ancient Greek society

Within ancient Greek society there was a strong distinction between the activities of pedagogues (paidag?gus) and subject teachers (didáskalos). The first pedagogues were slaves – often foreigners and the ‘spoils of war’ (Young 1987). They were trusted and sometimes learned members of rich households who accompanied the sons of their ‘masters’ in the street, oversaw their meals etc., and sat beside them when being schooled. These pedagogues were generally seen as representatives of their wards’ fathers and literally ‘tenders’ of children (pais plus ag?gos, a ‘child-tender’). Children were often put in their charge at around 7 years and remained with them until late adolescence.

The roles and relationships of pedagogues

Plato talks about pedagogues as ‘men who by age and experience are qualified to serve as both leaders (h?gemonas) and custodians (paidag?gous)’ of children (Longenecker 1983: 53). Their role varied but two elements were common (Smith 2006). The first was to be an accompanist or companion – carrying books and bags, and ensuring their wards were safe. The second, and more fundamental task in relation to boys, was to help them learn what it was to be men. This they did by a combination of example, conversation and disciplining. Pedagogues were moral guides who were to be obeyed (Young 1987: 156)

The pedagogue was responsible for every aspect of the child’s upbringing from correcting grammar and diction to controlling his or her sexual morals. Reciting a pedagogue’s advice, Seneca said, “Walk thus and so; eat thus and so, this is the proper conduct for a man and that for a woman; this for a married man and that for a bachelor’. (Smith 2006: 201)

Employing a pedagogue was a custom that went far beyond Greek society. Well-to-do Romans and some Jews placed their children in the care and oversight of trusted slaves. As Young (1987) notes, it was a continuous (and ever widening) practice from the fifth century B.C. until late into imperial times (quoted in Smith 2006). He further reports that brothers sometimes shared one pedagogue in Greek society. In contrast, in Roman society there were often several pedagogues in each family, including female overseers for girls. This tradition of accompanying and bag carrying could still be found in more recent systems of slavery such as that found in the United States – as Booker T Washington recounted in his autobiography Up from Slavery (1963).

The relation of the pedagogue to the child is a fascinating one. It brings new meaning to Friere’s (1972) notion of the ‘pedagogy of the oppressed’ – this was the education of the privileged by the oppressed. Apparently, it was a matter that, according to Plato, did not go unnoticed by Socrates. In a conversation between Socrates and a young boy Lysis, Socrates asked, ‘Someone controls you?’ Lysis replied, ‘Yes, he is my tutor [or pedagogue] here.’ ‘Is he a slave?’ Socrates queried. ‘Why, certainly; he belongs to us,’ responded Lysis, to which Socrates mused, ‘What a strange thing, I exclaimed; a free person controlled by a slave!’ (Plato 1925, quoted by Smith 2006).

Pedagogues and teachers

Moral supervision by the pedagogue (paidagogos) was significant in terms of status

He was more important than the schoolmaster, because the latter only taught a boy his letters, but the paidagogos taught him how to behave, a much more important matter in the eyes of his parents. He was, moreover, even if a slave, a member of the household, in touch with its ways and with the father’s authority and views. The schoolmaster had no such close contact with his pupils. (Castle 1961: 63-4)

However, because both pedagogues and teachers were of relatively low status they were could be disrespected by the boys. There was a catch here. As the authority and position of pedagogues flowed from the head of the household, and their focus was more on life than ‘letters’, they had advantages over teachers (didáskalos).

The distinction between teachers and pedagogues, instruction and guidance, and education for school or life was a feature of discussions around education for many centuries. It was still around when Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) explored education. In On Pedagogy (über P?dagogik) first published in 1803, he talked as follows:

Education includes the nurture of the child and, as it grows, its culture. The latter is firstly negative, consisting of discipline; that is, merely the correcting of faults. Secondly, culture is positive, consisting of instruction and guidance (and thus forming part of education). Guidance means directing the pupil in putting into practice what he has been taught. Hence the difference between a private teacher who merely instructs, and a tutor or governor who guides and directs his pupil. The one trains for school only, the other for life. (Kant 1900: 23-4)

The question we need to ask, then, is how did ‘pedagogy’ become focused on teaching?

The growing focus on teaching

In Europe concern with the process and content of teaching and instruction developed significantly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was, however, part of a movement that dated from 300-400 years earlier. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries we see, for example:

• A growing literature about instruction and method aimed at schoolteachers.
• The grouping together of different areas of knowledge in syllabi which set out what was to be instructed.
• A focus on the organisation and development of schools (Hamilton 1999: 138).

There was a ‘the separation of the activity of “teaching” from the activity of defining “that which is taught” (ibid: 139). This led in much of continental Europe to a growing interest in the process of teaching and the gathering together of examples, guidance and knowledge in the form of what became known as didactics.

Didactics

One of the important landmarks here was the publication of John Amos Comenius’s book The Great Didactic [Didactica Magna] (first published in Czech in 1648, Latin in 1657 and in English in 1896). For Comenius,

the fundamental aims of education generate the basic principle of Didactica Magna, omnis, omnia, omnino – to teach everything to everybody thoroughly, in the best possible way, Comenius believed that every human being should strive for perfection in all that is fundamental for life and do this as thoroughly as possible…. Every person must strive to become (l) a rational being, (2) a person who can rule nature and him or herself, and (3) a being mirroring the creator. (Gundem 1992: 53)

He developed sets of rules for teaching and set out basic principles. His fundamental conclusions, according to Gundem 1992: 54) remain valid:

• Teaching must be in accordance with the student’s stage of development…
• All learning happens through the senses…
• One should proceed from the specific to the general, from what is easy to the more difficult, from what is known to the unknown.
• Teaching should not cover too many subjects or themes at the same time.
• Teaching should proceed slowly and systematically. Nature makes no jumps. (op. cit.)

Following Kant and Comenius, another significant turning point in thinking about teaching came through the growing influence of one of Kant’ successors in the Chair of Philosophy at K?nigsberg University: Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776-1841).

Theories of teaching

As Hamilton (1999: 143) has put it, Herbart sought to devise, from first principles, an educational system and thus worked towards a general theory of pedagogics (see, for example, Allgemeine p?dagogik – General Pedagogics, 1806 and Umriss P?dagogischer Vorlesungen, 1835 – Plan of Lectures on Pedagogy and included in Herbart 1908).

At the centre of his theory of education and of schooling is the idea of ‘educational teaching’ or ‘educating instruction’ (erzieinder Unterricht). Hilgenheger (1993: 651-2) makes the following observations:

Like practical and theoretical educationalists before him, Herbart also makes a distinction between education (Latin: educatio) and teaching (Latin: instructio). ‘Education’ means shaping the development of character with a view to the improvement of man. ‘Teaching’ represents the world, conveys fresh knowledge, develops existing aptitudes and imparts useful skills….

Before Herbart, it was unusual to combine the concepts of ‘education’ and ‘teaching’. Consequently, questions pertaining to education and teaching were initially pursued independently… Herbart… took the bold step of ‘subordinating’ the concept of ‘teaching’ to that of ‘education’ in his educational theory. As he saw it, external influences, such as the punishment or shaming of pupils, were not the most important instruments of education. On the contrary, appropriate teaching was the only sure means of promoting education that was bound to prove successful.

In Herbart’s own words, teaching is the ‘central activity of education’.

What Herbart and his followers achieved with this was to focus consideration of instruction and teaching (didactics) around schooling rather than other educational settings (Gundem 2000: 239-40). Herbart also turned didactics ‘into a discipline of its own’ – extracting it from general educational theory (op. cit.). Simplified and rather rigid versions of his approach grew in influence with the development of mass schooling and state-defined curricula.

This approach did not go unchallenged at the time. There were those who argued that teaching should become part of the human rather than ‘exact’ sciences (see Hamilton 1999: 145-6). Rather than seeking to construct detailed systems of instruction, the need was to explore the human experience of teaching, learning and schooling. It was through educational practice and reflection upon it (‘learning by doing’) and exploring the settings in which it happens that greater understanding would develop. In Germany some of those arguing against an over-focus on method and state control of curricula looked to social pedagogy with its focus on community and democracy (see below).

Education as a science

These ideas found their way across the channel and into English-language books and manuals about teaching – especially those linked to Herbart. Perhaps the best known text was Alexander Bain’s Education as a Science (first published in 1879 – and reprinted 16 or more times over the next twenty years). However, its influence was to prove limited. Brian Simon (1981) in an often cited chapter ‘Why no pedagogy in England?’, argued that with changes in schooling in the latter years of the nineteenth century and growing government intervention there was much less emphasis upon on intellectual growth and much more on containment. In addition the psychology upon which it was based was increasingly called into question. Simon (1981: 1) argued:

The most striking aspect of current thinking and discussion about education is its eclectic character, reflecting deep confusion of thought, and of aims and purposes, relating to learning and teaching – to pedagogy.

As a result, education as a science – and its study – is ‘still less a “science” and has little prestige (ibid.: 2). He continued, ‘The dominant educational institutions of this country have had no concern with theory, its relation to practice, with pedagogy’ (he defined pedagogy as the science of teaching). More recently, educationalists like Robin Alexander (2004: 11) have argued that it is the prominence of curriculum in English schooling led to pedagogy (as the process of teaching) remaining in a subsidiary position. This was especially so in the arguments around introducing a National Curriculum in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (established in the Education Reform Act 1988) – and the implementation of the curriculum in its first twenty years. The focus was upon ‘delivering’ certain content and testing to see whether it had been retained.

The re-emergence of pedagogy

In continental Europe interest in didactics and pedagogy remained relatively strong and there were significant debates and developments in thinking (see Gundem 2000: 241-59). Relatively little attention was paid to pedagogy in Britain and north America until the 1970s and early 1980’s. But this changed.

Writing about pedagogy

Initially, interest in pedagogy was reawakened by the decision of Paulo Freire to name his influential book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (first published in English in 1970). The book became a key reference point on many education programmes in higher education and central to the establishment of explorations around critical pedagogy. It was followed another pivotal text – Basil Bernstein’s (1971) ‘On the classification and framing of educational knowledge’. He drew upon developments in continental debates. He then placed them in relation to the different degrees of control people had over their lives and educational experience according to their class position and cultures. Later he was to look at messages carried by different pedagogies (Bernstein 1990). Last, we should not forget the influence of Jerome Bruner’s discussion of the culture of education (1996). He argued that teachers need to pay particular attention to the cultural contexts in which they are working and of the need to look to ‘folk theories’ and ‘folk pedagogies’ (Bruner 1996: 44-65). ‘Pedagogy is never innocent’, he wrote, ‘It is a medium that carries its own message’ (op. cit.: 63).

Pedagogy as a means of control

A fundamental element in the growing interest in pedagogy was a shift in government focus in education in England. As well as seeking to control classroom activity via the curriculum there was a movement to increase the monitoring of classroom activity via regular scrutiny by senior leadership teams and a much enhanced Ofsted evaluation schedule for lesson observation (Ofsted 2011; 2012). Key indicators for classroom observation included a variety of learning styles addressed, pace, dialogue, the encouragement of independent learning and so on (Ofsted 2011). A number of popular guides appeared to help teachers on their way – perhaps the best received of which was The Perfect Ofsted Lesson (Beere 2010). While the language sounded progressive, and the practices promoted had merit, the problem was the framework in which it was placed. It was, to use Alexander’s words, ‘pedagogy of compliance’. ‘You may be steeped in educational research and/or the accumulated wisdom of 40 years in the classroom, but unless you defer to all this official material your professional judgements will be ‘uninformed”’ (Alexander 2004: 17)

Pedagogy or didactics

Unfortunately, the way pedagogy was being defined still looked back to the focus on teaching that Herbart argued for nearly 200 years ago. For example, the now defunct General Teaching Council for England, described it thus:

Pedagogy is the stuff of teachers’ daily lives. Put simply it’s about teaching. But we take a broad view of teaching as a complex activity, which encompasses more than just ‘delivering’ education. Another way to explain it is by referring to:

• the art of teaching – the responsive, creative, intuitive part
• the craft of teaching – skills and practice
• the science of teaching – research-informed decision making and the theoretical underpinning.

It is also important to remember that all these are grounded in ethical principles and moral commitment – teaching is never simply an instrumental activity, a question just of technique.

While we can welcome the warnings against viewing teaching as an instrumental activity – whether it is satisfactory to describe it as pedagogy is a matter for some debate. Indeed Hamilton (1999) has argued that much of what passes for pedagogy in UK education debates is better understood as didactics. We can see this quickly when looking at the following description of didactics from Künzli (1994 quoted in Gundem 2000: 236).

Simplified we may say that the concerns of didactics are: what should be taught and learnt (the content aspect); how to teach and learn (the aspects of transmitting and learning): to what purpose or intention something should he taught and learnt (the goal/aims aspect

Perhaps because the word ‘didactic’ in the English language is associated with dull, ‘jug and mug’ forms of teaching, those wanting to develop schooling tended to avoid using it. Yet, in many respects, key aspects of what is talked about today as pedagogy in the UK and north America is better approached via this continental tradition of didactics.

Pedagogy as accompanying, caring for (and about) and bringing learning to life

A third element in the turn to pedagogy flowed from concerns in social work and youth work in the UK that the needs of many children were not being met by existing forms of practice and provision. Significantly, a number of practitioners and academics looked to models of practice found in continental Europe and Scandinavia and focused, in particular, on the traditions of social pedagogy (see Lorenz 1994; Smith 1999; Cameron 2004 and Cameron and Moss 2011). In Scotland, for example, there was discussion of the ‘Scottish pedagogue’ (after the use of the term ‘Danish pedagogue) (Cohen 2008). In England various initiatives and discussions emerged around reconceptualising working with children in care as social pedagogy and similarly the activities of youth workers, teachers, mentors and inclusion workers within schools (see, for example, Kyriacou’s work 2010). Significantly, much of this work bypassed the English language discussion of pedagogy – which was probably an advantage in some ways. However, it also missed just how much work in the UK was undertaken by specialist pedagogues drawing upon thinking and practice well-known to social pedagogues but whose identity has been formed around youth work, informal and social education and community learning and development (Smith 1999, 2009).

If we look to these traditions we are likely to re-appreciate pedagogy. Here I want to suggest that what comes to the fore is a focus on flourishing and of the significance of the person of the pedagogue (Smith and Smith 2008). In addition, three elements things out about the processes of the current generation of specialist pedagogues. First, they are heirs to the ancient Greek process of accompanying. Second, their pedagogy involves a significant amount of helping and caring for. Third, they are engaged in what we can call ‘bringing learning to life’. Woven into those processes are theories and beliefs that we also need to attend to (see Alexander 2000: 541). To reword and add to Robin Alexander (2004: 11) pedagogy can be approached as what we need to know, the skills we need to command, and the commitments we need to live in order to make and justify the many different kinds of decisions needed to be made.

A focus on flourishing

The first and obvious thing to say is that pedagogues have a fundamentally different focus to subject teachers. Their central concern is with the well-being of those they are among and with. In many respects, as Kerry Young (1999) has argued with regard to youth work, pedagogues are involved for much of the time in an exercise in moral philosophy. Those they are working with are frequently seeking to answer in some way profound questions about themselves and the situations they face. At root these look to how people should live their lives: ‘what is the right way to act in this situation or that; of what does happiness consist for me and for others; how should I to relate to others; what sort of society should I be working for?’ (Smith and Smith 2008: 20). In turn, pedagogues need to have spent some time reflecting themselves upon what might make for flourishing and happiness (in Aristotle’s terms eudaimonia).

In looking to continental concerns and debates around pedagogy, a number of specialist pedagogues have turned to the work of Pestalozzi and to those concerned with more holistic forms of practice (see, for example, Cameron and Ross 2011). As Brühlmeier (2010: 5) has commented, ‘Pestalozzi has shown that there is more to [education] than attain-ing prescribed learning outcomes; it is concerned with the whole person, with their physical, mental and psychological development’. Learning is a matter of head, hand and heart. Heart here is a matter of, ‘ spirit– the passions that animate or move us; moral sense or conscience– the values, ideals and attitudes that guide us; and being– the kind of person we are, or wish to be, in the world (Doyle and Smith 1999: 33-4).

The person of the pedagogue

This is a way of working that is deeply wrapped up with the person of the pedagogue and their ability to reflect, make judgements and respond (Smith and Smith 2008: 15). They need to be experienced as people who can be trusted, respected and turned to.

[W]e are called upon to be wise. We are expected to hold truth dearly, to be sincere and accurate… There is also, usually, an expectation that we have a good understanding of the subjects upon which we are consulted, and that we know something about the way of the world. We are also likely to be approached for learning and counsel if we are seen as people who have the ability to come to sound judgements, and to help others to see how they may act for the best in different situations, and how they should live their lives. (Smith and Smith 2008: 19)

At one level, the same could be said of a ‘good’ subject teacher in a school. As Palmer (1998: 10) has argued, ‘good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher’ (emphasis in the original). However, the focus of pedagogues frequently takes them directly into questions around identity and integrity. This then means that their authenticity and the extent to which they are experienced as wise are vital considerations.

Accompanying

The image of Greek pedagogues walking alongside their charges, or sitting with them in classrooms is a powerful one. It connects directly with the experiences of many care workers, youth workers, support workers and informal educators. They spend a lot of time being part of other people’s lives – sometimes literally walking with them to some appointment or event, or sitting with them in meetings and sessions. They also can be a significant person for someone over a long period of time – going through difficulties and achievements with them. Green and Christian (1998: 21) have descried this as accompanying.

The greatest gift that we can give is to ‘be alongside’ another person. It is in times of crisis or achievement or when we have to manage long-term difficulties that we appreciate the depth and quality of having another person to accompany us. In Western society at the end of the twentieth century this gift has a fairly low profile. Although it is pivotal in establishing good communities its development is often left to chance and given a minor status compared with such things as management structure and formal procedures. It is our opinion that the availability of this sort of quality companionship and support is vital for people to establish and maintain their physical, mental and spiritual health and creativity.

It is easy to overlook the sophistication of this relationship and the capacities needed to be ‘alongside another’. It entails ‘being with’ – and this involves attending to the other.

It is our relationship with a young person upon which most of our work, as a practitioner, hinges. And this is a relationship that can ‘ develop only when the persons involved pay attention to one another’ (Barry and Connolly 1986: 47). What effective workers with individual young people do is highly skilled work, drawing on, through different stages in the process, a range of diverse roles and capacities. Done well the practitioner moves seamlessly through the stages, but the unifying core is the relationship between young person and the worker. (Collander-Brown 2005: 33)

Pedagogues have to be around for people; in places where they are directly available to help, talk and listen. They also have to be there for people: ready to respond to the emergencies of life – little and large (Smith and Smith 2008:18).

Caring for and caring about

In recent years our understanding of what is involved in ‘caring’ has been greatly enhanced by the work of Nel Noddings. She distinguishes between caring-for and caring-about. Caring-for involves face-to-face encounters in which one person attends directly to the needs of another. We learn first what it means to be cared-for. ‘Then, gradually, we learn both to care for and, by extension, to care about others’ (Noddings 2002: 22). Such caring-about, Noddings suggests, can be seen as providing the foundation for our sense of justice.

Noddings then argues that caring relations are a foundation for pedagogical activity (by which she means teaching activity):

First, as we listen to our students, we gain their trust and, in an on-going relation of care and trust, it is more likely that students will accept what we try to teach. They will not see our efforts as “interference” but, rather, as cooperative work proceeding from the integrity of the relation. Second, as we engage our students in dialogue, we learn about their needs, working habits, interests, and talents. We gain important ideas from them about how to build our lessons and plan for their individual progress. Finally, as we acquire knowledge about our students’ needs and realize how much more than the standard curriculum is needed, we are inspired to increase our own competence (Noddings 2005).

For many of those concerned with social pedagogy it is place where care and education meet – one is not somehow less than the other (Cameron and Moss 2011). For example, in Denmark ‘care’ can be seen as one of the four central areas that describe the pedagogical tasks:

Care (take care of), socialisation (to and in communities), formation (for citizenship and democracy) and learning (development of individual skills)… [T]he ”pedagogical” task is not simply about development, but also about looking after… [P]edagogues not only put the individual child in the centre, but also take care of the interests of the community. (BUPL undated)

What we have here is a helping relationship. It ‘involves listening and exploring issues and problems with people; and teaching and giving advice; and providing direct assistance; and being seen as people of integrity’. (Smith and Smith 2008: 14)

Bringing learning to life

In talking about pedagogy as a process of bringing learning to life I want to focus on three aspects. Pedagogy as:

• Animation – bringing ‘life’ into situations. This is often achieved through offering new experiences.
• Reflection – creating moments and spaces to explore lived experience.
• Action – working with people so that they are able to make changes in their lives.

Animation. In their 1997 book Working with experience: Animating learning David Boud and Nod Miller link ‘animating’ to ‘learning’ because of the word’s connotations: to give life to, to quicken, to vivify, to inspire. They see the job of animators (animateurs) to be that of ‘acting with learners, or with others, in situations where learning is an aspect of what is occurring, to assist them to work with their experience’ (1997: 7). It is a pretty good description of what many social pedagogues, youth workers and informal educators do for much of the time. They work with people on situations and relationships so that they are more stimulating and satisfying. However, they also look to what Dewey (1916) described as enlarging experience and to making it more vivid and inspiring (to use Boud and Miller’s words). They encourage people to try new things and provide opportunities that open up fresh experiences

Reflection. Within these fields of practice there has been a long-standing tradition of looking to learning from experience and, thus, to encouraging reflection (see, for example, Smith 1994). Conversation is central to the practice of informal educators and animators of community learning and development. With this has come a long tradition of starting and staying with the concerns and interests of those they are working with, while at the same time creating moments and spaces where people can come to know themselves, their situations and what is possible in their lives and communities.

Action. This isn’t learning that stops at the classroom door, but is focused around working with people so that they can make changes in their lives – and in communities. As Lindeman put it many years ago, this is education as life. Based in responding to ‘situations, not subjects’ (1926: 4-7), it involves a committed and action-oriented form of education. This:

… is not formal, not conventional, not designed merely for the purpose of cultivating skills, but… something which relates [people] definitely to their community… It has for one of its purposes the improvement of methods of social action… We are people who want change but we want it to be rational, understood. (Lindeman 1951: 129-130)

In short, this is a process of joining in with people’s lives and working with them to make informed and committed change.

Importantly....

The growing interest in social pedagogy and specialist pedagogues in some countries, when put alongside developments in thinking about the nature of learning –means that we are at one of those moments where there might be movement around how the term is used in English-language contexts. Here I just want to highlight three areas of debate:

• Is pedagogy tied to age?
• Can the notion of pedagogy be unhooked from the discourse of schooling and returned to something more like its Greek origins?
• Where are we to stand in the debate around whether it is an art, science or craft?

Just for children?

As we have seen, etymologically, ‘pedagogy’ is derived from the Greek paidag?ge? meaning literally, ‘to lead the child’ or ‘tend the child’. In common usage it is often used to describe practice with children. Indeed, much of the work that ‘social pedagogy’ has been used to describe has been with children and young people. While Paulo Freire (1972) and others talked about pedagogy in relation to working with adults, there are plenty who argue that it cannot escape its roots is bound up with practice with children. For example, Malcolm Knowles (1970) was convinced that adults learned differently to children – and that this provided the basis for a distinctive field of enquiry. He, thus, set andragogy – the art and science’ of helping adults learn – against pedagogy. While we might question whether children’s processes of learning differ significantly from adults, it is the case that educators tend to approach them differently and employ contrasting strategies. The question we are left with is whether it is more helpful to restrict usage of the term ‘pedagogy’ to practice with children or whether it can be applied across the age range? There is a fairly strong set of arguments for the former position – the word’s origin; organisational and policy concerns that tend separate children (up to 18 years old) from adults; and current usage of the term. Against restricting it to children are that learning isn’t easily divided along child/adult lines; and via writers like Freire it is possible to draw on traditions of thinking and practice regarding pedagogy that apply to both adults and children. While recognizing the strength of the arguments for using ‘pedagogy to describe practice across the lifespan, there may be pragmatic reasons for retaining a focus on children and young people. In part this flows from the organizational context of schooling, welfare and education service; in part from etymology.

Can pedagogy be unhooked from schooling?

There are also questions around the extent to which, in the English language at least, the notion of pedagogy has been tainted by its association with schooling. When we use the term to what extent are we importing assumptions and practices that we may not intend? ‘At the heart of this language’, wrote as Street and Street (1991: 163), ‘in contemporary society, there is a relentless commitment to instruction’. While didactics may be the most appropriate or logical way of thinking about the processes, ideas and commitments involved in teaching, there is some doubt that the term ‘pedagogy’ can take root in any sensible way in debates where English is the dominant language.

In Britain and Ireland there is some hope that pedagogy can be rescued. That possibility rests largely on the extent to which social pedagogy and its associated forms become established – especially in social work and community learning and development. If this professional identity takes root, and academic training programmes follow, then there is a chance that a counter-culture will grow and offer a contrasting set of debates. There is some evidence that this is beginning to happen with jobs with the social pedagogue title appearing in both care settings and schools, and new degree programmes being established in the UK.

Art, science or craft?

While there are many who argue that pedagogy can be approached as a science (see, for example, the discussions in Kornbeck and Jensen 2009), others look to it more as an art or craft. Donald Sch?n’s (1983) work on reflective practice and his critique of the sort of ‘technical rationality’ that has been crudely employed within more ‘scientific’ approaches to practice has been influential. Elliot Eisner’s (1979) view of education and teaching as improvisatory and having a significant base in process has also been looked to. He argued that the ability to reflect, imagine and respond involves developing ‘the ideas, the sensibilities, the skills, and the imagination to create work that is well proportioned, skilfully executed, and imaginative, regardless of the domain in which an individual works’. ‘The highest accolade we can confer upon someone’, he continued, ‘is to say that he or she is an artist whether as a carpenter or a surgeon, a cook or an engineer, a physicist or a teacher’

The idea of pedagogy and teaching as a craft got a significant boost in the 1990s through the work of Brown and McIntyre (1993). Their research showed, that day-to-day, the work of experienced teachers had a strong base in what is best described as a ‘craft knowledge’ of ideas, routines and situations. In much the same way that C Wright Mills talked of ‘intellectual craftsmanship’, so we can think of pedagogy as involving certain commitments and processes.

Scholarship is a choice of how to live as well as a choice of career; whether he knows it or not, the intellectual workman forms his own self as he works toward the perfection of his craft; to realize his own potentialities, and any opportunities that come his way, he constructs a character which has as its core the qualities of a good workman.

What this means is that you must learn to use your life experience in your intellectual work: continually to examine and interpret it. In this sense craftsmanship is the center of yourself and you are personally involved in every intellectual product upon which you work. (Mills 1959: 196)

There is a significant overlap between what Sch?n talks about as artistry and Mills as craftsmanship – and many specialist pedagogues within the UK would be much more at home with these ways of describing their activities, than as a science. Certainly, it is difficult to see how the environments or conditions in which pedagogues work can be measured and controlled in the same way that would be normal in what we might call ‘science’. It is also next to impossible on a day-to-day basis to assess in a scientific way the different influences on an individual and group, and the extent to which the work of the pedagogue made a difference.

We need to move discussions of pedagogy beyond seeing it as primarily being about teaching – and look at those traditions of practice that flow from the original pedagogues in ancient Greece. We have much to learn through exploring through the thinking and practice of specialist pedagogues who look to accompany learners; care for and about them; and bring learning into life. Teaching is just one aspect of their practice.

Five principles of pedagogy

People talk a lot about “pedagogy”—but what do they actually mean? In this post, I suggest five principles that might help clarify matters.

I have been meaning to write this post for a while, as a condensed conclusion from my long essays, Education’s coming revolution and In the beginning was the conversation. But the the spark that has persuaded me to get it down on paper was given to me by a Twitter conversation with Pete Bell, an ICT Examiner, who quoted J Bruner saying “Teaching is the canny art of intellectual temptation”. The argument of this post is that teaching is a lot more than that.

I propose the following five key principles of good pedagogy:

• motivation;
• exposition;
• direction of activity;
• criticism;
• inviting imitation.

These principles may of course overlap and/or be sub-divided into sub-principles.

Motivation

Motivation is what J Bruner was talking about when he says that “teaching is the canny art of intellectual temptation”. All of the other principles, if applied, will also contribute to motivation by delivering an effective and engaging instructional process—but there is a sense in which motivation needs to be prior to the “delivery” of instruction. Motivation is likely to be dependent on the personality of the teacher and his or her ability to develop a good relationship with the student, understanding the student’s current world view, interests and experience, and framing the learning to be achieved in a way that makes sense to the student.

This is what people mean when they talk about teaching being “relevant”—although this formulation is not satisfactory because the purpose of teaching is to move the student beyond the limited outlook of ignorant childhood, raising expectations and revealing the much greater possibilities offered by the world outside their existing experience. Relevance to the student’s existing experience is a good starting point but not a good outcome of education.

The dependence of inspiration on the relationship with the teacher means that computers have only a supportive role to play in this field.

Exposition

Exposition (“chalk and talk”) gets a bad rap. It is transmissive, casts the student in a passive role, and can often be dull. On the other hand, it is relatively cheap and easy to provide, if well done it can be motivating, it gives the teacher an opportunity to establish his or her presence and personality, it can summarise and articulate the key facts, principles and learning objectives. If well done and done at the right time and the right way, it can be an important ingredient in a wider mix—and for all the criticism that is made of it, it is still used heavily by all instructional processes.

Good exposition requires an ability at public performance combined with good subject knowledge, good preparation and often good supporting props. Exposition is easy to do badly: hard to do well. It is not essential that exposition is managed solely by the classroom teacher: online video delivered by e.g. the Khan Academy may provide a useful supplement to classroom exposition, especially as online video can be accessed anytime, anywhere and is likely to be of much higher quality than classroom exposition. That at least is the vision of the flipped classroom.

Direction of activity

As “we learn by doing”, so good instruction must rely heavily on activity. Pete Bell dislikes the term “direction”, considering it too “command and control”—so let me break this down into its constituent parts so we can at least agree what it is we are talking about.

Learning activity design

The design of activities that deliver particular learning objectives in an engaging way is a skilled business, particularly when the medium through which learning activities are delivered becomes digital (the production of serious games, simulations and creative tools is no trivial matter). At the moment, this process is largely performed (normally not very well) by front line classroom teachers. It is a central argument of Education’s coming revolution that this process needs to be systematised and centralised: digital learning activities produced by specialist designers need to become a commodity that can be bought or shared and automatically integrated with learning management software.

Learning activity delivery

Once a learning activity has been designed, the activity needs to be delivered. In the non-digital, physical world, the delivery of learning activity can be summarised by the term “facilitation”. In the digital world, delivery can largely be automated. In practice, a good instructional process will represent a blending of both types of activity.

Learning activity selection and sequencing

The selection of learning activities is a critical role of the teacher and needs to be directed by several further sub-principles. The selection of activities (or “progression management” as I have called it in In the beginning was the conversation) is highly suitable for automation by dedicated software systems.

Analysing the structure of the learning objectives

Clearly, learning activities should be relevant to the current learning objectives, which ultimately are not set by the teacher. What the teaching process does require, however, is the disaggregation of those top-level objectives into smaller prerequisite steps, that will guide the student through the learning in a logical sequence. If you want to teach long division, you need to ensure that the student is proficient at addition and subtraction first.

It is often said that you do not really understand a topic until you have to teach it. This is at least partly because to teach something well, you need to analyse the essential structure of the knowledge being taught.

This analysis is required for course design can be done by a course designer, who does not in turn need to be the same person who designed the constituent learning activities or the same person as the classroom teacher.

Responding to the conceptual state of the student

This may often go under the catch-phrase of adaptive learning. Not only does the teacher need at the beginning of the course to select learning activities that are appropriate to his or her students, but the teacher also needs constantly to monitor the extent of learning achieved by students at each stage of the course, selecting activities that respond to the learning and maybe misconceptions picked up at previous stages of the course. As argued (with reference to Dylan Wiliam) in In the beginning was the conversation, progression management is often a better response to student misconception that negative feedback.

Repetition and review

Memory (both knowing that and knowing how) tends to degrade. Learning activities therefore need to be repeated regularly at first in order to ensure that the learning is laid down in long-term and not just short-term memory. The intervals of review can becoming increasingly infrequent as the learning is mastered.

Variation

Much learning in formal systems consists of the mastery of abstract principles. An abstract principle that is studied only in abstract terms is never really understood at all, as the essence of the abstract is the ability to apply it to a range of different concrete contexts.

Similarly, if an abstract principle is only studied in a single context, it is likely that the student will learn only about the context in which the principle is learnt and not about the abstract principle. It is therefore important that the teacher selects activities that illustrate the same principle in a range of different contexts, so the student can practice the ability to recognise and apply the abstract principle in unfamiliar contexts.

Incremental increase in difficulty

It may be demotivating to fail too often—yet ignoring failure is likely to be harmful as it will entrench the undesirable behaviours that led to failure. One way to resolve this paradox is to reduce the chance of failure by sequencing activities so that the difficulty increases in small increments, maximising the chance of success at each stage. This was the approach taken by B F Skinner with machine learning. At the same time, having to progress at a snail’s pace through material that the student finds easy can also be highly demotivating, so this needs to be combined with the adaptive principle.

There are many ways in which activities may be made incrementally more difficult:

• instrinsically (e.g. by providing longer numbers for a sum in maths);
• by withdrawing help or scaffolding;
• increasing the number of stages of a problem that must be navigated;
• by creating more “open ended” activities (e.g. at higher levels on Bloom’s taxonomy);
• by unexpected timing (e.g. introducing an old topic out of the blue);
• by deeper contextualisation of an abstract principle (e.g. use of unfamiliar language).

Criticism

Some will be uncomfortable with this word—but it is the right one. Criticism should be constructive of course and there are times when criticism may be withheld, to be replaced by progression management or an expectation that the student will work it out for themselves. Ultimately, however, criticism is an essential part of the conversational loop (see again In the beginning was the conversation). It is a key part of the teacher’s tool-set and students should learning to accept criticism in the constructive sense that it ought to be offered.

Component parts of criticism are:

• evaluation;
• correction;
• contextual repetition of exposition;
• target setting.

At higher levels, the expert evaluation required will be beyond the capacity of computers and will therefore be a primary function of the subject expert. At lower levels (e.g. routine marking of simple problems), offering instantaneous assessment and feedback are functions to which computer systems are well adapted.

Inviting imitation

Humans are mimics. Children and teenagers are naturally programmed to find role models and copy them. Ideally, a child will choose to admire a teacher and seek to imitate them. Children will also imitate each other and the degree to which this sort of imitation will be beneficial will depend on the extent to which the peer culture is constructive.

The criterion on which a teacher is likely to be selected as a role model will in large part be dependent on personality—and this is a tough call for teachers who may be expert at their subject and diligent in marking work, if they are not at the same time seen to be quite as cool as the latest celebrity on big brother.

Teachers can support each other in this respect. The willingness of children to look favourably on their teachers as role models may be influenced by the general culture of the school. Where learning is not respected, it may be almost impossible for a teacher to be a potential role model as well as being passionate about their subject. I suggest the following sub-principles which can help promote beneficial imitation:

• fostering a peer culture in which learning is valued;
• the appointment of charismatic teachers in senior position (e.g. Head Teacher, Leading Subject Teachers);
• the fostering of team-teaching whereby senior teachers can support junior teachers, and junior teachers can, by working alongside senior teachers, learn the tricks of the trade;
• developing good relationships with students;
• teacher acting as collaborator (or “guide on the side”), illustrating for the benefit of students ways in which problems can be addressed, which the student can then imitate;
• good discipline, where rival, negative peer role models are challenged early;
• personalisation of learning and effective use of praise.

As the last of these points illustrate, there is a relationship between effective motivational strategies and selection of role models: a highly motivational teacher is also likely to be adopted as a role model.

As much of this is a matter of personality, it may be argued that technology has little part of play. However, technology can help in a number of ways, including the management of personalisation and the reporting of learning outcomes to encourage the teacher in giving timely praise.

I would argue that the opportunities for video conferencing and remote tutoring can also help. This can help replace isolated classroom teachers with teaching teams led by “leading teachers” – people who combine compelling charisma with strong subject knowledge, able to champion the cause and help with the difficult task of offering a compelling alternative (and complementary) set of motivations to the modern entertainment industry. Such leading teachers would need to be supported by junior teachers and machine instruction, capable of addressing the bread-and-butter management of learning, reporting and aggregating learning outcome data in forms that are available to the whole teaching team.

Another advantage of the leading teacher concept will be that, being ultimately responsible for large numbers of students, it will be possible to pay leading teachers significantly more than can be afforded for classroom teachers, who are limited by the 30-in-a-classroom productivity ceiling. This will help attract high calibre entrants to the profession and keep them “in the classroom”.

Conclusion

Understanding the nature of pedagogy is a necessary prerequisite to understanding what role technology will have in supporting education—and also to the selection of terms that we should use to describe and classify the business of teaching.

Any comments, criticisms and suggestions for things that I might have missed are, as always, welcome.