What’s My Default Approach to Teaching - and Does it Foster Active or Passive Learning? (The Unasked Questions)

A curious thing!

There’s a curious aspect to whole-school professional development within education, something I’ve been pondering for years.?

Fun fact: - I have no data to support this claim - just loads of anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Regardless, I stand by this claim 100%.

Here it is ...

Most whole-school professional development/learning produces little meaningful change in teachers’ practice.?

That’s it!

This claim becomes especially poignant when we consider the time, energy and resources devoted to any given whole-school CPD.?

What’s even more curious is that the obvious question to ask - ‘Will undertaking this school-wide PD (or PL) create long-term noticeable change in all our teachers?’ - is rarely asked.

And before too many feathers get ruffled, I’m not claiming ALL school-wide CPD results in little change. Some CPD initiatives are wonderfully change-inducing. However, these are the exception rather than the rule.?

Clearly, high student engagement and exceptional learning outcomes require effective teaching strategies.?

So … if we have a CPD focused on effective teaching strategies, and we have all teachers from a given school undergoing the CPD, how can it be that, most likely, the CPD will result in negligible, long-term visible change to teachers’ practice??

Here’s why …

There are some glaringly obvious reasons for CPD not transferring to widespread classroom change. Here’s four:

• An over-emphasis on theory
• A lack of requirement for regular implementations of strategies from the CPD
• Insufficient focus on awareness change in teachers?
• Teachers not on board with the CPD’s principles?

However, there is one key aspect preventing CPDs from imparting change that I suspect is almost universally overlooked - a teacher’s?default approach?to teaching.?

By default approach, I refer to the instructional method a teacher uses 50+% of the time.

The default approach - passive or active?

Most default approaches to teaching foster more passive learning than active learning. This is truer in some subject areas than in others. For example, the default approach in Mathematics lessons tends to be especially passive. It’s easy to argue that passive learning in mathematics lessons significantly contributes to the swathe of students who dislike the subject. Other learning areas are also prone to passive learning. The learning is mostly passive when the teacher’s default approach is predominantly stand-and-deliver, lecture-style, 'do-as-I-say'.

But what about explicit instruction? (Isn’t that passive instruction?)

First up, let’s get clear on a few crucial points.?

• To maximise learning in our students, they must have agency. Agency is the #1 foundational building block for learning. Period. If our students lack agency, our house of learning is little more than a house of cards.?
• Secondly, the only way to build agency in students is through active learning. (It’s a simple formula - active learning fosters agency, and passive learning thwarts agency.)
• Many educators assume that fostering agency (using an active learning model) requires PBL or a full enquiry-based program. However, other, more conservative ways exist to foster agency. It simply begins with giving students a sensible level of control over their learning.
• Moreover, many educators assume that fostering agency requires allowing students to do their own thing. And ‘doing their own thing’, in these educators’ minds, means an approach void of explicit instruction, one that gives teachers less control over student learning.?

The good news is nothing could be further from the truth!?

Any successful agency-fostering approach will be highly structured, giving the teacher more control over the learning, not less. And it will allow for extensive explicit instruction. However, explicit instruction in an active learning environment mostly occurs according to the ‘just in time’ principle (to small groups) rather than during whole class lectures in a passive approach. (Watch this three-minute video snippet where Barry Cooper and I explain this dynamic.)?

The Dabbling Dilemma

A teacher's practice can only transform by changing the default. Teachers frequently encounter new strategies and techniques that have the potential to transform their teaching. However, rather than having the potential to change their default, many view these new strategies as potential additions to their existing default.?

And so, teachers tend to dabble with new strategies, adding them to their teaching ‘toolkit’ to be used once every month or two rather than exploring the possibility of making a paradigm shift.?

The Impact of Unquestioned Defaults

The failure to question and reassess the default approach has far-reaching consequences. If it is true that a large portion of default practices foster passive learning, then despite the proliferation of professional development, the lack of intention to challenge the default can only perpetuate a cycle of passive learning. Students, in turn, experience limited agency in their learning process as they replicate their teacher’s demonstrations, missing out on deeper understanding.

I propose that the uninspected default approach becomes a comfort zone for educators, hindering the potential for meaningful change in teaching practices.?

The Need for Intentional Reflection

Educators must reflect on their default approach to break free from the dabbling dilemma. This involves a conscious effort to question the effectiveness of current teaching methods and consider whether they genuinely promote active learning and student agency. Professional development should not be seen as a collection of supplementary activities but as an opportunity to critically assess and transform the default approach.

Your turn …?

What are your takeaways? Have you pondered your default approach through the lens of agency? What about the teachers in your team? I would love to read your responses.