Skip to main content

Outstanding or inspiring?

I gather that the latest standards for teachers in England include the word "inspiring". I wonder wherher the DOE missed a trick when they formulated their most recent definitions of what constitutes outstanding teaching, outstanding departments and outstanding schools. If you ever follow my posts you'll know that I, like many colleagues, have a problem with the misuse of the word outstanding and how it has slipped into schools' everyday vocabulary merely because Ofsted choose to use it. Maybe the word inspiring would be more apt to describe those extra special lessons we do sometimes.

If you'll permit me to be anecdotal, my son, who is now at university studying physics, went through secondary schooling encountering barely a couple of what he considered inspiring teachers. He was at a good school too. I consider this a pretty poor hit rate, and whilst I know that only a minority of teachers and lessons will be inspiring, we should be aiming for more. How could we do that?

Defining what is inspiring is not easy and what is inspiring for some may not be so for others. Teaching is not an exact science. I have observed lessons which I consider to be inspiring and the key factors may revolve around a genuine enthusiasm for the subject, good subject knowledge, a real commitment of the teacher to the class and the individual pupil, a good grasp of subject methodology and a certain personality type. Most lessons are not inspiring. They cannot be because we do not have enough time and energy to make them so. Nevertheless if we focused more closely on this word, rather than the word outstanding, maybe we would be more creative, take more risks, focus less on technicalities and the latest trends, let ourselves go a bit more and give our students a buzz. Sure, we have to know about AfL, questioning, "astute planning" (latest buzz word apparently), testing, starters, plenaries and the rest of it, but you can do all that stuff and still, alas, not be inspiring.

When I look back into the murky past of schooling, I think I recall a decent number of good teachers, but very few inspiring ones. At Ripon Grammar School, fortunately, I know a few.

Comments

  1. Much of what you say resonates with me. I am suspicious of superlatives used in the rhetoric, but i think "inspiring" is possibly one of the better choices of word. We inspire others sometimes just by doing what we do everyday, we don't have to be functioning at fever pitch every lesson. As you point out it is not possible to do so. It is also possible to be inspired as a result of a negative encounter too,inspired to find our own way and become more self reliant. I think that sort of inspiration helped me to become a teacher, I believed I could do better :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the comment, Teresa. I wonder whether we should also make a distinction between inspiring lessons and inspiring people. There are inspiring human beings who do not always do inspiring lessons. There are also less inspiring people who might do the occasional inspiring lesson.

    I agree that you an be inspired by a setback. Pupils can be. A critical comment can work well.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

12 principles of second language teaching

This is a short, adapted extract from our book The Language Teacher Toolkit . "We could not possibly recommend a single overall method for second language teaching, but the growing body of research we now have points to certain provisional broad principles which might guide teachers. Canadian professors Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada (2013), after reviewing a number of studies over the years to see whether it is better to just use meaning-based approaches or to include elements of explicit grammar teaching and practice, conclude: Classroom data from a number of studies offer support for the view that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of communicative and content-based programmes are more effective in promoting second language learning than programmes that are limited to a virtually exclusive emphasis on comprehension. As teachers Gianfranco and I would go along with that general view and would like to suggest our own set of g