Modeling the Research: Bringing Play, Challenge, and Engagement to Teacher Professional Development

The greatest irony of the professional development opportunities that focus on the learning brain is the disconnect between the research and how it is delivered to the adult learner audience.

So when we were invited to speak at the November 2016 Learning & the Brain Conference, we hoped to model the research we were sharing, to create a research-informed professional development session that honored how much we know about how the brain learns, works, and thrives.

There are two brains that always need to be considered in every school: the adult brain and the student brain. Because of brain plasticity, we can confidently say that both are changeable, though there are more sensitive periods of brain plasticity in the early years of life.

But the dilemma my colleague and co-author or Neuroteach Dr. Ian Kelleher and I faced was how to honor the overall theme of the conference “Engaged, Empowered Minds” while presenting a keynote address in an enormous ballroom space filled with 6 sections aligned in 16 rows of 12 seats each.

For the first two days of the conference, leading thinkers in Mind, Brain, and Education Science including Howard Gardner, Marilyn Price-Mitchell, Tony Wagner, Ron Berger and Zoe Weil shared important research, perspectives, and experiences with the audience. They recounted stories and models of how teachers and schools are using brain science to educate ethical 21st century citizens and problem solvers.  Teachers were given opportunities to turn and talk and to laugh, as well as a few moments to consider the implications of what they were hearing for how they design schools and classrooms and work with each individual student.

When it was our turn to take the big stage as the last keynote speakers for this three-day event, we knew we had to create a professional learning session that aligned with how Ian, our colleagues and I design our classes at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School each day. As we prepared, we pondered the question: “Is it possible in a ballroom setting to provide teachers a design challenge: to build the tallest, free-standing tower with 25 straws and one piece of tape?” We knew there were risks involved in this idea and that there was a high probability that this activity might fail. But since we talk about failure and struggle as critical to learning, shouldn’t we model it in our presentation?

So we went for it. As the images below attest, it worked. We used this activity to have participants consider the question, “What demand did this design challenge place on your brain?” We conducted a similar activity with our colleagues at St. Andrew’s as a playful way to begin developing a language and a mindset around being a Mind, Brain, and Education Science research-informed teacher or school leader.

In addition to this activity we also knew that for our presentation around “An MBE Research-Informed Pathway for Purposeful Teaching, Learning, and Thinking” to stick that participants needed a chance to actively retrieve what they heard and experienced during our one-hour and fifteen-minute session. The “Exit Ticket” we provided was informed by the research of Doug Lemov, author of Teach Like a Champion, and we were seeking to address one of the remaining unconscionable practices that permeate schools today. Too often, teachers teach to the last minute of a class period. While students are packing up, teachers are still giving new instructions. However, what we hope to see is more teachers using the final minutes of class for students to begin to reflect on the content and skills for that class period, to begin using that knowledge and experience to share what they know or don’t know and for that to be data for the teacher to use in the design of the next class period.

We are grateful to the Learning & the Brain Society for the invitation to share the work of the Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning with an eager audience of teachers, school leaders, policymakers, counselors and more. We appreciate all those who engaged with us during our session that is truly only valuable if some element of the research and strategies we shared actually inform participants’ work with students. But what we also hope is that our risky idea to create a design challenge for 1000 educators in a space that was not conducive to such a task becomes the norm for how we professionally develop educators. Let’s not just share the research, let’s do the research. Teachers, like students, learn best through play, collaboration, challenge, support and fun. The smiles presented in the following series of images from our session suggest what is possible for how we can develop more Mind, Brain, and Education Science research-informed educators.


Sometimes You Need to Take a Dip

Welcome to The Bridge, the monthly newsletter of the Center for Transformative Teaching and Learning.  Each month The Bridge analyzes a specific aspect of teaching and learning through a Mind, Brain and Education Science research-informed lens.

 If you would like to sign up to receive this free monthly email, please click here.

Have you ever seen a student who mastered a concept one week, then failed an assessment on the same material the next? Have you witnessed students becoming worse at a particular skill as you continue to teach it?

Good news: this kind of slippage can be a natural part of the learning process. The Dynamic Skill Theory (DST), proposed by Professor Kurt Fischer of Harvard University, offers an explanation for the consistency and variability in students’ development. DST is a well-respected neo- or post-Piagetian learning theory. It builds on Jean Piaget’s concept of developmental stages that occur through the nonstop interplay between brain developmental and environmental experiences. Examine the diagram below that depicts this theory, which can and should play a role in your classroom:

First, notice that both lines go up as age increases – our ability level at any skill tends to improve as we progress through our school years. The top line is optimal growth, the maximum performance skill level that each student is able to operate at under premium conditions, i.e. with all the expert scaffolding and in-class attention that the teacher is able to provide. The lower line is functional growth, the skill level that the student is able to perform at without this ideal support, in normal everyday life conditions with all its “distractions and imperfections… [It is the] degree to which a particular skill has become stable and automatic.”1 Scaffolding matters, and how we peel back or apply that scaffolding impacts the learning process of each individual student.

Secondly, notice that functional growth progresses almost linearly – the smooth growth in ability at a particular skill as the result of purposeful practice. However, optimal growth occurs in cycles, which means that at times performance decreases during the very act of learning. Students may be getting temporarily worse at a particular skill; this is a normal and everyday possibility that can occur as part of the process by which students are actually getting better at that skill. This happens because during the process of learning new abstractions are mapped on top of pre-existing ones – a process which tends not to be 100% smooth. As differences between new and old abstractions are reconciled, ability at the skill once more increases beyond previous levels due to the new complexity of the student’s learning.

So what does dynamic skill theory look like in the classroom? And what does it mean for teachers?

Firstly, what about the dips? If a student is suddenly not doing well in your class, don’t panic. It could be for any number of reasons, either in or outside of school, and teachers need to be aware of any and all possibilities. But it could just be that it is a normal stage of the child’s learning. The student may be in one of those stages in which they are working out that form of cognitive dissonance. But if we grade every bit of a child’s day-to-day performance, these downward moments count, and the burden of required day-to-day perfection in the face of the reality of how we learn adds to a student’s level of anxiety. Teachers play an important role in helping each child “stay in the game,” and schools that purposefully work to create an environment where positive relationships, both between students and between students and faculty, have an advantage here. This is especially so if they have also worked to create a culture in which failure is a possible and even necessary part of learning and growth, as long as the response to that failure is a reflective rededication to further work.

The dips also have consequences for classroom evaluations. Class evaluators want to see skill levels increasing; only better performance is taken as an indicator of success. If skill levels seem to be taking a dip, clearly the teacher must be doing something wrong. Not necessarily. Dips happen.

Secondly, what about the difference between the lines or levels? The first point to note will be quite obvious to all teachers, students and parents: students tend to perform better in ideal school situations. Ideally, each student needs different amounts and alternative types of scaffolding; some students will need scaffolding added while others need it taken away. Expert teachers are able to do this simultaneously for every individual student in their class. John Hattie, in a meta-analysis of more than 500,000 research studies, said that the main difference between expert teachers and experienced teachers was automaticity – delivering just the right nugget of an intervention to each individual child at the exact time they need it but with a degree of automaticity that leaves their mind free to process the other myriad things going on in their classroom.

We might also ponder what this means for the evaluation of students. For each assessment you create, ask yourself which you are testing: the optimal level or the functional level? And which do you want to evaluate? When you look at a student’s grade, what mix of optimal level evaluations and functional level evaluations contribute to that grade? Is it the balance you want? What can you do about it?

Dips happen; how you reflect on your learning and respond with the purposeful use of strategies matters most. But how do you operationalize this – what does it look like in the classroom or advisor group? Can we present this concept to students in a way that will help them understand themselves as learners? Is there a way in which we can tie the dynamic skill theory of learning to the concept of growth mindset? Please share your thoughts with us.

We believe the possibility of dips as a normal part of learning will ring true to every teacher and every student. Learning is a journey which is not necessarily easy, linear, or always upwards. It is our job as educators to guide, prod, comfort, entice and cajole each student throughout their learning experiences. Knowing that dippiness is normal is, we hope, a reassurance to teachers. That knowledge is power; now we can plan for it, work with it and experience the dippy learning journey with our students.

Based on a talk that the fabulous Vanessa Rodriguez, author of The Teaching Brain, gave at St. Andrew’s last year for the CTTL’s Ideas Festival. If you want to know more about dynamic skill theory, this 8 minute video from Professor Kurt Fischer himself and this unit from Annenberg Learner’s Neuroscience in the Classroom are great places to start.

1 From Neuroscience in the Classroom by Annenberg Learner, “Unit 5 Text Section 4,” accessed October 15, 2016

Image from:

By Ian Kelleher, @ijkelleher. Edited by Julia Dean and Molly Magner

Why Being an Introvert is Easy at St. Andrew’s

Written and illustrated by Joy Reeves (a sophomore at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School Potomac, Maryland). The article originally appeared in The Mane News (April 12, 2016)

The buzz of constant liveliness and socialization at St. Andrews (or any high school, for that matter) is bound to energize the extroverted side of anyone. But what about those who draw energy from being alone? Those who find comfort in solitude and self-awareness? Around 50% of people would consider themself introverted. Here’s why introverts are able to thrive at St. Andrew’s:

  1. All types of people go to SAES.

What’s cool about St. Andrew’s is there is no popularity hierarchy based on who is the most outgoing. Frankly, no one is popular at St. Andrew’s. We are too small of a school to really measure popularity…and it doesn’t seem to matter to anyone. It’s easy to surround yourself with diverse personality types complimentary to your own.

  1. You don’t have to participate in everything.

One of the biggest differences between lower school and high school is that high school does not emphasize required participation in most events. Although you have many chances to participate in your passions in front of the school, you can CHOOSE which ones you’d like to showcase, and watch the rest. Participating in Class Cup Competitions (although most people prefer to watch) is different: some brave soul has to volunteer!


  1. There are tons of social spots, but also a lot of nice, secret, quiet spots to hang out.

If you’re in the mood for a crowd, it’s easy to find one: basketball games, embarrassingly loud clumps in the hallway, study groups, band practices, or weekend dances. But breaking away is okay too. After being at St. Andrew’s for a year or so, you discover some comfortable little places to relax on campus: the library (make sure not to get kicked out), in the gallery, out in the garden, and soon, on the quad! Free periods help us all maintain sanity and stay on top of our academic and personal lives.

  1. Teachers are really into self-evaluations and understand shyness.

Teachers don’t pretend to read them. They actually read self-evaluations. If you hesitate to speak in class, as long as you clarify why in a self-evaluation, the teacher will completely understand. Some people learn best by actively participating and speaking, while others learn by actively listening. Introverts don’t have to force themselves to raise their hands constantly in order to receive an A in the class.

  1. You see the same people often enough that your encounters with them in the hallway aren’t awkward.

Inevitably, in such a small school, you’re going to see a lot of your friends. Every day, the facial expressions exchanged get a little weirder and the conversation a little more personal. Best friendships develop. Recognizing everyone becomes comforting and enjoyable. Introverted or extroverted, the St. Andrew’s community becomes home.

Screen Shot 2016-07-25 at 10.03.49 AM.png

Better Teacher Professional Development Now!

A 2015 study by the Teacher Development Trust (UK) found that just 1% of teacher professional development was high quality. Let’s just pause for a moment to let that sink in. It also, unsurprisingly, found that the typical pattern of going to a two hour or one day workshop or conference and coming home did little to shift the needle of teacher effectiveness. It is a sad irony that some of the worst education to be found anywhere is deployed in teaching teachers how to be better teachers. All this is echoed by the recent report from the education-reform organization TNTP. Among their shocking findings, only 3 out of 10 teachers in a survey of 10,000 improved over the course of 2 or three year’s professional development, while 2 out of 10 actually got worse. TNTP also put an approximate price tag to this “achievement”: $18,000 and 19 days per teacher. And any reasonable person must surely ask, “surely we can do better than this?”

It can be no surprise that research links high quality teacher professional development to increased student achievement. For example, Kraft and Papay (2014) suggest that in schools with a poor professional development culture, teacher effectiveness (as measured by student achievement), and plateaus after 3 to 4 years of experience. Beyond this, they do not get better at improving student achievement. However, in schools with good professional development cultures, teacher effectiveness keeps increasing with experience. If we think about other “professions” – medicine and law, for example – we would hope this would be the case. We just cannot imagine a doctor’s peak performance being reached after just three years – beyond this they never get any better at being a doctor. Would you want this person as your primary care physician or heart surgeon?

So what is good teacher professional development? What makes a difference? TNTP’s report sets up a question that needs and merits a well thought out, research informed answer. And this answer needs two prongs: what “content” should great teacher professional development focus on, and how should it be “delivered.” Fortunately, we have answers.

First, “content.” Teaching is unique amongst professional professions in how it ignores its research base. This is particularly sad because education has never had the quality of research evidence about what works as it does now. My lasting image from the New York Learning and the Brain conference is from one of the smaller breakout sessions that featured an eminent brain imaging scientist at MIT and an eminent psychology professor at NYU. As our small group walked out, like a tight audience from a black box theater after a gripping performance, it became clear to me that these two people, from very different academic fields that traditionally live on different islands, were aware of each other’s work, respected each other’s work, and seemed to share this utopian conviction that somehow this could all possibly fit together in a way that would help our ailing education system. We are at a remarkable point in time, a coming together of disparate research based fields, coalescing on ideas about what the most effective teaching and learning should be. Education now has a solid research evidence base to work from – but little if any is making its way into teacher training or professional development. This is our content.

Publications exist that try to translate this academic research for teachers to use, and below is a great (and free), though not exhaustive, list for those wishing to delve further.

The research, however, only gets a teacher part of the way. Exactly how it works in the myriad pieces of context that shape a particular classroom, exactly how it works for the “voice” of a particular teacher, has to be figured out by each teacher. And that is the challenge of it, but also the intellectual joy of it. We are indebted to one of our mentors, Dr. Christina Hinton at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, for the insight that we are talking about research informed teaching – because the word informed leaves room for the art and craft of teaching. To help make this work, we need to create a model of reflective, iterative, collaborative, research informed practice. Building a framework to facilitate this must also be part of our content.

Onto the second part: “delivery.” What should great teacher professional development look like? Here, too, there is research to suggest what this might look like. A good starting point is the 2015 report “Developing Great Teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development” from the Teacher Development Trust. We’ll summarize the findings below, but it barely does justice to the excellent report which is well worth a read. As you read through this list, it is important to resist “of course!” syndrome – yes, many of these things may seem obvious, but they are often not applied, and it is worth remembering that they have not been merely pulled from people’s minds, but are practices supported by evidence from research studies. Again, we want to make teaching a research informed profession!

(1) “The duration and rhythm of effective support.”
At least two semesters to a year. But the rhythm of the time and how it is used is important too, not just the amount of time.

(2) “Designing for participants’ needs.”
Create relevance to teachers’ day to day experiences, and their aspirations for their students. Create opportunities for teachers to work with their peers. Create a shared sense of purpose.

(3) “Alignment of professional development processes, content and activities.”
The professional development should be logically sequenced, and delivered in a manner that aligns with the principles of good teaching that it promotes.

(4) “The content of effective professional development.”
It is not sufficient to focus on general pedagogy. Both subject knowledge and subject-specific pedagogy – what could be called pedagogical content knowledge – should be included too. Teachers also need to learn about how students learn. Our content strand discussed above will play a crucial role in this point, as it will in point (3).

(5) “Activities associated with effective professional development.”
Teachers need to be taught how to translate this professional development knowledge into classroom practice; they also need to be taught how to experiment with its implementation – the type of iterative practice that we discussed above.

(6) The role of external providers and specialists.
Schools should set high expectations for their professional development providers, and, if they are external, determine how they will provide the ongoing mentoring/coaching support that research suggests is necessary for successful implementation.

(7) Collaboration and peer learning.
Collaboration is one key part of successful teacher professional development – but collaboration alone is insufficient and needs the other supports discussed above. Collaboration should be focused on problem solving that leads to improved student outcomes.

(8) Leadership around professional development.
Effective leaders become involved themselves – they do not just leave the learning to their teaches.

So, we have the research informed content, and we have the research informed method of delivery. And, unsurprisingly, there are common characteristics of the two. Great learning for teachers should mirror, in many ways, great learning for students. Potentially effective professional development is dead on arrival if participants are seated in rows and treated as “empty vessels” whose heads need to be filled with new ideas, then returned to their schools. This instructional practice of fill-and-move-on does not work for most students, why should we think it might work for teachers? Fortunately, the Teacher Development Trust’s work is based on good research informed principles of teaching. For example, we know from research that creating relevancy is important for engagement, which point (2) gets at, and that it is critical for long-term memory to have students recall and apply knowledge, either “use it or lose it,” which is addressed in points (1), (5), (6) and (7).

To this we might even be bold enough to add one further research-informed teaching strategy – using low stakes formative assessments to help teachers and their supervisors gauge what they currently know and what they don’t know, so they can plan accordingly so that the high quality professional development they have experienced is not forgotten or does not go unused. The ultimate goal, remember, is improved educational outcomes for all students.

Our solution of research informed professional development content and delivery may only seem radical in the context of teaching, but is one that has been embraced by other professional fields that have decided to place a high value on continued professional growth – and in a ways that are based on, and which contribute to, a growing base of research evidence. The TNTP report framed a pressing question for education. I believe we have the answer.

Ian Kelleher,
Head of Research, the CTTL

It’s a Small World After All: 15,000 Miles, Three Continents, and Four Days in Dubai

With all the talk of the promise of Mind, Brain, and Education Science (educational neuroscience), teachers, school leaders, and policymakers are clamoring for whole school models of integrating the research informed strategies to enhance teacher quality and student achievement. Therefore, when I got the invitation I had to take it. What it meant was four days of traveling 15,000 miles through three continents (I could not get a direct flight). Who would have thought that when the CTTL was created in 2011 that it would help educators in Dubai (United Arab Emirates) learn more about educational neuroscience and how it can inform, transform, and validate current teaching practices.

I went to Dubai to share the CTTL’s work not because we have all the answers but because we have a perspective and model, that certainly works for St. Andrew’s teachers and students and that research in MBE science has shown to be working for many more. We were invited to be part of two programs, the “Neuroscience of Effective Learning and Teaching” workshop and a gathering of the Special Educational Needs Coordinators Network (SENCO) that were both organized by COGx and their local Dubai partner, kidsFIRST Medical Centers, a leading provider of educational and medical services to students and schools in the UAE. Through the partnership between COGx and kids FIRST, the latest research in neuroscience is made available to empower teachers with practical insights and students through customized programs to enhance their learning ability.

Whether in the United States, England, China, or Dubai there are some common barriers that exist that thwart the transformation of schools from the industrial, one-size-fits-all model, to a more research-informed, brain-friendly model. The two barriers are that those making educational policy and those in the classroom today have significant blind spots that they must overcome if true educational reform is going to happen. First, we tend to teach or often make decisions in ways that are informed by how we were taught. Second, we tend to teach to our own personal learning strengths. So we went to Dubai to share our model and to let teachers in that region of the world know that they have an ally in the CTTL who is equally committed to enhancing teaching quality and differentiated instruction by getting into the hands of all educators Mind, Brain, and Education Science research-informed strategies.

During our two days on the ground in Dubai, we were met with a variety of questions: What research is worth looking at? How can you get a school’s teachers to use research to inform, validate, and transform their current instructional design, delivery, and work with each student? How can research inform work with all students, the learning challenged, the “just fine” students, and the gifted and talented?

The setting for each of the two days of workshops were two beautiful GEMS Wellington campuses. I arrived somewhat familiar with the GEMS brand. I was particularly inspired by our time at GEMS and meeting with teachers and seeing the amazing spaces for students to learn.

What was exciting was that during the two days on the ground in Dubai I had the privilege of presenting the experience of the CTTL to over 250 teachers, school leaders, parents, as well as government officials from the Ministry of Education. All the stakeholders were there and all were committed to understanding how each of our organizations–COGx, kidsFIRST, and the CTTL–see the opportunities and challenges with the growing body of accessible research in the teaching and learning sciences to enhance the learning experience for all students. We were also virtually joined by Dr. Mariale Hardiman who shared her Brain Targeted Teaching Model with the audience.

What was equally exciting to learn about was the mandate from the Dubai government to bring greater differentiation to classroom instruction, which research in educational neuroscience validates as critical to enhance student outcomes and experience. The challenge then is how to train teachers and school leaders at scale as well as to provide personalized support to students. Moreover, if governments continue to solely measure their students and standing by PISA scores, how can schools create teaching and learning environments that address each student’s individual learning strengths and challenges while meeting this international comparison of student achievement?

Certainly, arriving in Dubai felt like I was arriving on another planet, which might account for why they were filming the newest Star Trek movie in the streets of “The City of Gold.” What is great when presenting at a workshop is the opportunity to learn from other presenters. I was struck by three images two of the presenters shared with the audience. The first was a pair of images of Dubai in 1991 and 2015. I immediately connected each of these images with the educational neuroscience the presenters were sharing with the audience. The structural transformation of Dubai in less than 25-years is one of the most impressive growth mindsets I have ever seen. Moreover, the intricate system of roads that move people throughout Dubai were used to talk about the different pathways for one to get to his or her destination. This is no different than the type of individualized and personalized instruction that teachers are trying to bring to the design of their classes and work with each individual student.

I left Dubai inspired after engaging with a leading health organization, teachers, school leaders, parents, and governmental officials who are looking for models for how to implement research at a whole-class and an individual level. Leaving behind 250 copies of the CTTL’s publication, Think Differently and Deeply, was just a start, a window into how teachers can translate research into enhanced practice. But when we reached cruising altitude on the return trip home I decided that the CTTL can help fill a void that emerged in some idea exchanges in Dubai when I was asked, “How do we keep the transnational idea exchange around educational neuroscience going?” Therefore, the CTTL will work toward launching the “Neuroteach” network, an international online professional learning community for teachers, school leaders, parents, students and policymakers to share ideas and research in how the brain learns, works, and changes.

As I found out on this trip, the world is getting smaller and regardless of where you are there exist dedicated teachers and organizations who want to do better for students and prepare them for the VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous) world that awaits them and that demands creative and adaptable mindsets that most schools continue to not prioritize enough. I also realized that their needs to be more transnational sharing of “what works” in education. As I have always believed, learning happens best in collaboration, it is now great to have connected with organizations such as kidsFIRST and COGx who support Mind, Brain, and Education Science as the next frontier for the professional growth of teachers and that seek to enhance the learning experience for all students.

Learning styles – getting beyond the myths

The common interpretation of “learning styles” is perhaps the greatest neuromyth in a packed field of misknowledge, and is a travesty to Howard Gardner’s research. Phrases like “I am an auditory learner” or “I am an kinesthetic learner” can end up being self-fulfilling prophecies, and contribute to students having a “fixed mindset” in some key areas – this neuromyth does damage to students. And, shockingly, in one research study more than 94% of teachers incorrectly answered the survey question, “Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic).” [1] How can we be so bad at this? How come this myth is so prevalent?

So I set myself this challenge, how hard is it to find the actual research on learning styles? It turns out, phenomenally easy. Much of Howard Gardner’s work is freely available, not behind must-pay firewalls. And, whilst it is technical, he has a wonderfully easy to  understand style. So it turns out that quality research is easy to get hold of and very accessible to read. So what intellectual laziness is at work here to prompt 94% of teachers to get this wrong?

More importantly, though, what should we do. A better way may be to think that each student has individual differences – current learning strengths and learning weaknesses. The key word is current. The brain has sufficient plasticity that by working hard and working smart (using strategies, using teachers, using feedback, using reflection, for example), students can rewire their brain to shift, to some degree, this their picture of strengths and weaknesses. So firstly, we must create school communities – teachers, students and parents – that do not force students to define themselves in narrow learning styles.

Secondly, what should teachers do? DO NOT TRY TO TEACH INDIVIDUAL LEARNING STYLE IN THE ROOM! Instead, research suggests that teachers should let the content they want to teach be the driver of what learning styles they stress. In the words of Professor Howard Gardner himself:

“It may seem that I am simply calling for the “smorgasbord” approach to education: throw enough of the proverbial matter at students and some of it will hit the mind/brain and stick. Nor do I think that this approach is without merit. However, the theory of multiple intelligences provides an opportunity, so to speak, to transcend mere variation and selection. It is possible to examine a topic in detail, to determine which intelligences, which analogies, and which examples, are most likely both to capture important aspects of the topic and to reach a significant number of students. We must acknowledge here the cottage industry aspect of pedagogy, a craft that cannot now and may never be susceptible to an algorithmic approach. It may also constitute the enjoyable part of teaching: the opportunity continually to revisit one’s topic and to consider fresh ways in which to convey its crucial components.” [2]

What teaching and assessing methods, each one emphasizing a different set of “learning styles” are going to work best here, for this topic? And how does this fit, perhaps, with the ones I have just place emphasis on and the ones I am about to next? And, maybe, are the “learning styles” I am stressing the most the ones that are truly, deeply germane to my subject? That is an interesting idea. It places a huge emphasis on knowing our subjects really, really well. It also serves as a reminder that, to work in the sphere of Mind, Brain and Education research informed teaching, we have to remember to work equally hard on knowing our subjects as implementing teaching strategies that enhance learning. But, most of all, please stop hurting our students with this!
[1] Dekker, Sanne, Nikki C. Lee, Paul Howard-Jones, and Jelle Jolles. “Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers.” Frontiers in Psychology 3 (October 18, 2012). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429.
[2] Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Volume II. 1st edition. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.   Also:

Great teaching needs great professional development…

…and boy do we have a long way to go. But fortunately there is now some guidance.

As school leaders begin tooling up for the new year, they are making decisions that commit vast sums of money and gargantuan human work hours to professional development. Writing in Slate this week, Laura Moser gives the following insight into how this typically goes:

“A study raising a lot of eyebrows in the education world this week suggests that, despite the billions of dollars we are pouring into teacher development every year, we have very little to show for the expenditure. The report, released by the education-reform organization TNTP, puts a shockingly high price tag on professional development, which refers to the ongoing, on-the-job pedagogical training, both formal and informal, that teachers receive throughout their careers: The unnamed three large school districts and medium-size charter network it examined spent, on average, $18,000 per teacher for training that spanned 19 days, or roughly one-tenth of the school year. All that cash and time, for what TNTP found to be questionable outcomes at best. Among the roughly 10,000 teachers surveyed, teacher evaluations found that only 3 out of 10 teachers improved while 2 out of 10 got worse over two or three years.”

The results are similar to those reported by the Teacher Development Trust in the UK,, whose study found that just 1% of all professional development was what it categorized as “high quality.” What sad irony, that some of the worst education to be found anywhere is deployed in teaching teachers how to be better teachers.

So what is good professional development? What works? Two studies give perhaps the best insight.

One is “Teachers Know Best” from The Gates Foundation.

The other is “Developing Great Teaching” from The Teacher Development Trust (I urge you to read the full report – the summary is good, but the details in the full report make this unmissable).

The overlaps are considerable and the insights profound. The quality of research on “what is great professional development?” is much more developed, much more robust than you might think. If we are going to use research to inform what we do – and we should for the sake of our own professional credibility – this is an area where we need to take note. As a teaser, here is a snippet from the Teacher Development Trust, which comes after the research underpinning these claims has been discussed.

“School leaders…should interrogate providers (including internal facilitators) prior to signing up to/commissioning a CPD [continuing professional development] programme, to ascertain how they intend to:

  • Support identification of teachers’ and school leaders’ starting points.
  • Use content-specific formative assessment.
  • Build time into any away-from-class or out-of-school activities, for planning changes to be made back in the classroom.
  • Embed collaborative learning and the development of shared understanding and goals within the professional learning process.
  • Demonstrate in-depth expertise in relation to teaching and learning, the curriculum content, and the process of professional learning process – and have ensured all three are aligned.
  • Provide tools to help teachers and leaders engage critically with evidence about how pupils respond to changes they are making in their day to day work settings.

In the same way, any provider or facilitator must be able to demonstrate expert practice across these areas. They should ensure their expertise and understanding is rigorous and up-to-date…”

These sound like perfectly reasonable expectations; actually doing it might seem like a scary proposition, but the expectations themselves – and remember, these are drawn from and supported by research, not just things plucked from the air – are perfectly reasonable. Does your school live up to this research? All school leaders with any involvement in committing time or money to professional development should read both these documents. You are committing a lot to this endeavor – particularly the very precious human capital that makes learning happen at your school – so please be as good at it as you can possibly be.

Dr. Ian Kelleher, Head of Research, The CTTL