The free space in working memory helps us to perform other tasks, such as learning something new. Our working memory is limited; if we use much of it for recalling what we have learned, we have less available to engage in other mental activities important to learning. ‘The available space can be used’, Rosenshine writes, ‘for reflecting on new information and for problem solving’ (p. 19). First published in 2010 by the International Academy of Education; republished in 2012 as‘Principles of Instruction: Research-based Strategies That All Teachers Should Know’, in American Educator. References are to the latter. Teachers ask questions and … select students to respond based on their knowledge of the class, avoiding the pitfalls of hands-up or calling out.’ An example of a daily review practice exhibited by the most effective teachers is that ‘they would begin their lessons with a five- to eight-minute review of previously covered material’, and would provide ‘additional practice on facts and skills that were needed for recall to become automatic’ (p. 13). At the end of ‘Daily review’, Rosenshine offers an additional five recommendations for classroom practices, the final of which recommends that teachers should ‘Review material that needs overlearning (i.e., newly acquired skills should be practiced well beyond the point of initial mastery, leading to automaticity)’ (p. 13). Coaching in Pairs or Threes.. and why this can be much better than coaching individuals. October 17, 2023

There is a danger that by suggesting this is a ‘basic flow of many learning experiences’, the author (as an experienced teacher) is suggesting it is preferable, and it is very much taken out of subject context.Begin each lesson with a short review of previous learning: Daily review can strengthen previous learning and can lead to fluent recall’ (p. 13). In a CLIL context like mine I feel less inclined to consider language learning as something separate from subject content or something that doesn’t require deliberate learning at times. Review the experience of practising using the ideas that were discussed, exploring successes, refinements, next steps. This being the case, there is also a research consensus that language acquisition is mainly driven by attempting to do communicative things with language, such as learning another subject matter in CLIL or involvement in communicative tasks in more general ELT contexts (rather than learning ‘facts and information’). It’s in that sense that I wonder about the applicability of Rosenshine’s principles to language learning in a communicative classroom. I would agree that there is a need for some deliberate learning, but we probably shouldn’t overstate the case. Objective: to engage all students in teacher-student dialogue with time to think, preventing students from being overlooked, dominating, or hiding from involvement in dialogue.

https://theteachertrials.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/teacher-beliefs-and-research-why-do-we-do-what-we-do/ Mastery requires a great deal of practice; so, there needs to be sufficient practice at each step. Where possible, complex concepts, theories, procedures, methods and pieces of knowledge need to be broken down into simpler ones, each of which can be practised as a student develops their understanding of the more complex area to be learned. Rosenshine calls this ‘mastery learning’: ‘a form of instruction where lessons are organized into short units and all students are required to master one set of lessons before they proceed to the next set’ (p. 17). He reports that more effective teachers ‘presented only small amounts of material at a time’ (p. 16) and taught in small steps with sufficient practice given to each step before proceeding (p. 17). Clarify understanding of the principles: meanings of terms and processes, linking to a conceptual model for learning – supported by resources such as the diagram above.Rosenshine suggests that a success rate of around 70% is too low. In the only issue he raises with Rosenshine’s principles, Sherrington suggests that we shouldn’t worry too much about the precision here; we might find that a lower success rate is in fact optimum. Was at your Research Ed presentation on Saturday about this – compelling stuff and I was particularly intrigued by your description of teaching about magnets and magnetism – fascinating phenomenon. And if we take Brian Arthur’s view that technology can be seen as the exploitation of phenomenon that have been revealed, explored and explained by science this provides an interesting opportunity for science d&t collaboration. Students explore the phenomenon in science lessons; take the results of their exploration into their d&t lessons where they are challenged with, “Well, how can you exploit the phenomenon of magnetism?” Some of the explorations might be on paper only, some might develop small-scale models and some might develop working prototypes. I think it is likely that such exploitations would lead to a significantly enhanced understanding of magnetism as well as providing the opportunity for some open ended D&T.