This strand involves the first and tenth of Rosenshine’s principles: ‘Daily review’ and ‘Weekly and monthly review’. With both of these principles, Rosenshine draws upon research concerning working and long-term memory. E]ffective questioning lies at the heart of great instructional teaching. … [I]t’s clear that this needs to be a highly interactive, dynamic, responsive process.’ (Sherrington, p. 27.)

Rosenshine also writes that the most effective teachers taught material ‘in small steps followed by practice’, indicating the connection Sherrington observes between this principle and the fifth principle. Here we can also see a connection with the second principle, ‘present new material using small steps’. Nevertheless, the pamphlet is highly accessible for teachers and the principles are no doubt relatable for most teachers (I’m not sure they are necessarily common sense, as Sherrington suggests). It provides a succinct list of evidence-based core skills, and is a really useful document for CPD. 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. Rosenshine’s fifth principle states that teachers should build more time into lessons for guided student practice of the tasks and material learned. Rosenshine observes that more effective teachers do this. Practice is required to store what is learned in long-term memory; the best form of guided practice is that which is guided by an expert.The more complex and interconnected our schemata are, the easier it is to make sense of and organise new information which relates to our existing schemata. Daily review supports the process of building up the amount of effective practice required to reach the level of mastery where recall is automatic. Rosenshine writes that thousands of hours of effective practice are required to reach this level (p. 13). In that article, Rosenshine lists seventeen ‘principles of effective instruction’; these serve as a synopsis of the article (Rosenshine, p. 19). Two of those concern modelling: 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. The POI pamphlet mediates between research and practice (see the pamphlet here). The author clearly states each principle (giving us the what), then summarises findings from research and observations (providing the why), and offers suggested reading related to each principle.

Here we see an example of Rosenshine’s use of research in cognitive science to support the importance of a principle: one of the reasons it’s important to learn something to the level where it becomes automatic is that the absence of effort required to recall what we’ve learned frees up space in our working memory, which we can then devote to other tasks – e.g., learning something new. In the classroom Begin each lesson with a short review of previous learning: Daily review can strengthen previous learning and can lead to fluent recall’ (p. 13). findings from studies that taught learning strategies to students – specifically, research from cognitive science on ‘cognitive supports and scaffolds that helped students learn complex tasks’ (59). (‘Scaffolds’ are temporary instructional supports that are used to assist learners, which should be gradually withdrawn as students gain competency at the respective task or with the respective material to be learned (p. 18)).

Our blog last week offered a brief introduction to Barak Rosenshine’s influential ‘Principles of Instruction’ and Tom Sherrington’s division of Rosenshine’s principles into four ‘strands’, in his book, Rosenshine’s Principles in Action. Sherrington uses the strands to explain Rosenshine’s principles, by connecting the principles with those to which they bear the closest relations, illustrating how the principles complement and support one another, and offering practical advice for their implementation, in addition to that offered by Rosenshine. This week’s blog post explores Sherrington’s strands and Rosenshine’s principles in more detail. Barak Rosenshine’s ‘Principles of Instruction’ has become increasingly influential in educational research and practice since its publication a decade ago. [1] Rosenshine (1930-2017) was formerly a professor of educational psychology in the College of Education at the University of Illinois. His research focused on learning instruction, teacher performance and student achievement. Much of his research focused on the distinctive features of effective teaching. His research has made a significant contribution to knowledge of the effectiveness of certain methods of ‘instruction’, which is typically defined as ‘the purposeful direction of the learning process’. [2] His principles of instruction are the culmination of his research into the effectiveness of methods of instruction. Rosenshine’s ‘Principles’ provides a highly accessible bridge between educational research and classroom practice. The principles are research-based, extensively drawing upon research in education and cognitive science. Rosenshine expresses the principles succinctly and offers suggestions for the implementation of the principles in the classroom. He provides many examples of activities employed in the teaching practices of ‘master teachers’ – i.e., teachers whose students made the highest gains in achievement tests (p. 12). Basically, I’m just not sure Sherrington should have listed any type of staging framework here. It’s potentially misleading for less experienced teachers, it contradicts his comments on variety, and from an ELT perspective it is certainly a questionable framework to have chosen. One misleading aspect of this model might be that ‘basic’ may be seen as synonymous with ‘essential’, and very important stages that are not listed here are seen as optional add-ons. For example, there is no mention of context building or accessing prior knowledge before the presentation stage. Rosenshine’s principles are the culmination of his research into the effectiveness of methods of instruction. Rosenshine worked on this article for many years. He explains several of the ideas behind the principles in a talk given in 2002 on ‘Making Instruction Explicit’ (available on YouTube). In that talk, he says he’s been ‘revising this paper for ten years’.