Latest / When Will They Learn? / Episode #9 NEUROSCIENCE

Transcript

Episode #9 NEUROSCIENCE · When Will They Learn?

• 0:00
  SPEAKER_00: Welcome to When Will They Learn?
• 0:02
  SPEAKER_00: I am Greg Ashman.
• 0:03
  SPEAKER_01: And I'm Caiti Wade.
• 0:07
  This is the podcast where we explore what's trending in the
• 0:12
  world of education.
• 0:13
  SPEAKER_01: In each episode,
• 0:14
  we discuss podcast articles and opinion pieces that are shaping
• 0:18
  education discourse
• 0:19
  SPEAKER_01: at the moment and examine these through a science of learning lens.
• 0:22
  SPEAKER_01: We discuss not just what's popular, but what's supported by the evidence.
• 0:31
  SPEAKER_00: This week,
• 0:32
  SPEAKER_00: we're going to be talking about some criticisms of cognitive load theory,
• 0:36
  SPEAKER_00: neuroscience,
• 0:37
  and a study on attainment grouping in maths that we probably
• 0:41
  should have talked
• 0:41
  SPEAKER_00: about before.
• 0:46
  SPEAKER_01: Hi Greg, how are you today?
• 0:47
  I'm all good Katie,
• 0:48
  we are at a more reasonable hour recording this time so I'm
• 0:53
  feeling it.
• 0:53
  SPEAKER_00: I've got a glass of water,
• 0:55
  well actually a mug of water in case I get a bit hoarse but
• 0:58
  apart from that,
• 1:00
  SPEAKER_00: on it,
• 1:00
  SPEAKER_00: absolutely on it Katie.
• 1:02
  SPEAKER_01: Well,
• 1:02
  SPEAKER_01: I was actually,
• 1:03
  I was at a PD yesterday seeing Carl Hendrick and I think that
• 1:07
  has absolutely
• 1:09
  SPEAKER_01: inspired me,
• 1:10
  SPEAKER_01: got me ready for today's episode.
• 1:12
  SPEAKER_01: I think I attempted to hype him up about how awesome it's going to be.
• 1:15
  SPEAKER_01: Cool.
• 1:18
  SPEAKER_01: Do you want to start us off?
• 1:19
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, I will.
• 1:20
  SPEAKER_00: It's great you saw, Kyle.
• 1:22
  I saw the little photo of you with him on LinkedIn,
• 1:26
  so that was nice to see.
• 1:28
  SPEAKER_00: Anyway,
• 1:28
  SPEAKER_00: okay,
• 1:29
  SPEAKER_00: so the first article we are going to talk about is a Substack by Dr.
• 1:34
  SPEAKER_00: Peter Ellerton.
• 1:35
  SPEAKER_00: He calls his Substack – what's he call his Substack?
• 1:38
  SPEAKER_00: I'm saying something without looking it up.
• 1:40
  SPEAKER_00: He calls it the Educational Contrarian.
• 1:43
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 1:44
  SPEAKER_00: That's what he calls it.
• 1:45
  SPEAKER_00: He's a contrarian.
• 1:48
  And I've been following this on and off since he started doing
• 1:52
  a Substack thing.
• 1:55
  And he's written a few articles that I found interesting,
• 1:57
  some that I've written about.
• 1:58
  SPEAKER_00: But Ellerton and I go way back, Caiti.
• 2:00
  SPEAKER_00: So in preparing for the show, I actually went back and...
• 2:07
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 2:27
  SPEAKER_00: To write comments at the end of articles.
• 2:30
  SPEAKER_00: So I wrote a comment and I sort of took issue with it.
• 2:35
  I mentioned a famous quote from Carl Berreiter's Education of
• 2:39
  Mind in the Knowledge
• 2:40
  SPEAKER_00: Age,
• 2:41
  which is suggesting that teaching children how to think is like
• 2:44
  trying to teach
• 2:45
  SPEAKER_00: them how to digest.
• 2:47
  SPEAKER_00: It's something that we just do.
• 2:48
  SPEAKER_00: And that's a really good chapter in
• 2:52
  in that book if anyone's ever interested so he had a bit of a
• 2:55
  ding dong and he
• 2:57
  ended up sort of saying well you need to um what's he say um I
• 3:03
  asked him for his
• 3:04
  evidence and he encouraged me to read around and uh and and do
• 3:09
  more sort of
• 3:10
  SPEAKER_00: research which uh was was very interesting anyway to the um
• 3:15
  SPEAKER_00: To the current piece.
• 3:17
  So beyond cognitive load theory,
• 3:19
  why learning can't be reduced to memory management.
• 3:22
  SPEAKER_00: So what this is,
• 3:23
  SPEAKER_00: it's a piece on his substack,
• 3:25
  but it's actually also based on a paper that he has published
• 3:32
  with a number of
• 3:34
  SPEAKER_00: others.
• 3:36
  SPEAKER_00: Andrew Saltwell,
• 3:38
  SPEAKER_00: Evgenia,
• 3:40
  SPEAKER_00: I can't say her surname if it's a lady,
• 3:43
  SPEAKER_00: Jesus Diaz-Garcia,
• 3:46
  SPEAKER_00: Peter Ellerton,
• 3:47
  SPEAKER_00: Ricardo Ferraz and Gregory Hine.
• 3:50
  SPEAKER_00: And it's been published in Brain Sciences,
• 3:52
  SPEAKER_00: which is one of these MDPI journals where you,
• 3:56
  SPEAKER_00: well,
• 3:56
  SPEAKER_00: it's public...
• 3:58
  SPEAKER_00: What's the word?
• 3:59
  SPEAKER_00: Public... No.
• 4:01
  SPEAKER_00: No paywall.
• 4:02
  SPEAKER_00: You can access it.
• 4:03
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah.
• 4:03
  SPEAKER_00: It's open access.
• 4:04
  SPEAKER_00: Open access.
• 4:05
  SPEAKER_00: That's what I'm trying to say.
• 4:06
  SPEAKER_00: But you have to pay a fee to get published.
• 4:09
  SPEAKER_00: Nothing wrong with that.
• 4:10
  SPEAKER_00: Frontiers is similar.
• 4:11
  SPEAKER_00: But I don't think it's...
• 4:13
  SPEAKER_00: It's not like an absolute top tier journal.
• 4:16
  SPEAKER_00: Let's just sort of make that point, I suppose.
• 4:21
  But so it's based on that article,
• 4:23
  which I've also been playing through a little bit.
• 4:26
  SPEAKER_00: And initially...
• 4:27
  SPEAKER_00: I thought I'd read this article before and commented on it.
• 4:32
  SPEAKER_00: And I hadn't.
• 4:32
  SPEAKER_00: I'd actually read a very similar article where the head of AHESA,
• 4:39
  SPEAKER_00: the Association of Heads of Independent Schools Australia,
• 4:42
  SPEAKER_00: had co-authored,
• 4:43
  SPEAKER_00: again,
• 4:44
  SPEAKER_00: having a pop at cognitive load theory.
• 4:46
  SPEAKER_00: And again, as is almost inevitable,
• 4:49
  SPEAKER_00: Although in the second article we're going to talk about,
• 4:51
  SPEAKER_00: we don't quite go there,
• 4:53
  SPEAKER_00: as is almost inevitable,
• 4:54
  SPEAKER_00: quite a lot of sort of neuroscience appears gratuitously,
• 4:59
  SPEAKER_00: like jumps out of a hedge and says neuroscience.
• 5:03
  SPEAKER_00: And that, you know, ooh, ooh, what's cognitive load theory got to say?
• 5:07
  It feels more serious if you like throw in a couple of words of
• 5:09
  neuroscience.
• 5:10
  SPEAKER_01: Like that's a physical thing.
• 5:11
  SPEAKER_01: We can see that.
• 5:13
  SPEAKER_01: Neuroscience.
• 5:14
  SPEAKER_00: Neuroscience.
• 5:14
  SPEAKER_00: Brains.
• 5:15
  SPEAKER_00: Brains are cool.
• 5:15
  SPEAKER_00: That's going to be the word of the day.
• 5:17
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 5:18
  SPEAKER_00: So...
• 5:20
  SPEAKER_00: As ever with these articles, there's a kind of pattern.
• 5:22
  SPEAKER_00: There's a little bit of misunderstanding of cognitive load theory.
• 5:25
  SPEAKER_00: I'm sorry, but there is.
• 5:27
  SPEAKER_00: Maybe Peter Ellison should read around it a little bit more, perhaps.
• 5:31
  SPEAKER_00: I don't know.
• 5:33
  SPEAKER_00: There's a little bit of misunderstanding of that.
• 5:35
  SPEAKER_00: There's neuroscience.
• 5:37
  And there are appeals at the end to questions that cognitive
• 5:44
  load theory actually
• 5:45
  SPEAKER_00: answers,
• 5:46
  SPEAKER_00: but the critics never do.
• 5:48
  SPEAKER_00: So, we'll get on with it.
• 5:50
  SPEAKER_00: First of all,
• 5:51
  SPEAKER_00: misunderstanding,
• 5:52
  SPEAKER_00: well,
• 5:52
  SPEAKER_00: it's not necessarily a misunderstanding,
• 5:53
  SPEAKER_00: I suppose,
• 5:56
  SPEAKER_00: but he talks about three kinds of cognitive load,
• 5:58
  SPEAKER_00: extraneous load,
• 6:00
  SPEAKER_00: intrinsic load,
• 6:01
  SPEAKER_00: and germane load.
• 6:02
  SPEAKER_00: Now,
• 6:03
  some cognitive load theory researchers still would consider
• 6:06
  those as three separate
• 6:07
  SPEAKER_00: kinds of load,
• 6:08
  SPEAKER_00: but I think we can all agree that the father of cognitive load theory,
• 6:13
  SPEAKER_00: John Sweller,
• 6:15
  SPEAKER_00: Is a bit of a big deal in this area and he's moved away from that.
• 6:18
  SPEAKER_00: He sees a germane load as not a separate form of load.
• 6:22
  SPEAKER_00: It's a function of intrinsic loads.
• 6:25
  SPEAKER_00: What do we mean by these things for anyone that's puzzled?
• 6:28
  SPEAKER_00: Extrinsic load is a load that doesn't have to be there.
• 6:31
  It's things that working memory has to process that it doesn't
• 6:34
  necessarily have to
• 6:35
  SPEAKER_00: process in order to learn the thing you want the student to learn.
• 6:40
  SPEAKER_00: Now,
• 6:41
  obviously that depends on your objectives and I think we
• 6:43
  haven't made enough of
• 6:44
  this incognitive load theory that it's really important to be
• 6:47
  clear about what your
• 6:47
  SPEAKER_00: objectives are.
• 6:49
  Because only by being clear about what your objectives are can
• 6:51
  you determine what's extrinsic.
• 6:53
  SPEAKER_00: So, for instance, you might – extraneous.
• 6:56
  SPEAKER_00: I always keep saying extrinsic.
• 6:58
  SPEAKER_00: It means the same thing.
• 6:59
  SPEAKER_01: I thought you just said extrinsic and I was like – I do it, Caiti.
• 7:02
  SPEAKER_00: I do it all the time and I mean extraneous, but they mean the same thing.
• 7:05
  SPEAKER_00: So, they've got jumbled up in my head.
• 7:06
  SPEAKER_00: Okay.
• 7:08
  SPEAKER_00: So if,
• 7:08
  SPEAKER_00: for instance,
• 7:09
  SPEAKER_00: your objective is to teach kids how to solve linear algebra problems,
• 7:13
  then a bouncing kangaroo gif on the corner of the screen is
• 7:17
  clearly extraneous.
• 7:20
  SPEAKER_00: I did it again.
• 7:21
  SPEAKER_00: But if you're trying to teach them how to practice solving...
• 7:27
  Linear Algebra Problems When Like There's More Information Say
• 7:33
  Than You Need And
• 7:34
  You've Got To Pick Out From That Information What You Need To
• 7:38
  Solve The Problem
• 7:39
  Well If That's Your Objective Stuff That Would Have Been
• 7:42
  Extraneous If Your
• 7:43
  Objective Is Simply Teaching The Problems Now Is Intrinsic
• 7:48
  Because Your Goal Is To
• 7:49
  Teach Them How To Select The Information That's Relevant
• 7:52
  Whereas What You're Saying
• 7:53
  SPEAKER_01: Is That
• 7:57
  SPEAKER_01: I mean,
• 7:58
  SPEAKER_01: it's dependent on your objective,
• 7:59
  SPEAKER_01: but you can introduce a red herring to a problem intentionally,
• 8:04
  SPEAKER_01: meeting that objective,
• 8:05
  SPEAKER_01: because that's what your goal is,
• 8:06
  SPEAKER_01: is to pick out specific bits of information.
• 8:09
  Whether that's a maths question or you've got students writing
• 8:12
  an essay on a topic
• 8:13
  SPEAKER_01: or responding to a written piece,
• 8:15
  SPEAKER_01: you can introduce information they don't need,
• 8:17
  SPEAKER_01: and that might not be extraneous if...
• 8:20
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, absolutely.
• 8:37
  But there's a lot of people that will just roll kids through
• 8:40
  activities because
• 8:41
  SPEAKER_00: they think the activities are cool activity.
• 8:43
  SPEAKER_00: I'll call it activity-based planning and never really grasp.
• 8:48
  SPEAKER_00: There's a section in one of Joe Bowler's books.
• 8:52
  SPEAKER_00: Where it's about, I think the problem is 8 times 13, I think.
• 8:59
  SPEAKER_00: I might have misremembered exactly what it is.
• 9:02
  SPEAKER_00: But she goes to Silicon Valley and she gets tech bros to solve...
• 9:07
  SPEAKER_00: 8x13, lots of different ways and it's really cool.
• 9:10
  SPEAKER_00: They think about making 8x13 t-shirts and all this sort of stuff.
• 9:13
  Never once is it clear exactly what we're supposed to learn as
• 9:18
  a result of solving it.
• 9:19
  SPEAKER_00: Anyway, so your extraneous load is
• 9:22
  SPEAKER_00: It's extraneous stuff.
• 9:23
  SPEAKER_00: Your intrinsic load is intrinsic to the problem.
• 9:25
  And germane load is essentially the processing in your working
• 9:29
  memory that builds
• 9:31
  SPEAKER_00: these schemas in long-term memory.
• 9:33
  SPEAKER_00: And so people thought there were three sorts.
• 9:35
  SPEAKER_00: That's a problem because...
• 9:37
  SPEAKER_00: If an instructional procedure reduced cognitive load,
• 9:41
  SPEAKER_00: you could say,
• 9:42
  SPEAKER_00: oh,
• 9:42
  SPEAKER_00: well,
• 9:42
  SPEAKER_00: it's reduced extraneous load.
• 9:43
  SPEAKER_00: That's why it works.
• 9:45
  If it increased cognitive load and worked,
• 9:47
  you could say,
• 9:47
  well,
• 9:47
  it's increased germane load.
• 9:49
  SPEAKER_00: That's why it worked.
• 9:50
  SPEAKER_00: And so all possible outcomes of experiments could be explained.
• 9:54
  SPEAKER_00: And then what you have,
• 9:55
  SPEAKER_00: Caiti,
• 9:55
  is you have this terrible thing called an unfalsifiable theory
• 9:58
  because there's no
• 9:59
  SPEAKER_00: experiments you can do that will prove whether it's right or wrong.
• 10:02
  SPEAKER_00: So because of that, Sweller moved away from that.
• 10:06
  And he now sees this germane load really as a function of
• 10:09
  intrinsic load.
• 10:09
  SPEAKER_00: If you're intrinsically processing things,
• 10:12
  SPEAKER_00: that will end up doing this construction of long-term memory schemas,
• 10:18
  SPEAKER_00: provided you're not sort of overloaded.
• 10:22
  SPEAKER_00: And instead,
• 10:22
  this idea of when we should increase and when we should try to
• 10:26
  decrease load,
• 10:27
  SPEAKER_00: that comes to this concept of element interactivity,
• 10:31
  SPEAKER_00: which is kind of the complexity of the task,
• 10:34
  SPEAKER_00: but also what your prior knowledge is,
• 10:36
  SPEAKER_00: because tasks become less complex when you've got more prior knowledge.
• 10:40
  That was a whole conversation that we had yesterday at this PD
• 10:45
  was when element
• 10:45
  SPEAKER_01: interactivity was brought up.
• 10:47
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 10:48
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 10:48
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 10:48
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 10:48
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 11:04
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 11:05
  SPEAKER_01: And you start with counters.
• 11:05
  SPEAKER_01: You count out three counters and you say that's three.
• 11:08
  SPEAKER_01: And you teach kids about that.
• 11:08
  And then you give the symbolic representation of three,
• 11:11
  which is the symbol three.
• 11:11
  SPEAKER_01: And then that maps to the word that they've heard.
• 11:33
  SPEAKER_00: Maps to the number of counters.
• 11:35
  SPEAKER_00: And that's how you kind of gradually build that up.
• 11:38
  SPEAKER_00: But yeah,
• 11:39
  SPEAKER_00: so if you've got lots of expertise,
• 11:41
  SPEAKER_00: then element interactivity is low because 3x equals 18,
• 11:45
  SPEAKER_00: you just know x is 6.
• 11:46
  But if you have got no expertise at all,
• 11:49
  there's actually a lot going on there.
• 11:50
  SPEAKER_00: There's lots of symbols, hidden symbols.
• 11:53
  SPEAKER_00: They're all in relationship with each other.
• 11:55
  SPEAKER_00: There's a lot to think about.
• 11:56
  SPEAKER_00: And this gets to the next problem with Ellerton's piece.
• 12:00
  SPEAKER_00: Although at the start he does talk about minimising extraneous load,
• 12:05
  SPEAKER_00: managing intrinsic load and optimising germane load,
• 12:07
  later on he slides into the classic cognitive load theories
• 12:11
  about reducing load.
• 12:13
  SPEAKER_01: Solely to reduce load is the phrase.
• 12:16
  SPEAKER_01: Yes.
• 12:16
  SPEAKER_01: Solely.
• 12:17
  SPEAKER_01: That's the only purpose of cognitive load theory.
• 12:19
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, to reduce.
• 12:20
  SPEAKER_00: And that is just,
• 12:22
  it's a common misconception about cognitive load theory that
• 12:24
  we're always seeking
• 12:25
  SPEAKER_00: to reduce load.
• 12:26
  SPEAKER_00: But if that was the case,
• 12:27
  you'd have to get rid of about half of cognitive load theory's
• 12:30
  effects because,
• 12:31
  SPEAKER_00: I don't know,
• 12:31
  SPEAKER_00: I haven't counted them up,
• 12:33
  SPEAKER_00: but half,
• 12:34
  SPEAKER_00: I'm saying.
• 12:35
  SPEAKER_00: Expertise reversal over here.
• 12:36
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, there's a lot of them.
• 12:38
  SPEAKER_00: Variation theory.
• 12:41
  SPEAKER_00: I Can't
• 13:02
  SPEAKER_00: He says cognitive load theory is incomplete.
• 13:05
  SPEAKER_00: Well, yes, every theory is.
• 13:07
  SPEAKER_00: We haven't got a grand unified theory of the universe yet, Caiti.
• 13:11
  SPEAKER_00: We're still waiting for that.
• 13:13
  SPEAKER_01: Yep, yep.
• 13:14
  SPEAKER_01: So I'm refusing to act on anything there until we know 100%.
• 13:18
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 13:18
  SPEAKER_00: I mean,
• 13:18
  it is incomplete and it's not meant to really be about kids'
• 13:23
  emotions particularly,
• 13:25
  SPEAKER_00: although it is an interesting area of research.
• 13:28
  We know that if kids are anxious,
• 13:31
  it affects working memory capacity and things like that.
• 13:33
  SPEAKER_00: So that's an interesting area to research,
• 13:36
  not a huge amount of cognitive load theory research I'm aware
• 13:38
  of that's been done
• 13:39
  SPEAKER_00: in that area.
• 13:40
  SPEAKER_00: But it doesn't mean that just because it's not a comprehensive theory of
• 13:43
  SPEAKER_00: everything,
• 13:43
  SPEAKER_00: the bits it is a theory of,
• 13:46
  SPEAKER_00: They're useful.
• 13:47
  SPEAKER_00: No, I just said it doesn't mean...
• 13:49
  SPEAKER_00: They are useful.
• 13:50
  SPEAKER_00: So even though it's not a comprehensive theory of everything,
• 13:54
  SPEAKER_00: the things it is a theory of are helpful.
• 13:57
  SPEAKER_00: And then we get into this...
• 14:00
  SPEAKER_00: So he starts talking about neural networks, neuroscience.
• 14:04
  And the problem with neuroscience,
• 14:05
  Caiti,
• 14:07
  is...
• 14:07
  And there's a guy called...
• 14:11
  SPEAKER_00: What's his name?
• 14:14
  SPEAKER_00: Geoffrey Bowers.
• 14:15
  SPEAKER_00: Geoffrey Bowers.
• 14:16
  And Geoffrey Bowers is probably most famous for being a phonics
• 14:21
  sceptic and for
• 14:24
  SPEAKER_00: writing...
• 14:24
  SPEAKER_00: What do you mean a phonics sceptic?
• 14:26
  SPEAKER_01: They exist.
• 14:26
  SPEAKER_01: They're real.
• 14:27
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 14:27
  SPEAKER_01: They're probably a sceptic.
• 14:28
  SPEAKER_01: They're there.
• 14:29
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 14:29
  SPEAKER_00: So his brother,
• 14:30
  SPEAKER_00: Pete,
• 14:31
  SPEAKER_00: has come up with this thing called structured word inquiry,
• 14:34
  SPEAKER_00: which is a way of teaching reading through morphology and etymology,
• 14:38
  SPEAKER_00: which...
• 14:39
  Entirely implausibly,
• 14:40
  in my view,
• 14:42
  he thinks you should use to teach initial reading to kids.
• 14:46
  SPEAKER_00: So you've got kids who don't know,
• 14:48
  SPEAKER_00: who can't sound out words,
• 14:49
  SPEAKER_00: and you should start talking about etymology and morphology with them.
• 14:53
  SPEAKER_00: I just find it completely implausible,
• 14:56
  but I do think there's a role for etymology and morphology in
• 15:00
  teaching reading.
• 15:01
  SPEAKER_00: Anyway, but Bowers is very sceptical of phonics.
• 15:05
  SPEAKER_00: He basically did a kind of
• 15:07
  SPEAKER_00: Retrospective re-analysis of the US Reading Panel Report,
• 15:10
  found it wanting according to some exacting standards that he
• 15:14
  had decided to
• 15:14
  SPEAKER_00: retrospectively set for the research that was included.
• 15:19
  SPEAKER_00: And why?
• 15:23
  SPEAKER_00: Well,
• 15:24
  SPEAKER_00: he'll admit there's no evidence to support structured word inquiry,
• 15:27
  but I think he's trying to clear out some space so that people
• 15:30
  might consider
• 15:31
  SPEAKER_00: structured word inquiry,
• 15:32
  SPEAKER_00: whereas at the moment people think phonics...
• 15:35
  Has this evidence behind it so they're not considering
• 15:37
  structural inquiry.
• 15:38
  SPEAKER_00: I think that's what's going on.
• 15:39
  SPEAKER_00: But Bowers is really sound on neuroscience because he basically says,
• 15:44
  imagine you put a kid in one of those funny hats with
• 15:50
  electrodes on it or whatever,
• 15:52
  SPEAKER_00: I don't know.
• 15:53
  And you use that and you find out that when they're solving
• 15:57
  maths problems,
• 15:58
  SPEAKER_00: it's like in the back left-hand part of the brain lights up.
• 16:01
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, we're doing that stuff.
• 16:02
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, but he's like, what use is that?
• 16:05
  SPEAKER_00: Like,
• 16:06
  SPEAKER_00: yeah,
• 16:06
  SPEAKER_00: what does,
• 16:07
  SPEAKER_00: if a teacher knows that the back left part of the brain lights up,
• 16:11
  SPEAKER_00: so what?
• 16:11
  SPEAKER_00: Like, you know, it just doesn't have any instruction.
• 16:15
  SPEAKER_00: So people appealing to neuroscience are doing so in a way that,
• 16:22
  SPEAKER_00: yeah,
• 16:23
  SPEAKER_00: I mean,
• 16:23
  SPEAKER_00: like,
• 16:24
  SPEAKER_00: so anyway,
• 16:25
  SPEAKER_00: this is what Ellerton does.
• 16:27
  SPEAKER_00: He appeals to neuroscience.
• 16:29
  SPEAKER_00: He says, okay, so I've got a couple of quotes.
• 16:32
  SPEAKER_00: CLT,
• 16:34
  SPEAKER_00: largely sidelined social-emotional learning,
• 16:36
  SPEAKER_00: treating it as peri...
• 16:39
  SPEAKER_00: Oh,
• 16:39
  SPEAKER_00: that's cut off on my printout.
• 16:41
  This is especially problematic in collaborative inquiry in
• 16:44
  real-world learning
• 16:45
  SPEAKER_00: contexts where students must manage not only information,
• 16:47
  SPEAKER_00: but ambiguity,
• 16:48
  SPEAKER_00: frustration,
• 16:49
  SPEAKER_00: negotiation,
• 16:49
  SPEAKER_00: and perspective-taking.
• 16:51
  I think this is...
• 16:52
  What he's getting at here is I think Ellerton doesn't like...
• 16:56
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 17:13
  SPEAKER_00: To learn basic maths or basic science or things like that.
• 17:18
  SPEAKER_00: Are there collaborative skills that are worth building later on?
• 17:22
  SPEAKER_00: That's very debatable.
• 17:25
  SPEAKER_00: But it's certainly not going to be...
• 17:27
  SPEAKER_01: Does this go back to that learning objective question, though?
• 17:30
  If I'm in a maths class or an English class and I'm teaching
• 17:33
  kids how to read,
• 17:35
  SPEAKER_01: then is my focus in that instance on the social element of that?
• 17:40
  SPEAKER_01: No.
• 17:40
  SPEAKER_01: So it's not to say it doesn't have a place.
• 17:43
  SPEAKER_01: But is that your objective?
• 17:45
  SPEAKER_01: And you need to think about that when you design a learning activity.
• 17:48
  SPEAKER_01: Your objective doesn't have to do every single thing at one time,
• 17:54
  SPEAKER_01: but can still respect those things,
• 17:55
  SPEAKER_01: right?
• 17:55
  SPEAKER_01: Right.
• 17:56
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, absolutely.
• 17:57
  SPEAKER_00: And look, it's complex.
• 17:59
  Some of these things exist and are real,
• 18:01
  but they're biologically primary.
• 18:03
  They're the sorts of things that you learn without explicit
• 18:05
  teaching through
• 18:06
  SPEAKER_00: socialisation,
• 18:07
  SPEAKER_00: but they can also be maladaptive.
• 18:08
  SPEAKER_00: So you might need to explicitly learn a better version of those things.
• 18:12
  SPEAKER_00: Some of these things I just don't think really exist.
• 18:16
  SPEAKER_00: So, yeah, it's complicated, but...
• 18:20
  SPEAKER_00: But why, I mean, CLT sidelines them.
• 18:24
  SPEAKER_00: It does so quite explicitly because it says if you're trying to,
• 18:28
  SPEAKER_00: if,
• 18:28
  SPEAKER_00: and only if,
• 18:29
  SPEAKER_00: like if you're not,
• 18:30
  SPEAKER_00: that's fine.
• 18:31
  SPEAKER_00: But if you're trying to teach kids how to solve linear algebra equations,
• 18:35
  SPEAKER_00: for instance,
• 18:36
  SPEAKER_00: then probably sticking them in a situation of ambiguity,
• 18:39
  SPEAKER_00: frustration,
• 18:40
  negotiation and perspective taking is probably not the best way
• 18:44
  to do that.
• 18:45
  SPEAKER_00: And why not just teach them how to solve the algebra?
• 18:49
  SPEAKER_00: Now,
• 18:49
  SPEAKER_00: If,
• 18:50
  SPEAKER_00: obviously,
• 18:50
  SPEAKER_00: you can identify these groovier,
• 18:54
  SPEAKER_00: higher-order things and they really exist and you want to...
• 18:58
  SPEAKER_01: Some,
• 18:58
  SPEAKER_01: like,
• 18:58
  SPEAKER_01: vague,
• 18:58
  SPEAKER_01: yeah,
• 18:59
  SPEAKER_01: immeasurable...
• 19:00
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah,
• 19:00
  SPEAKER_00: then maybe that this alternative could be useful to you.
• 19:04
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, cognitive load theory doesn't rule that out.
• 19:06
  But he's just saying if you want to teach them the maths as
• 19:09
  opposed to how to
• 19:10
  SPEAKER_00: handle being frustrated,
• 19:12
  SPEAKER_00: then maybe you want to just sort of teach them the maths.
• 19:17
  SPEAKER_00: He also says equally neglected is self-regulation.
• 19:21
  SPEAKER_00: He obviously hasn't seen the enormous number of papers that I've seen.
• 19:25
  SPEAKER_00: Trying to apply cognitive load theory to self-regulation theory.
• 19:29
  I mean,
• 19:29
  it's not Sweller's cup of tea,
• 19:31
  I don't think,
• 19:31
  having chats to him about it.
• 19:33
  But there's an awful lot of researchers out there trying to
• 19:36
  connect the two.
• 19:37
  SPEAKER_00: And then the final thing is...
• 19:41
  This appeal that he says cognitive load becomes something to be
• 19:47
  adaptively managed,
• 19:48
  SPEAKER_00: not uniformly minimised.
• 19:50
  SPEAKER_00: We know!
• 19:51
  SPEAKER_01: Which is the whole point of cognitive load theory!
• 19:54
  SPEAKER_00: Yes, we know that!
• 19:56
  SPEAKER_00: And in fact, what cognitive load theory adds is when and how.
• 20:01
  Like when you should change the amount of cognitive load and
• 20:04
  how you should change.
• 20:05
  SPEAKER_00: Whereas what Ellerton does is he just says,
• 20:07
  SPEAKER_00: well,
• 20:08
  SPEAKER_00: it needs to be adaptively managed,
• 20:09
  SPEAKER_00: but he doesn't tell you how.
• 20:10
  Like what is it the kid's doing or saying or what is it about
• 20:14
  learning objective or
• 20:15
  what it is about the classroom that makes you decide that now
• 20:18
  you're going to
• 20:19
  SPEAKER_00: increase load as opposed to reduce it?
• 20:21
  SPEAKER_00: He doesn't say.
• 20:22
  SPEAKER_00: But cognitive load theory- You know what does say that?
• 20:25
  SPEAKER_00: Does say.
• 20:26
  SPEAKER_00: So anyway, anyway, so that was that one.
• 20:29
  SPEAKER_00: Did you have any more thoughts on that one, Caiti?
• 20:31
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, goodness.
• 20:32
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 20:33
  SPEAKER_01: Oh, I think it was actually, it was this narrow view of cognitive load.
• 20:38
  SPEAKER_01: So like any theory that we've got, you focus in fairly narrowly.
• 20:43
  Like this is how you design a rigorous scientific experiment is
• 20:47
  you focus on one
• 20:48
  SPEAKER_01: thing,
• 20:48
  SPEAKER_01: you try to isolate,
• 20:49
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 21:04
  SPEAKER_01: He's referencing,
• 21:06
  I think he's drawing on a little bit of worked example effect
• 21:08
  in that and saying,
• 21:10
  SPEAKER_01: well,
• 21:10
  SPEAKER_01: we're saying we have to constantly have this use of worked examples.
• 21:14
  Well,
• 21:14
  great,
• 21:15
  but actually in cognitive load,
• 21:17
  this is my current area of interest,
• 21:19
  right?
• 21:20
  There's expertise reversal effect that says that over time,
• 21:23
  those same examples that
• 21:25
  Could Have Been Or Sorry Would Have Been Useful For Novice
• 21:28
  Learners They Might And
• 21:30
  I Say Might Because There's Some Interesting Studies On That
• 21:33
  Anyway But They Might
• 21:34
  Hinder Or Not Help Not Benefit Expert Learners In That Same
• 21:39
  Area In The Same Way So
• 21:42
  That's The Thing Is The Stuff That He's Saying And He's Going
• 21:44
  Oh Yeah But It
• 21:45
  Doesn't Explain This Well It Starts Narrow Increasingly We
• 21:48
  Begin To Look Into Like
• 21:50
  SPEAKER_01: We Do For Any Research We Look Into The
• 21:52
  Boundary Conditions When Things Work When They Don't And So
• 21:57
  Does I Think My
• 21:59
  Question Is Does It Need To Have A Connection To Emotion Is
• 22:03
  That Something That We
• 22:05
  Need Is That Really What Can I Use Your Phrasing Is That The
• 22:09
  Objective Of This
• 22:10
  SPEAKER_01: Right Now?
• 22:11
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah And I Think
• 22:13
  Because people use cognitive load in shocking ways all over the
• 22:17
  place now because
• 22:18
  they've heard it and they just go applying it to all sorts of
• 22:21
  things and they'll
• 22:21
  SPEAKER_00: say...
• 22:22
  SPEAKER_00: It gets applied to so much colloquial.
• 22:24
  SPEAKER_01: It drives me mental, Greg.
• 22:26
  Yeah,
• 22:26
  so cognitive load should be what's happening to you now,
• 22:30
  what you're trying to do now.
• 22:31
  SPEAKER_00: And they'll say things like, oh, you know...
• 22:36
  SPEAKER_00: I don't know.
• 22:37
  SPEAKER_00: There was too much cognitive load.
• 22:39
  SPEAKER_01: In that email?
• 22:40
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, or something.
• 22:42
  SPEAKER_01: That's my favourite one.
• 22:43
  SPEAKER_01: That email was too much cognitive load.
• 22:46
  SPEAKER_00: But they'll also use it in terms of emotional.
• 22:49
  SPEAKER_00: They'll say the kid was carrying too much cognitive load.
• 22:53
  SPEAKER_00: But there's something there.
• 22:56
  As I said earlier,
• 22:57
  if you're anxious,
• 22:58
  it does seem to reduce your working memory capacity.
• 23:00
  SPEAKER_00: There's a bit of stuff on...
• 23:03
  SPEAKER_01: Emotions and,
• 23:05
  SPEAKER_01: I mean,
• 23:07
  SPEAKER_01: I'm going to say this as someone who's not an expert in this,
• 23:09
  SPEAKER_01: so I apologise if I used the wrong word,
• 23:10
  SPEAKER_01: but that and,
• 23:12
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 23:12
  SPEAKER_01: the engagement of the prefrontal cortex,
• 23:14
  SPEAKER_01: which is my,
• 23:16
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 23:16
  SPEAKER_01: my rough description is the smart part of your brain.
• 23:19
  SPEAKER_01: So there is evidence around that.
• 23:21
  SPEAKER_01: It's just that's not what cognitive load theory is focusing on.
• 23:27
  SPEAKER_00: No, but it could.
• 23:28
  SPEAKER_00: The difficulty would be...
• 23:30
  If you wanted to see how anxiety affects working memory in a
• 23:34
  controlled experiment,
• 23:36
  SPEAKER_00: you'd have to make some people anxious.
• 23:39
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, that doesn't sound fab, does it?
• 23:43
  SPEAKER_00: No.
• 23:43
  So people sort of dance around it and they might give them an
• 23:48
  additional...
• 23:48
  So there's quite a lot of research that's been done where
• 23:51
  people have to do an
• 23:52
  SPEAKER_00: additional task and things like that.
• 23:53
  SPEAKER_00: But again, that's not really...
• 23:55
  SPEAKER_00: So it's tricky to see how cognitive load theory,
• 23:59
  SPEAKER_00: which is essentially a theory of controlled experiments,
• 24:03
  SPEAKER_00: about as controlled as educational psychology experiments can get,
• 24:07
  how it could branch out into those other sorts of areas and
• 24:11
  whether it would really
• 24:11
  SPEAKER_00: need to.
• 24:12
  SPEAKER_00: And actually,
• 24:13
  one of the things I would predict from cognitive load theory is
• 24:16
  that if you're
• 24:17
  SPEAKER_00: paying attention to it and you're
• 24:18
  SPEAKER_00: Are you saying that if you teach someone well,
• 24:30
  they might feel less anxious and frustrated about the material
• 24:33
  that they're meant
• 24:34
  SPEAKER_01: to be learning?
• 24:35
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 24:36
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 24:36
  SPEAKER_00: But,
• 24:36
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 24:37
  SPEAKER_00: only if you want to do that,
• 24:38
  SPEAKER_00: I suppose you might want to throw them into a situation.
• 24:41
  SPEAKER_00: What was it where they were, uh,
• 24:44
  SPEAKER_00: Oh, where is it?
• 24:44
  SPEAKER_00: I've got it here.
• 24:45
  They are experiencing ambiguity,
• 24:48
  frustration,
• 24:49
  negotiation and perspective taking.
• 24:51
  SPEAKER_00: You might want to put them in that situation, Caiti.
• 24:52
  SPEAKER_00: And if you do, then maybe it's not for you.
• 24:55
  SPEAKER_00: Can I talk about the next one?
• 24:57
  SPEAKER_00: Can you please?
• 25:07
  This is Information Theory and Why Explaining Clearly Isn't
• 25:10
  Enough by Christian Moore Anderson.
• 25:13
  SPEAKER_00: And he talks about Claude Shannon's information theory.
• 25:17
  Now,
• 25:18
  this was really interesting to me because,
• 25:21
  Caiti,
• 25:22
  I have written a paper.
• 25:24
  SPEAKER_00: Which I can't get anyone to publish because they all think it's nonsense,
• 25:27
  where I try to apply Shannon's information theory to cognitive
• 25:33
  load theory.
• 25:34
  SPEAKER_00: And it's sitting on Syarxiv.
• 25:36
  If anyone wants to look it up,
• 25:38
  it's the preprint server that you can publish things on online.
• 25:44
  SPEAKER_00: I'll put it in the show notes.
• 25:47
  SPEAKER_00: And I quite like this idea and John Sweller quite likes this idea.
• 25:50
  We're both convinced by this slightly mad idea of applying
• 25:54
  Shannon's theory.
• 25:55
  SPEAKER_00: So Shannon's theory, I don't know, do you know much about it, Caiti?
• 26:02
  I'm going to be honest and say I know what I've read in your
• 26:06
  paper because you
• 26:06
  SPEAKER_01: pointed me to that a couple of weeks ago.
• 26:09
  SPEAKER_01: And I will put that in the show notes.
• 26:10
  SPEAKER_01: I've just pulled it up to do that.
• 26:11
  SPEAKER_00: So it's about this idea of entropy,
• 26:15
  SPEAKER_00: which is a physics idea that then Shannon applied to information.
• 26:18
  SPEAKER_00: And the classic idea is that information reduces uncertainty.
• 26:23
  SPEAKER_00: So you don't know if it's raining in London, yeah?
• 26:26
  SPEAKER_00: But I transmit a message saying it is raining in London.
• 26:30
  So you had this superposition of possibilities that it was
• 26:34
  raining or it's not
• 26:34
  SPEAKER_00: raining,
• 26:35
  SPEAKER_00: but it's now reduced to one and you've reduced the entropy of it.
• 26:38
  SPEAKER_00: And I tried to apply that to...
• 26:42
  SPEAKER_00: To Cognitive Load Theory.
• 26:43
  And I even did some calculations and drew a graph,
• 26:47
  which I'm quite proud of.
• 26:48
  SPEAKER_00: But no one likes it.
• 26:49
  SPEAKER_00: Can't get it published.
• 26:51
  SPEAKER_00: So if anyone out there has any ideas,
• 26:53
  maybe I can go to a really low-rent journal that will publish
• 26:57
  my crazy ideas.
• 26:58
  SPEAKER_00: Maybe, maybe.
• 27:01
  SPEAKER_00: So anyway,
• 27:02
  I don't know whether Christian Moore-Anderson has read my
• 27:05
  preprint paper or not,
• 27:07
  or he's just independently come at this idea of talking about
• 27:10
  Shannon's theory in
• 27:11
  SPEAKER_00: relation to cognitive load theory,
• 27:13
  SPEAKER_00: because he does mention that at the end.
• 27:16
  SPEAKER_00: But it's a little bit, I can't really follow the argument.
• 27:21
  Essentially,
• 27:22
  he's trying to say that you can't transmit meaning,
• 27:27
  but then he says you can.
• 27:31
  So,
• 27:32
  the problem of communicating,
• 27:34
  how can we teach meaning if it can't be transmitted?
• 27:37
  Well,
• 27:37
  I mean,
• 27:38
  like,
• 27:39
  honestly,
• 27:39
  like,
• 27:40
  do you understand what I'm saying to you now,
• 27:42
  Caiti?
• 27:44
  SPEAKER_01: Reasonably well, I think so.
• 27:45
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 27:45
  SPEAKER_00: So I think I'm transmitting meaning.
• 27:48
  SPEAKER_00: So I think that's actually happening.
• 27:52
  SPEAKER_00: So he poses a question.
• 27:53
  SPEAKER_01: What's meaning?
• 27:54
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 27:55
  So he poses a question like,
• 27:56
  oh,
• 27:57
  it's impossible to transmit meaning,
• 27:59
  which is obviously false.
• 28:00
  SPEAKER_00: And then he says, well, how then do we transmit meaning?
• 28:03
  SPEAKER_00: And...
• 28:05
  SPEAKER_00: He says,
• 28:05
  SPEAKER_00: in other words,
• 28:06
  agreeing on meaning isn't impossible and can be likely if two
• 28:09
  people know each
• 28:09
  SPEAKER_00: other very well.
• 28:10
  SPEAKER_00: Well, I think you and I, Caiti, know each other quite well.
• 28:14
  SPEAKER_00: I wouldn't say we know each other very well.
• 28:16
  SPEAKER_00: I'd say we know each other quite well.
• 28:17
  SPEAKER_00: However, I don't know George Orwell from a bar or so.
• 28:20
  If he walked down the street,
• 28:22
  I wouldn't say,
• 28:23
  all right,
• 28:24
  George,
• 28:24
  how's it going?
• 28:25
  SPEAKER_00: I do not know him from a bar or so.
• 28:27
  But when I read 1984 or Animal Farm,
• 28:31
  I reckon I'm getting some of the meaning from that book.
• 28:36
  So I don't think you have to know each other very well in order
• 28:39
  to be able to transmit meaning.
• 28:41
  SPEAKER_00: I think you can transmit meaning quite routinely.
• 28:44
  And I think that's why,
• 28:46
  as a species,
• 28:47
  we develop language to transmit meaning.
• 28:50
  SPEAKER_00: Now, it is symbolic.
• 28:51
  SPEAKER_00: Like,
• 28:51
  there's nothing inherent about the shape of the letter A that
• 28:55
  relates to even the
• 28:57
  SPEAKER_00: sound of A,
• 28:58
  SPEAKER_00: let alone any meaning.
• 29:01
  SPEAKER_00: But we...
• 29:03
  SPEAKER_00: We teach each other what those things mean.
• 29:05
  It's like the kid with the counters who counts out three
• 29:07
  counters and you say that's three.
• 29:09
  SPEAKER_00: Well,
• 29:09
  SPEAKER_00: you could have said that's va or you could have said that's umpala va.
• 29:12
  SPEAKER_00: You could have said,
• 29:13
  SPEAKER_00: well,
• 29:14
  SPEAKER_00: it's arbitrary,
• 29:15
  SPEAKER_00: but we've assigned that meaning.
• 29:16
  SPEAKER_00: You could have said that it's neuroscience.
• 29:18
  SPEAKER_00: Neuroscience.
• 29:19
  SPEAKER_00: We've assigned that meaning.
• 29:21
  SPEAKER_00: So...
• 29:23
  We Can Then Once Transmit It and so but he it's I think he's
• 29:29
  he's gone in a bit of
• 29:30
  a trap I think which is odd because I reckon he's a bit of a
• 29:34
  constructivist but
• 29:35
  he's he's treating students as a completely blank slate and
• 29:39
  then saying well and
• 29:40
  it's impossible to then transmit this meaning whereas the
• 29:43
  students obviously the
• 29:44
  SPEAKER_00: student you're teaching algebra to 3x equals 18 is
• 29:48
  SPEAKER_00: They've already learned what three means and they've already,
• 29:52
  so you're not teaching a Blansk slate and that in a way is the
• 29:56
  whole purpose of,
• 29:57
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 29:57
  SPEAKER_00: 12 years of education is that you can progress them through,
• 30:01
  SPEAKER_00: you know,
• 30:02
  SPEAKER_00: that slow accumulation of that knowledge.
• 30:05
  So he doesn't like PowerPoint as well,
• 30:08
  but apparently- That comes up a couple of times.
• 30:10
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah,
• 30:10
  teaching by drawing step by step rather than teaching by
• 30:12
  PowerPoint actually is
• 30:17
  SPEAKER_00: drawn from Shannon and reducing ambiguity.
• 30:20
  SPEAKER_00: I don't really understand why.
• 30:23
  I also don't think the student's uncertainty is not about
• 30:26
  learning new stuff.
• 30:28
  SPEAKER_00: What new things will I learn that I never imagined?
• 30:31
  It's actually uncertainty about what could appear in the lesson
• 30:33
  from all the stuff
• 30:34
  SPEAKER_00: the student already knows.
• 30:35
  I don't think this has anything to do with Shannon's
• 30:37
  information theory at this point.
• 30:39
  SPEAKER_00: I might be wrong.
• 30:40
  SPEAKER_00: I haven't read everything that Shannon's written.
• 30:42
  But I think that the use of uncertainty there,
• 30:46
  I just,
• 30:47
  I'm not sure that that's very correct.
• 30:51
  SPEAKER_00: And then my last point on this one, Caiti.
• 30:53
  SPEAKER_00: Sorry, I'm just uploading at this point.
• 30:56
  SPEAKER_00: I do apologise.
• 30:57
  SPEAKER_01: There's actually a whole passionate thing going on.
• 30:59
  SPEAKER_00: I'm intrigued.
• 31:01
  SPEAKER_00: He says, and I don't know, I'm going to talk to John about this.
• 31:03
  He reckons that the roots of cognitive load theory are in
• 31:06
  information theory.
• 31:08
  SPEAKER_00: I don't think they are.
• 31:09
  SPEAKER_00: Because when I first pitched my Shannon's Theory paper to John Sweller,
• 31:16
  SPEAKER_00: I don't think he was familiar with it.
• 31:18
  So I don't think he made up cognitive load theory on the basis,
• 31:22
  but maybe there's some more.
• 31:23
  SPEAKER_00: He actually says classical cognitism has its roots in information theory.
• 31:27
  SPEAKER_00: So I might chase that down and see what that looks like.
• 31:30
  SPEAKER_00: But I'm not, I'd be interested.
• 31:32
  SPEAKER_00: I think that's quite an interesting area,
• 31:34
  SPEAKER_00: which if it's true,
• 31:36
  SPEAKER_00: maybe I can leverage that to get my paper published,
• 31:40
  SPEAKER_00: Caiti,
• 31:40
  SPEAKER_00: but we'll see.
• 31:42
  SPEAKER_00: Well, perhaps you do that.
• 31:44
  So what did you think of Christian Moore Anderson's article now
• 31:47
  that I've finished ranting?
• 31:49
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah,
• 31:50
  SPEAKER_01: look,
• 31:52
  it took me more than one go reading through this to piece
• 31:56
  things together and go,
• 31:57
  SPEAKER_01: wait,
• 31:57
  SPEAKER_01: but didn't you say this?
• 31:58
  SPEAKER_01: And I know you've touched on this.
• 32:00
  SPEAKER_01: Didn't you say this earlier, but you've now said this.
• 32:03
  So I went back and forth several times and went down a couple
• 32:06
  of- Are you saying
• 32:07
  SPEAKER_00: the article didn't necessarily transmit all its meaning?
• 32:11
  In fact,
• 32:11
  why is he writing articles if you can't transmit meaning,
• 32:15
  Caiti?
• 32:15
  SPEAKER_00: Anyway, sorry, carry on.
• 32:18
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, you might have ended this whole discussion with that.
• 32:23
  SPEAKER_01: Look,
• 32:23
  SPEAKER_01: I started off at the beginning of his article,
• 32:25
  SPEAKER_01: and this in itself was something that stopped me.
• 32:28
  SPEAKER_01: He starts off with a Venn diagram with two totally separate circles.
• 32:33
  SPEAKER_01: And he knows he's got the teacher's content,
• 32:35
  SPEAKER_01: what they're going to teach,
• 32:36
  SPEAKER_01: and the student's uncertainty.
• 32:39
  SPEAKER_01: And he says that before the lesson begins,
• 32:42
  SPEAKER_01: the students don't actually know what's going to be taught.
• 32:45
  SPEAKER_01: There's uncertainty.
• 32:48
  SPEAKER_01: And even in that,
• 32:50
  SPEAKER_01: for me,
• 32:50
  SPEAKER_01: it was the Venn diagram,
• 32:51
  the two totally separate things or the two totally separate
• 32:55
  circles together
• 32:56
  SPEAKER_01: because...
• 32:58
  SPEAKER_01: I mean, because I wrote down, well, what are we actually talking about?
• 33:01
  SPEAKER_01: Why are they separate?
• 33:02
  SPEAKER_01: At first, I took that to mean, well, is that knowledge?
• 33:05
  Because if I'm teaching my students something,
• 33:07
  you know,
• 33:07
  I mean,
• 33:08
  knowledge builds on knowledge.
• 33:09
  SPEAKER_01: So I'm teaching them things where they've already got some foundation.
• 33:14
  SPEAKER_01: And even if you're teaching them something...
• 33:16
  SPEAKER_01: For the very first time, you're still building on existing knowledge.
• 33:20
  SPEAKER_01: You can ask any prep or any, you know, like kindergarten.
• 33:24
  SPEAKER_01: What's kinder called across the world, Greg?
• 33:27
  SPEAKER_01: What do we call that?
• 33:28
  SPEAKER_01: Well, kindergarten, early years, anything.
• 33:31
  SPEAKER_00: Preschool.
• 33:32
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, yeah.
• 33:33
  SPEAKER_01: So anything that we teach...
• 33:35
  SPEAKER_01: I'm like,
• 33:35
  we're teaching that based on stuff they already know and have
• 33:38
  already experienced
• 33:40
  SPEAKER_01: in their environment,
• 33:41
  SPEAKER_01: whatever.
• 33:41
  SPEAKER_01: I feel like I'm sounding a little constructivist.
• 33:43
  SPEAKER_01: I'm not meant to.
• 33:44
  SPEAKER_01: No, no.
• 33:45
  SPEAKER_00: It is a very confusing diagram, Caiti, because it's two different things.
• 33:50
  SPEAKER_00: An event diagram is supposed to have the same category in each bit.
• 33:54
  SPEAKER_00: I think that's why I got confused.
• 33:55
  SPEAKER_00: So you've got the teacher's content, so that's knowledge, right?
• 33:58
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 33:59
  SPEAKER_00: But then you've got students' uncertainty.
• 34:03
  SPEAKER_00: But they're different things.
• 34:05
  SPEAKER_00: Knowledge.
• 34:05
  If they don't know what they're being taught,
• 34:07
  then shouldn't the uncertainty be the content?
• 34:11
  SPEAKER_01: Should they not be the same circle?
• 34:12
  SPEAKER_01: And I got confused.
• 34:14
  SPEAKER_01: And so I started with that where I was like,
• 34:17
  SPEAKER_01: as someone who's a fan of a Venn diagram,
• 34:20
  SPEAKER_01: I got confused.
• 34:21
  SPEAKER_01: I had a lot of uncertainty about the Venn diagram and its usage.
• 34:24
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 34:26
  SPEAKER_00: I think if I can just try and help Christian Moore-Anderson here,
• 34:32
  SPEAKER_00: I think what he's trying to do,
• 34:34
  SPEAKER_00: imagine my it's raining in London thing,
• 34:37
  SPEAKER_00: right?
• 34:37
  SPEAKER_00: So you don't know what the weather's like in London and I do, right?
• 34:41
  SPEAKER_00: So I'm the teacher knowledge, it's raining in London.
• 34:44
  SPEAKER_00: You're uncertain about whether it's raining in London.
• 34:47
  I then tell you it's raining in London and your uncertainty is
• 34:51
  now reduced.
• 34:52
  But I don't see – I don't think the Venn diagram is the best
• 34:56
  way to show that
• 34:59
  SPEAKER_00: because they're – like,
• 35:01
  SPEAKER_00: yeah,
• 35:01
  I just don't think it's – There was sort of a lot going on with
• 35:03
  it for me.
• 35:04
  SPEAKER_01: But he then goes on to – he has another Venn diagram –
• 35:10
  SPEAKER_01: That's all I focused on.
• 35:12
  SPEAKER_01: Now,
• 35:12
  here's another Venn diagram shortly after where he's got the
• 35:16
  lesson content and the
• 35:18
  SPEAKER_01: content that the students received.
• 35:19
  SPEAKER_01: And he's got this middle section,
• 35:20
  SPEAKER_01: which is the shared content,
• 35:22
  SPEAKER_01: which he calls the solved uncertainty.
• 35:24
  So I guess that's the stuff that you've taught,
• 35:26
  that the students have understood in the lesson.
• 35:29
  SPEAKER_01: And Venn diagram usage aside, he splits the or he splits up a
• 35:36
  SPEAKER_01: The uncertainties, that's the word he uses.
• 35:37
  SPEAKER_01: He splits them up into two separate categories.
• 35:40
  SPEAKER_01: He's got ambiguity and he's got noise.
• 35:43
  And ambiguity is what happens when there are things that you've
• 35:48
  tried to teach the
• 35:49
  SPEAKER_01: students,
• 35:49
  SPEAKER_01: but they've not necessarily understood that.
• 35:52
  SPEAKER_01: So he describes that as the problem created by teaching.
• 35:56
  SPEAKER_01: Sorry, it's a problem created by teaching.
• 35:58
  SPEAKER_00: Which you can avoid if you don't use PowerPoint.
• 36:00
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 36:01
  Yeah,
• 36:01
  which you can avoid if you don't use PowerPoint and you draw
• 36:04
  things up.
• 36:04
  I did look at his post on drawing to get a little bit of an
• 36:07
  understanding of what –
• 36:10
  I'm going to touch on the PowerPoint thing because I have a lot
• 36:14
  of passion about
• 36:15
  SPEAKER_01: PowerPoint.
• 36:17
  SPEAKER_01: PowerPoint is just a quick way of me displaying questions.
• 36:20
  SPEAKER_01: I teach with a whiteboard marker in my hand.
• 36:22
  SPEAKER_01: I think people out there might assume that if I've got a PowerPoint,
• 36:27
  everything's just appearing on the slide and it's animations
• 36:30
  that are just kind of
• 36:30
  SPEAKER_01: doing the work for me or something.
• 36:33
  SPEAKER_01: It's not a presentation.
• 36:34
  SPEAKER_01: It is just a way of quickly displaying questions on a board.
• 36:37
  SPEAKER_00: I know.
• 36:37
  SPEAKER_00: And I don't know whether we're weird, Caiti, because that's what we do.
• 36:44
  SPEAKER_00: And obviously, I've worked with you and we teach...
• 36:47
  SPEAKER_00: In a similar way.
• 36:48
  SPEAKER_00: I mean, you're obviously much more inspirational than me.
• 36:52
  SPEAKER_00: I'm a little bit more workmanlike.
• 36:53
  SPEAKER_01: I think by inspirational, it's just chaotic.
• 36:57
  SPEAKER_00: But we're following the same plan.
• 36:58
  SPEAKER_00: We put the question on the board and then we get our board marker out.
• 37:02
  SPEAKER_00: And we start writing on it.
• 37:03
  But perhaps they're the only school in the world that projects
• 37:05
  the PowerPoint
• 37:07
  SPEAKER_00: slides onto a whiteboard to write on.
• 37:10
  Perhaps everyone else is like rigging up screens and then
• 37:14
  animating all their
• 37:15
  SPEAKER_00: answers in and then refusing to write anything on the whiteboard.
• 37:18
  SPEAKER_00: I don't know.
• 37:19
  SPEAKER_00: Perhaps that's where the antipathy comes from.
• 37:20
  SPEAKER_01: Maybe that's what it is.
• 37:22
  SPEAKER_00: I've never got it.
• 37:24
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah,
• 37:25
  SPEAKER_01: I've just,
• 37:26
  it came up a lot in this paper and it's just something that I'm
• 37:29
  just trying to get
• 37:29
  SPEAKER_01: my head around.
• 37:30
  SPEAKER_01: I'm just putting questions up.
• 37:31
  SPEAKER_01: If you've got a quick way of me flicking,
• 37:33
  SPEAKER_01: I'm not married to PowerPoint,
• 37:35
  SPEAKER_01: but I haven't found a more efficient way of doing what I need to do.
• 37:38
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 37:39
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah,
• 37:40
  SPEAKER_01: but no,
• 37:40
  SPEAKER_01: he sort of speaks to,
• 37:41
  SPEAKER_01: so he breaks up these uncertainties into,
• 37:44
  SPEAKER_01: calls them ambiguity and noise.
• 37:47
  SPEAKER_01: Noise is an interesting one.
• 37:48
  So noise can be anything where he said it could be stuff that's
• 37:50
  not related to your
• 37:51
  SPEAKER_01: content,
• 37:52
  SPEAKER_01: but it could also be things where students have misheard you.
• 37:55
  SPEAKER_01: And that could be that their mates are chatting in the classroom,
• 37:59
  SPEAKER_01: so they can't hear what you're saying.
• 38:01
  SPEAKER_01: Literal noise.
• 38:02
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 38:04
  SPEAKER_01: Anyway...
• 38:06
  SPEAKER_01: I started to get my head around this as part of it.
• 38:10
  But look,
• 38:13
  there's elements of this that I don't disagree with when you
• 38:15
  are teaching students.
• 38:17
  There's bits that you're going to teach that they're probably
• 38:20
  not going to learn or
• 38:21
  SPEAKER_01: that,
• 38:21
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 38:21
  misconceptions are going to develop and you're probably going
• 38:23
  to have to revisit
• 38:24
  SPEAKER_01: those.
• 38:26
  SPEAKER_01: I actually,
• 38:26
  SPEAKER_01: I did like that he made reference to,
• 38:28
  SPEAKER_01: at one point he said,
• 38:29
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 38:29
  as part of this process of making sure you're transmitting
• 38:32
  information correctly,
• 38:33
  SPEAKER_01: we could check for listening.
• 38:34
  SPEAKER_01: I'm a huge fan of checking if the students can actually,
• 38:37
  SPEAKER_01: if they've just heard what you've said in the first place,
• 38:40
  SPEAKER_01: because if they haven't heard it or paid attention to it,
• 38:42
  SPEAKER_01: then they've not got a lot of hope of
• 38:45
  Yeah,
• 38:45
  but this is still in the bit of his article before he rejects
• 38:51
  the transmission model.
• 38:52
  This is where he's already still trying to apply Shannon's
• 38:56
  theory in a slightly odd
• 38:58
  SPEAKER_00: way before rejecting it.
• 39:01
  SPEAKER_01: And he's saying, we can't do this.
• 39:03
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah, later on he sort of says, but you can't do that.
• 39:06
  SPEAKER_00: Or you can, but I don't know.
• 39:09
  SPEAKER_00: Anyway, sorry, I interrupted you, Caiti.
• 39:10
  SPEAKER_01: Carry on.
• 39:11
  SPEAKER_01: No, no, that's fine.
• 39:12
  SPEAKER_01: Look, I think...
• 39:14
  SPEAKER_01: I think that will just about cover it.
• 39:23
  SPEAKER_00: Okay,
• 39:24
  SPEAKER_00: well,
• 39:25
  shall we get to the thing that we probably should have spoken
• 39:27
  about a couple of
• 39:28
  SPEAKER_00: weeks ago,
• 39:29
  SPEAKER_00: which is...
• 39:30
  SPEAKER_01: This is my favourite.
• 39:31
  SPEAKER_00: Yes, you introduce it, Caiti.
• 39:35
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 39:36
  SPEAKER_01: So this one is,
• 39:38
  SPEAKER_01: and you've probably heard about it,
• 39:39
  this is the Student Maths Attainment Grouping or Ability
• 39:43
  Grouping study that was
• 39:45
  SPEAKER_01: done by the Education Endowment Fund,
• 39:48
  SPEAKER_01: EEF,
• 39:48
  SPEAKER_01: and the UCF.
• 39:49
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 39:50
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 39:50
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 40:07
  SPEAKER_01: Versus what they're calling attainment grouping,
• 40:10
  SPEAKER_01: ability grouping,
• 40:11
  SPEAKER_01: streaming,
• 40:12
  SPEAKER_01: setting,
• 40:12
  SPEAKER_01: any of the above,
• 40:13
  which is where you group students based on their prior
• 40:15
  attainment or their previous
• 40:17
  SPEAKER_01: results.
• 40:18
  And what they've done in this paper is they've done a study and
• 40:22
  full credit to them
• 40:23
  SPEAKER_01: with this because there were elements of this that I really respect.
• 40:27
  So they've done what is essentially one of the largest studies
• 40:30
  previously.
• 40:31
  SPEAKER_01: So it's unmatched.
• 40:32
  What they did,
• 40:32
  as I understand it,
• 40:33
  is rather than do an experiment where different schools...
• 40:48
  SPEAKER_00: Were randomly assigned to use mixability or setting.
• 40:51
  They've actually tried to do that before and they struggled to
• 40:55
  get schools to adopt
• 40:57
  SPEAKER_00: the method that they were assigned.
• 40:59
  So they just looked for schools that do it anyway and then
• 41:02
  they've tried to match
• 41:03
  SPEAKER_00: the schools as closely as possible.
• 41:05
  SPEAKER_00: So...
• 41:06
  SPEAKER_01: So it was similar characteristics.
• 41:08
  They were trying to reduce any differences that were going to
• 41:12
  come up based on the
• 41:13
  SPEAKER_01: different schools.
• 41:13
  So it's not the strongest study design and it's not going to
• 41:17
  answer this question
• 41:18
  SPEAKER_00: once and for all,
• 41:19
  SPEAKER_00: but it is a noble effort to try and answer the question.
• 41:25
  SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
• 41:25
  SPEAKER_01: And I think they cover this really well.
• 41:28
  This is the part that I think gets skimmed over because I've
• 41:30
  read a lot of responses to it.
• 41:32
  I wrote a massive response on my Substack that I'll link you to
• 41:36
  after reading all 86
• 41:37
  SPEAKER_01: pages,
• 41:38
  SPEAKER_01: by the way.
• 41:39
  SPEAKER_01: But they actually come to this.
• 41:42
  SPEAKER_01: They speak to it on their summary page.
• 41:44
  If you're going to look at nothing else and you're going to
• 41:46
  skim the summary page,
• 41:47
  SPEAKER_01: They rank the security, which is how confident they are in the results.
• 41:51
  They rank that as two out of five for every measure that I'm
• 41:55
  looking at here.
• 41:56
  SPEAKER_01: So they're admitting that,
• 41:59
  SPEAKER_01: yeah,
• 41:59
  SPEAKER_01: we've got these results,
• 42:00
  SPEAKER_01: but even within the bounds of this model or this study,
• 42:05
  SPEAKER_01: they're not something that you can just run with.
• 42:09
  SPEAKER_01: This is probably the part that I think is worth us talking about, though.
• 42:12
  SPEAKER_01: So they've come out with
• 42:14
  SPEAKER_01: They came out with a group of,
• 42:16
  SPEAKER_01: I'm going to call it core findings,
• 42:18
  SPEAKER_01: and unsurprisingly,
• 42:19
  SPEAKER_01: people have gone,
• 42:20
  SPEAKER_01: great,
• 42:21
  SPEAKER_01: we've got these findings.
• 42:22
  SPEAKER_01: That means you've answered the question for good.
• 42:25
  SPEAKER_01: I know that I sent you,
• 42:26
  SPEAKER_01: Greg,
• 42:26
  an article that I saw where they've just taken a couple of the
• 42:29
  findings and thrown
• 42:31
  SPEAKER_01: them out as if they're fact.
• 42:32
  SPEAKER_01: So I think they're probably the things that are worth talking about.
• 42:35
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 42:37
  SPEAKER_01: So I'll start with this one.
• 42:39
  SPEAKER_01: So it said, this is the one that I think frustrates me.
• 42:43
  Pupils with lower prior attainment in maths made similar
• 42:46
  progress regardless of grouping.
• 42:48
  So students who would be starting from an earlier starting
• 42:51
  point in terms of their
• 42:52
  SPEAKER_01: knowledge,
• 42:53
  they're actually not impacted whether you put them in mixed
• 42:56
  attainment groups,
• 42:57
  SPEAKER_01: so just mixed with their peers,
• 42:59
  versus putting them in a specific set for students with lower
• 43:05
  prior attainment.
• 43:07
  SPEAKER_01: That's the one that I had frustration at.
• 43:10
  SPEAKER_01: Greg, before I keep going, do you want to chime in on that one?
• 43:14
  SPEAKER_01: And then I'll jump in with some stuff.
• 43:16
  SPEAKER_00: Well, I mean, have we mentioned the headline finding yet?
• 43:19
  The thing that got everyone animated was the fact that higher
• 43:26
  retaining kids in
• 43:28
  SPEAKER_00: mixed ability didn't do as well.
• 43:29
  They made like two months less progress than their peers in
• 43:33
  these ability groups.
• 43:35
  And the bit that really stood out to me is a bit from the
• 43:38
  executive summary.
• 43:41
  SPEAKER_00: Which is kind of funny in a way, but it's also kind of sad.
• 43:48
  There was some evidence of a reduction in the mathematics
• 43:54
  attainment gap between
• 43:56
  low and high prior attaining students in schools using mixed
• 43:59
  attainment grouping.
• 44:01
  This appears to be largely driven by lower progress amongst the
• 44:04
  high prior
• 44:05
  attaining students rather than greater progress by the low
• 44:07
  prior attaining group.
• 44:09
  SPEAKER_01: How is that?
• 44:10
  SPEAKER_01: So...
• 44:11
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah,
• 44:11
  SPEAKER_00: you can have greater equity with mixability,
• 44:13
  SPEAKER_00: but it's not because the less advanced kids do better,
• 44:18
  SPEAKER_00: it's because the more advanced kids do worse.
• 44:21
  SPEAKER_01: That's solving the problem by just saying,
• 44:23
  SPEAKER_01: yeah,
• 44:24
  SPEAKER_01: well,
• 44:24
  SPEAKER_01: look,
• 44:24
  SPEAKER_01: if we teach everyone ineffectively,
• 44:27
  SPEAKER_01: the one that I go to that sort of hinges off that is one of the results,
• 44:31
  SPEAKER_01: and I'm going to put it very roughly,
• 44:33
  SPEAKER_01: was that higher prior attaining students,
• 44:35
  they typically do better in attainment groupings than they do
• 44:38
  in mixed ability.
• 44:41
  And I mean,
• 44:41
  you know,
• 44:42
  from first thought,
• 44:43
  you're like,
• 44:43
  yep,
• 44:43
  cool,
• 44:44
  that makes sense.
• 44:46
  SPEAKER_01: They actually,
• 44:46
  SPEAKER_01: in the report,
• 44:47
  SPEAKER_01: they addressed this specifically,
• 44:49
  SPEAKER_01: and I'll read out the quote from the report.
• 44:50
  SPEAKER_01: They said,
• 44:51
  we found lessons from mixed attainment schools tended to be
• 44:54
  more similar to the
• 44:56
  SPEAKER_01: bottom set than top set in terms of pace.
• 45:00
  SPEAKER_01: So basically,
• 45:00
  SPEAKER_01: if you've got a mixed ability group,
• 45:02
  teachers were teaching that really similar to how they would
• 45:05
  teach a lower set in a
• 45:08
  SPEAKER_01: school that had attainment groupings.
• 45:10
  SPEAKER_01: And so from that,
• 45:12
  SPEAKER_01: will wider,
• 45:13
  higher prior attaining students do better if the classes are
• 45:17
  streamed or grouped
• 45:18
  SPEAKER_01: based on their prior attainment?
• 45:20
  SPEAKER_01: Well,
• 45:21
  they do better because they've got quicker pace because they're
• 45:24
  not being taught as
• 45:27
  SPEAKER_01: what I would call an early set.
• 45:28
  SPEAKER_01: They're not being taught as a bottom set class.
• 45:30
  SPEAKER_01: That's why they're going to make more progress.
• 45:32
  They're going to make more progress because you can pitch it to
• 45:34
  their needs.
• 45:35
  SPEAKER_00: Yes.
• 45:36
  SPEAKER_00: And this research, it sits in a tradition of research.
• 45:40
  SPEAKER_00: The EEF did a couple of studies,
• 45:43
  SPEAKER_00: I mentioned them earlier,
• 45:44
  SPEAKER_00: a few years back,
• 45:45
  SPEAKER_00: where they were kind of failed studies,
• 45:48
  SPEAKER_00: really,
• 45:48
  SPEAKER_00: because the schools,
• 45:49
  SPEAKER_00: as I said,
• 45:49
  SPEAKER_00: didn't stick...
• 45:51
  I'm not sure if I've got that exactly right,
• 45:53
  but they didn't stick to the...
• 45:56
  SPEAKER_00: There was a lot of sort of attrition.
• 45:58
  SPEAKER_00: I think I might have that right.
• 46:00
  SPEAKER_00: I'm not sure.
• 46:00
  SPEAKER_00: Anyway, they didn't work out.
• 46:02
  SPEAKER_00: They didn't solve the question for once and for all.
• 46:05
  SPEAKER_00: But at the time they were doing those studies,
• 46:08
  SPEAKER_00: Becky Francis,
• 46:09
  SPEAKER_00: who actually heads the Education Endowment Foundation,
• 46:13
  she was a co-author in an article calling ability grouping
• 46:16
  symbolic violence.
• 46:18
  SPEAKER_00: So there's a lot of ideology around this.
• 46:21
  There's a lot of people that dislike ability grouping because
• 46:25
  they think it's morally wrong.
• 46:30
  SPEAKER_00: And what was interesting about this study
• 46:32
  SPEAKER_00: Is that they found that the kids in the inability grouping,
• 46:36
  SPEAKER_00: the less advanced kids in ability grouping,
• 46:38
  SPEAKER_00: felt better about themselves than the kids in mixed ability.
• 46:42
  And I suppose that is logical because there's not kids around
• 46:48
  you who are like so...
• 46:50
  I mean,
• 46:50
  Hattie with his mushing together studies meta-analysis has
• 46:53
  looked at this as well.
• 46:54
  SPEAKER_00: And the general conclusion of those generally,
• 46:57
  SPEAKER_00: and it was very noisy,
• 46:58
  SPEAKER_00: is that less advanced kids generally do slightly worse.
• 47:15
  In ability grouping situations,
• 47:18
  the more advanced kids generally do slightly better.
• 47:20
  SPEAKER_00: Now,
• 47:21
  where this study differs from that is that the less advanced
• 47:24
  kids didn't do any
• 47:25
  SPEAKER_00: worse in an ability grouping setting.
• 47:28
  But the other thing is,
• 47:29
  we have to bear in mind that the way that schools implement
• 47:34
  this...
• 47:35
  SPEAKER_00: This is what it is.
• 47:36
  SPEAKER_00: Like, one of the things I'm very...
• 47:39
  SPEAKER_00: So we do ability grouping at my school, Clarendon.
• 47:43
  SPEAKER_00: And we've chosen to do that.
• 47:45
  SPEAKER_00: And I would say that's a pragmatic decision.
• 47:46
  SPEAKER_00: We're not strongly in favour of ability grouping or mixed ability.
• 47:51
  SPEAKER_00: In fact, in English, we do some mixed ability in some areas.
• 47:55
  SPEAKER_00: So we do chop and change.
• 47:58
  SPEAKER_00: But if you're going to have ability grouping,
• 47:59
  I think it's really important that the kids in the less
• 48:02
  advanced groups get the
• 48:03
  SPEAKER_00: same curriculum.
• 48:04
  SPEAKER_00: Because if they don't, they're never going to catch up.
• 48:07
  SPEAKER_00: And also that they get decent teachers.
• 48:09
  SPEAKER_00: One of the things that you see often,
• 48:12
  SPEAKER_00: and so often it's not funny really,
• 48:14
  SPEAKER_00: is that you're going to school and there's a top group.
• 48:18
  And for some reason,
• 48:20
  the head of department has got the top group and there's a
• 48:22
  bottom group.
• 48:23
  And for some reason,
• 48:24
  the graduate teacher has ended up with the bottom group.
• 48:27
  SPEAKER_00: And funnily enough, that's not going so well.
• 48:31
  SPEAKER_00: So I think...
• 48:34
  SPEAKER_00: It's not really the structure itself.
• 48:37
  SPEAKER_00: Probably it's all the things around it that you also have to consider.
• 48:41
  SPEAKER_01: They do address, they address the teacher selection thing in the report.
• 48:46
  So they've got a couple of tables in there where they speak
• 48:48
  specifically to how are
• 48:49
  SPEAKER_01: the different teachers allocated to different groups.
• 48:51
  SPEAKER_01: And just as you'd expect,
• 48:52
  there's a lot of noise in that where some teachers were
• 48:55
  randomly allocated to
• 48:56
  SPEAKER_01: different classes and
• 48:58
  SPEAKER_01: If it was schools that used attainment grouping,
• 49:01
  SPEAKER_01: and I'm sorry,
• 49:01
  SPEAKER_01: I'm just doing a quick scan as I do that,
• 49:04
  SPEAKER_01: there's elements of teachers going,
• 49:06
  SPEAKER_01: yep,
• 49:06
  SPEAKER_01: we're putting our strongest teachers with a particular group.
• 49:10
  SPEAKER_01: Even when they say that,
• 49:11
  SPEAKER_01: though,
• 49:11
  SPEAKER_01: I kind of go,
• 49:12
  SPEAKER_01: there's a couple of,
• 49:13
  I don't know that every single head of maths is going to make
• 49:16
  the same judgment,
• 49:16
  SPEAKER_01: and I'm not necessarily sure that
• 49:19
  SPEAKER_01: The report is going to capture that.
• 49:21
  SPEAKER_01: Will doing a survey is going to capture that.
• 49:23
  SPEAKER_00: Who are you stronger teachers as well, Caiti?
• 49:25
  SPEAKER_00: How are you judging that?
• 49:28
  SPEAKER_00: I could teach a less advanced group and give them a poster to do,
• 49:35
  SPEAKER_00: illustrating what a triangle is and illustrating Pythagoras,
• 49:40
  and they could spend a whole lesson doing that and they could
• 49:42
  do the bubble writing
• 49:43
  SPEAKER_00: and they'd be quiet and
• 49:45
  If they've got a propensity to misbehave,
• 49:48
  they probably won't for that period.
• 49:50
  My bosses might think I'm a great teacher of those kids because
• 49:55
  I don't cause them
• 49:56
  any problems and they don't get referred to the office or
• 49:59
  anything like that.
• 50:00
  SPEAKER_00: But in reality, of course, I'm not really teaching them much maths.
• 50:04
  SPEAKER_00: I'm just keeping them busy.
• 50:05
  SPEAKER_00: So how are we deciding who the good teachers for those kids are?
• 50:09
  SPEAKER_00: That's exactly what it is.
• 50:12
  SPEAKER_01: It's a bit in it.
• 50:13
  I think the biggest concern is that idea that,
• 50:18
  and I know that I've addressed it.
• 50:21
  I know a couple of people that have written pieces in response
• 50:23
  to this,
• 50:24
  which is that
• 50:26
  SPEAKER_01: For mixed ability,
• 50:27
  SPEAKER_01: to just take these findings and say,
• 50:29
  SPEAKER_01: well,
• 50:29
  SPEAKER_01: a mixed ability or a mixed attainment grouping is going to work 100%,
• 50:34
  SPEAKER_01: I think neglects a couple of the issues where we know that,
• 50:37
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 50:37
  SPEAKER_01: I mean,
• 50:38
  SPEAKER_01: prior attainment is what knowledge do the students currently have?
• 50:41
  SPEAKER_01: And in order for you to progress them,
• 50:44
  you need to meet them at that particular bit of knowledge that
• 50:47
  they've got.
• 50:47
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah,
• 50:47
  SPEAKER_00: and you were just talking about the expertise reversal effect,
• 50:50
  SPEAKER_00: which is going to kick in at different stages for different kids.
• 50:53
  SPEAKER_01: There we go, 100%.
• 50:55
  SPEAKER_01: In order to do that,
• 50:57
  SPEAKER_01: there's got to be an argument in that,
• 50:59
  SPEAKER_01: that ability grouping is more effective for that.
• 51:03
  SPEAKER_01: Why does the research not consistently say that?
• 51:06
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 51:07
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah.
• 51:24
  So the kids who need the most support to be able to access the
• 51:27
  core content,
• 51:29
  SPEAKER_01: we show them the least of it.
• 51:31
  SPEAKER_01: And at the end of the day,
• 51:32
  SPEAKER_01: we either,
• 51:32
  SPEAKER_01: look,
• 51:33
  SPEAKER_01: we either,
• 51:33
  SPEAKER_01: I mean,
• 51:33
  SPEAKER_01: we might give them an adjusted assessment or test,
• 51:36
  SPEAKER_01: but when they come in,
• 51:37
  SPEAKER_01: whether it's their standardized testing,
• 51:39
  SPEAKER_01: whether it's them progressing through school,
• 51:41
  all we're doing is we're not exposing them to content when they
• 51:44
  already have.
• 51:45
  SPEAKER_01: We're at a disadvantage and we're exposing them to less of it.
• 51:48
  So how is it that we expect that those kids are going to be
• 51:51
  able to make that jump
• 51:52
  or make those guesses by themselves when they were already
• 51:55
  coming from a point of
• 51:57
  SPEAKER_01: knowledge disadvantage or educational disadvantage?
• 52:00
  SPEAKER_01: That's actually what it comes down to.
• 52:02
  Yes,
• 52:03
  and you fit on the fundamental issue here really and that's
• 52:07
  confounding variables.
• 52:09
  SPEAKER_00: We're never going to be testing just
• 52:12
  SPEAKER_00: Ability grouping versus mixed ability.
• 52:14
  There are things that are going to be going along with ability
• 52:17
  grouping such as
• 52:17
  SPEAKER_00: changes in curriculum,
• 52:19
  SPEAKER_00: staffing that are also changing at the same time as the structure.
• 52:25
  SPEAKER_00: So you're going to be testing conflated variables.
• 52:30
  SPEAKER_00: To do this
• 52:32
  Well,
• 52:32
  to answer this question properly,
• 52:33
  you would have to run some kind of controlled trial.
• 52:36
  And that would be really hard to do and really expensive
• 52:39
  because you'd have to have
• 52:41
  SPEAKER_00: kids randomly assigned to be in mixability groups.
• 52:45
  SPEAKER_00: And maybe you have to have the same team.
• 52:47
  SPEAKER_00: I don't know.
• 52:48
  SPEAKER_00: It would be really hard to control all of that.
• 52:50
  SPEAKER_00: And so we're going to continue generating this sort of research, I think.
• 52:53
  SPEAKER_00: But what I do think is not...
• 52:57
  SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
• 52:58
  Look,
• 52:59
  I'm someone who,
• 53:04
  and I've said before,
• 53:12
  I've got weird views on streaming.
• 53:15
  I don't ever like to answer my views on them in one sentence
• 53:17
  because there's so
• 53:20
  SPEAKER_01: many different factors that go into it.
• 53:21
  SPEAKER_01: But at minimum, I think that a grouping model that is based on
• 53:26
  SPEAKER_01: I'm going to say is based on prior attainment.
• 53:28
  I think that can be useful,
• 53:30
  but only if it's implemented with a lot of fidelity.
• 53:34
  SPEAKER_01: So I've said all students need to have access to the same core content.
• 53:38
  SPEAKER_01: Teacher expertise needs to be a major consideration.
• 53:44
  SPEAKER_01: You want to put somebody on a class who needs the most support.
• 53:46
  SPEAKER_01: We're not picking our newest teachers and saying,
• 53:48
  SPEAKER_01: oh,
• 53:49
  we'll put you on that class because they're already going to
• 53:50
  struggle with maths
• 53:51
  SPEAKER_01: and you don't really know what you're doing,
• 53:53
  SPEAKER_01: so it won't matter.
• 53:54
  SPEAKER_01: No, no.
• 53:54
  SPEAKER_01: Those are the students who need the most support.
• 53:57
  SPEAKER_01: And are going to need,
• 53:58
  SPEAKER_01: are going to need higher quality instruction to be able to,
• 54:02
  or probably going to need higher quality instruction to be able
• 54:04
  to fill in the gaps
• 54:06
  SPEAKER_01: and teach them the core content and get them,
• 54:09
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 54:09
  SPEAKER_01: get them there along the journey.
• 54:11
  I don't want to say,
• 54:13
  they've got further to go in reaching the same content.
• 54:16
  SPEAKER_01: So you've got to meet them where they are,
• 54:17
  SPEAKER_01: but you've actually got to push them that step further.
• 54:20
  SPEAKER_01: So that needs to be part of it.
• 54:21
  SPEAKER_01: But it,
• 54:22
  SPEAKER_01: It also,
• 54:23
  you need to be in a situation where your instruction is
• 54:26
  responsive to your students
• 54:28
  SPEAKER_01: in the room.
• 54:29
  And I always give the example of having an early set or a lower
• 54:33
  prioritating class
• 54:34
  SPEAKER_01: at one point who,
• 54:36
  SPEAKER_01: if I had been planning my lesson and not using,
• 54:38
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 54:39
  SPEAKER_01: our common curriculum resources,
• 54:41
  SPEAKER_01: I would have gone,
• 54:42
  SPEAKER_01: oh,
• 54:42
  SPEAKER_01: they're probably not ever going to get to extension work.
• 54:45
  But they have genuine or this particular you know this class
• 54:48
  I've got multiple
• 54:49
  examples of them getting to extension work in the lesson purely
• 54:52
  because in the
• 54:53
  checks for understanding I was doing I went well they're
• 54:55
  actually getting the core
• 54:56
  stuff so why not get them to do extension those are students
• 54:59
  who would have never
• 55:00
  been exposed to that if I wasn't aware of what they were
• 55:03
  learning in the moment and
• 55:04
  if I honestly if I didn't have the access to a curriculum that
• 55:08
  was shared with the
• 55:09
  SPEAKER_01: rest of the team I
• 55:10
  SPEAKER_01: Yeah, absolutely.
• 55:12
  SPEAKER_01: And this is a key problem that a lot of these things,
• 55:15
  SPEAKER_01: even if you go back to the articles by,
• 55:16
  SPEAKER_01: you know,
• 55:16
  SPEAKER_01: Ellerton,
• 55:17
  SPEAKER_01: he...
• 55:32
  How is he deciding when to – if we're saying there's a whole
• 55:36
  range of different
• 55:37
  SPEAKER_00: strategies we should use at different times at different students,
• 55:41
  how are we making the decisions when to use strategy A and when
• 55:45
  to use strategy B?
• 55:47
  And is it possible that that's just based on our personal
• 55:50
  biases and prejudices?
• 55:53
  SPEAKER_01: I think – look, I would summarise this with – there are –
• 55:59
  SPEAKER_01: With this article and with everything that came out of it,
• 56:01
  other than saying I wouldn't just take it as here are the
• 56:03
  findings and go with
• 56:05
  those and you present those to your leadership crew and tell
• 56:07
  them whatever you
• 56:08
  SPEAKER_01: want,
• 56:09
  I'd actually bring this back to – I went back to David Diedow's
• 56:12
  keynote at
• 56:13
  ResearchEd Ballarat where he put – or he distilled great
• 56:17
  teaching into two rules.
• 56:18
  SPEAKER_01: He said, rule one is know what your students know.
• 56:21
  SPEAKER_01: Make sure that you understand where they're at.
• 56:23
  SPEAKER_01: Do that because then you can respond to it.
• 56:25
  And rule two is teach every child as if the curriculum,
• 56:28
  not innate ability,
• 56:29
  determines success.
• 56:32
  SPEAKER_01: Because if we are teaching students,
• 56:33
  SPEAKER_01: regardless of what grouping they're in,
• 56:36
  if we're teaching them trying to get them to hit a certain
• 56:38
  point and we focus our
• 56:41
  efforts on that rather than these preconceived ideas that are
• 56:45
  hard to break down,
• 56:46
  but I think that know what your students know and know what
• 56:48
  your students thinking
• 56:48
  SPEAKER_01: does that well,
• 56:50
  SPEAKER_01: If we're teaching based on that,
• 56:52
  SPEAKER_01: we've got a lot more leverage to have students make progress,
• 56:55
  SPEAKER_01: I mean,
• 56:55
  SPEAKER_01: regardless of which model you use.
• 56:58
  SPEAKER_01: Boom.
• 56:59
  SPEAKER_01: And that's it.
• 57:00
  SPEAKER_01: We're done.
• 57:00
  SPEAKER_01: As always, everyone, thank you so much for listening.
• 57:08
  Any of the resources that we've referenced today will be down
• 57:10
  in the show notes.