Teachers’ gaze patterns could reveal the different priorities expert teachers and novice teachers have in their classrooms, according to a recent study published in Learning and Instruction.
Using eye-tracking glasses, Nora McIntyre and colleagues
investigated how gaze proportions might be different for teachers of different
expertise and culture, indicating differences in teachers’ priorities. Twenty
secondary school teachers from Hong Kong and twenty secondary school teachers
from the UK participated in this study. Teachers were considered as expert
teachers if they had six years’ or more experience, were selected by their
school leadership as experts in teaching, had professional membership within
the field of teaching, and scored highly in performance ratings.
Teachers’ gaze proportions were measured during questioning
(information seeking) and lecturing (information giving) in normal timetabled
lessons, for their gaze frequencies on the pupils, pupil materials, teacher
materials, and non-instructional areas (such as door, windows). The findings
were as follows:
- Regardless of culture, expert teachers prioritised
their gaze to pupils during both questioning and lecturing, while beginning teachers
prioritised non-instructional classroom areas.
- HK teachers prioritised their gazes to teacher
materials, while UK teachers prioritised it to non-instructional areas during
- HK expert teachers also used more teacher
materials gaze than the UK expert teachers.
The authors suggest that the finding of prioritisation of
gaze to pupils by expert teachers was consistent with other research since
prioritisation of pupils deepens pupils’ understanding of the subject,
emotional security, security with peers, and their interest in subject
teacher priorities: Using real-world eye-tracking to investigate expert teacher
priorities across two cultures (April 2019), Learning and Instruction, volume 60
A new article in the International Journal of Educational Research explores the use of a number of effective group work strategies, informed by the UK-based SPRinG project, and whether these strategies can facilitate students’ learning of critical thinking. The author concludes that they can.
The intervention was trialled with more than 200 children age 11-12 in General Studies lessons in two Hong Kong schools, both with little experience of conducting group work in classrooms. In each school, three classes were randomly chosen from five classes. One (class A) acted as a control group, using a mainly “whole-class teaching approach” (WCTA, N = 69), and classes B and C constituted the experimental group, with one adopting “group work with no specific strategies” (GWNS, N = 68), and the other “group work with effective strategies” (GWES, N = 68).
The strategies developed in the SPRinG project (particularly those for primary school) were employed in the GWES subgroups. This included students attending workshops in which they were taught how to ask questions, take turns, propose ideas, and give explanations; teachers being consistently reminded to provide their classes with regular briefing and debriefing; teachers being encouraged to provide hints and direction but not steer or dominate discussions; and, physically, the tables in the GWES condition were movable, allowing students to form groups relatively quickly and quietly. Group work activities included peer critiquing, collaborative graffiti, and group discussions. Ten interventional sessions took place over approximately five months.
Data collection comprised pre- and post-test scores obtained from the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory and the Test of Critical Thinking Skills for Primary and Secondary School Students, the graffiti sheets submitted by the group work children in the intervention, and in-depth interviews with the four experimental teachers. The author concluded that the intervention was effective, and the strategies developed in the SPRinG project made a substantial difference both to students’ group work and their critical thinking abilities.
Source: Promoting Critical Thinking Through Effective Group Work: A Teaching Intervention for Hong Kong Primary School Students (2014), International Journal of Educational Research, 66.
East Asian countries dominate international standardised tests in mathematics. This new working paper, produced by the Institute of Education, compares English children with those from Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, to see how their performance changes between the ages of 10 and 16.
The results suggest that, although average maths test scores are higher in the East Asian countries, the achievement gap does not increase between ages 10 and 16. The conclusion is that policy makers should concentrate on reforms at pre-school and primary level if English children are to catch up. Although they do not believe that reforming secondary education is the answer, the authors do note that there is also a need to ensure that English high achievers manage to keep pace with the highest achieving pupils in other countries during secondary school via, for instance, gifted and talented schemes.
Source: The Mathematics Skills of Schoolchildren: How Does England Compare to the High Performing East Asian Jurisdictions? (2013), Institute of Education