In my series of blogs about the pedagogy of the Middle East, I have been pleased to come across McKinsey’s study of the 2015 PISA data sets. PISA has a large database of student results from around the world, based on its regular international testing rounds.
I don’t quite agree with all of McKinsey’s method and interpretation but, I have to hand it to them, they are as good as ever in getting to a rich and insightful set of observations. McKinsey has published a main study and a group of regional reports.
Two findings stand out in the main study. The first one is massive in itself, although it is not my major concern today. That is, they say that the PISA data demonstrate that mindframe is more important to student performance than socio-economic background.
Bang!
They separate ‘subject mindframe’ (eg a love for science or space) from ‘general mindframe’ which is a bundle of student attitudes covering self-motivation, preparation for class, sense of belonging and similar features. They underline the value of having both. In the USA results, a positive mindframe has been equivalent to a jump into a higher social-economic grouping. In the Middle East, the positive mindset is much more common among girls which is pointing to one of the reasons (we know) that they do better than boys.
McKinsey even pause to alert us to the issue of ‘test anxiety’ for girls which can negate the positive mindframe effects. We need to take that into account, too.
Then, the second and bigger issue that McKinsey raise is about pedagogy. They have used the PISA data sets to examine if a Teacher-directed approach in the classroom is beaten by an Inquiry-based approach.
It is not.
The Teacher-directed approach came out much more strongly linked to higher student performance. Where it was used “most or all of the time”, students did better. Where the Inquiry-based approach was used “most or all of the time”, students did not do as well.
Bang!
Now, I want to be careful about drawing conclusions from this analysis. In my experience, research studies that try to take a simple, binary approach to comparing method A and B are often troubled. What someone in one part of the world will call “Teacher-directed” or “Inquiry-based” changes in another country or region. And you have to remember that the McKinsey team are using data analytics – which is mostly pattern-seeking research that highlights correlations. There is no proof of causal links.
But what this work does do, for me, is to throw a big stone into the complacent, still pond that promotes the idea that education in the Middle East will be so much better if it copies the favoured methods of the liberal West. And the analysis upsets the idea that we can construct inspection templates for the Middle East based on the idea that teachers should behave like educators want them to do in London or New York.
We need to be much more cautious and circumspect.
There is plenty in the McKinsey report for everyone. The analysts temper their stark findings about Teacher-directed versus Inquiry-based approaches by observing that there may be a “sweet spot”, where teachers are mostly directive but use some inquiry.
And I have certainly seen some excellent practice in Middle East schools where this blend is both the goal and the experience. There is enormous value in a good Inquiry-based class or lesson-series. Yes, it can lead to deep learning. And the thrill of discovery can make findings and conclusions more memorable. But don’t lose sight of that “most or all of the time” finding.
And the real point is that we need to judge lessons on the basis of the learning that is happening – for individuals and for the sum of the class as a whole. And we need to avoid down-grading anyone’s practice based on our prejudice about the input.
We need to be open to the strengths – and weaknesses – of different pedagogic approaches. We need to avoid fashionable ideas, especially when they are an imported package.
And we need to work with teachers carefully on the methods they have got working, the better to help them extend what works already.
We can introduce new possibilities, but never at the expense of converting someone wholesale to a fashionable idea about the classroom that does not really stand up anyway.
