But, as an English teacher especially, I can’t help but wonder if we are clear enough about the terms that we include within this. Do we need to work on developing a shared understanding of educational terminology, as well as what these concepts look like in practice?
I know that some colleagues dismiss terms like ‘schemata’ or ‘dual-coding’ as ‘buzz words’. There are also others who see some educational terminology as off-putting or overly pretentious, especially when it comes to the word ‘pedagogy’. However, I’d argue that for many (though, admittedly, not all) terms, they can be used as a valuable shorthand to discuss, evaluate and improve teaching.
Those of us who teach (or have studied) A level English language will be familiar with some of these ideas, as linguist John Swales (2011) explains how specialised terminology is used and shared by members of an occupational group to help them achieve shared goals. That being said, there are some barriers we need to be aware of if we are are to avoid some of these terms becoming meaningless ‘buzz words’ or representative of a meaning that is contradictory.
Potential Problem 1: Lethal Mutations
This issue is summarised well in this Ambition Institute post from Nick Rose, who explains and illustrates how ideas/strategies from educational research can be misinterpreted, leading to them no longer being effective (or even having a negative impact on learning).
These issues can arise from a misunderstanding of the terms we use. For example, I have worked with a teacher who shared an example of retrieval practice as students completing a quiz at the start of each lesson on previous content by referring to their notes. Though this does have the benefit of elevating the importance of note-taking, most of us will be aware that retrieval practice happens when knowledge is (correctly or incorrectly) retrieved from memory. For this reason, it’s unlikely that tasks that allow students to refer to notes will achieve the same benefits of retrieval from memory.
Potential Problem 2: Scary Terminology
As I’ve mentioned before, some teachers can see educational terminology as unnecessary, pretentious or even intimidating. Though there are some terms that could definitely fit into each of these categories, I’d also argue that some of these reactions are a result of teachers who lack an understanding (or confidence) with their definitions.
I can see how this might then lead to a dismissal of some of these terms (as by dismissing the term, they can also dismiss their own anxieties around it). I’ve noticed this in particular with terms like ‘metacognition’, where the meaning is often miscommunicated (some refer to it as synonymous with cognitive science overall), leading to an understandable confusion when a teacher encounters contrasting interpretations. Like before, this can result in teachers not feeling confident in applying some of the findings from this area of study, as the term itself puts them off the idea.
Potential Problem 3: Changes Over Time
Another area English language teachers will be aware of is the common, perhaps even ‘normal’, process of the meanings of words/terms changing over time. This is easy for us to see in words like ‘literally’ or ‘sick’, though it’s occurred constantly throughout time (‘girl’, for example, was originally used to refer to any child, regardless of gender).
In educational terminology, we know that sometimes meanings/terms can shift over time, usually due to the ways in which the term has been applied. An example can be seen in the term ‘formative assessment’ (popularised by Black and Wiliam’s ‘Inside the Black Box’), which Wiliam tweeted about in 2013 to say that not calling it ‘responsive teaching’ was a mistake before explaining in 2018 that referring to it as ‘responsive teaching’ wouldn’t have worked, since ‘it would have given many people the idea that it was all about the teacher’s role’.
Where we all sit on the ‘formative assessment vs responsive teaching’ argument aside, it’s clear that we need to be conscious of when and how educational terms shift over time if we are to have a consistent interpretation of our shared vocabulary.
A Possible Solution?
It’s clear to me that the shared understanding of these terms needs to be clear within an organisation if we want to communicate a shared vision to our teams of what great teaching looks like for that specific community. However, the problems involved make this no small task - linguists will also be aware of the problems with trying to effect language change from a position of authority (‘change from above’ in linguistic circles).
Perhaps, for these reasons, there should be wider consensus on our shared language: is it time for an international ‘glossary of educational terms’? And, if so, how can we ensure that it overcomes the issues I’ve discussed without the teaching community losing ownership of our shared language?