It might seem obvious that schools should seek to live up to what educators often call ‘best practice.’ The alternative seems so sloppy, but it turns out that ‘best practice’ is not a straightforward idea. If I were to be picky about it, I might wonder if everyone adopted ‘best practice’ would that make it ‘mediocre practice’ by definition?
Fortunately we do not need to worry about such a logical conundrum – because ‘best practice’ may not in general exist at all, but be an alluring name that hides a wide range of possibilities. At best, ‘best practice’ is a phrase that means different things in different contexts.
In this article three researchers report on a series of well-designed UK studies which show that students in those classrooms where collaborative practices were adopted did no better than control groups. This flies in the face of accepted wisdom; and the inferences we can draw are fascinating. The researchers identified two crucial differences between English and American schools; firstly that they used interim assessments in very different ways; and secondly, that they approached differentiated instruction in very different ways. And these differences were intertwined with the differences in the success of collaborative practices.
The conclusion is that the effectiveness of a practice cannot be judged in isolation; one practice rests on a whole system of implementation. They write: Teaching methods proven to be effective in one culture and system cannot be assumed to be effective in another. We remain convinced that the cooperative learning strategies that have been found in North American research to be effective in mathematics can be made to work in England, but they are going to require further adaptation to the traditions and expectations of teaching in English schools. Given the many similarities between North American and UK contexts, this cautionary tale should perhaps give even more pause to those who propose importing approaches from much more exotic locales. The differences between teaching mathematics in Singapore and North America/UK are likely to be more striking still.
For me, this is fascinating, and it shows why we are taking such care in looking at experiences from different parts of the world. It simply isn’t possible to identify a ‘best practice’ because it all depends on context. This basic fact – more familiar, perhaps to students of the humanities than of the sciences – explains many unresolved controversies; whether to group by ability in mathematics; whether to offer awards; what maximum class size should be. There is no single better answer – the right thing depends on the context. So while we are doing the right thing by considering these issues in light of the research, the ultimate touchstone must be a deep understanding of context and a strong sense of our own identity.
A current focus is around technology and social media, and many readers will know Jonathan Haidt’s Anxious Generation which makes powerful claims calling for school bans of technology (if you are not familiar, it is definitely worth a read, as are the counter arguments to his claims – see here for example). For me, I am somewhat sceptical of some of his claims and suggestions, though not of his calls to regulate the companies who profit from social media to increase their guardrails which are eminently sensible).
One reason for my skepticism is awareness of the broader issue of moral panics which emerge from time to time; Professor Amy Orbden writes that they appear when a new technology surpasses a certain popularity threshold and stop once a newer technology prompts the cycle to restart. She lists several examples, such as the Greek panic over writing as a technology that would destroy memory, or the 1941 panic that radio crime drama led more than half of six to sixteen-year-old children to be severely addicted to radio and movie crime dramas, having given themselves “over to a habit-forming practice very difficult to overcome, no matter how the aftereffects are dreaded” (I’ve written about this before – Don’t Panic!). Might this lens help us understand educational technology better?
Another matter is for us to look at our school’s micro-culture. For us, as we interpret Haidt’s work, we have in mind our particular high-achieving student population, their range of learning outcomes, their cooperative behaviours, the cool to be smart highly motivated culture (and the fact that our teaching body mirrors this). How similar or different is this context to the national and international data sets that Haidt draws on?
My purpose here is not to pronounce on exactly how we do or do not use information technology in schools (more thoughts here (The AI Apocalypse: Soft Skils and Hard Thinking and Dealing Artfully with AI); it is to say that Haidt’s recommendations need close scrutiny and contextualising. Interestingly, the UK is doing just this with the current view that there are no ‘one-size-fits-all answers’. What works in one school will not be right in another, and just like cooperative practices in maths, there is no single best practice here – but a range of practices that are effective in different contexts. So as we look at how we use this and other issues, we will draw on our sense of identity and mission, and we will seek to address them as systems, in all their complexities, and not simply treat them in isolation.
With thanks to Tim Lovatt, Angela Newby and Ellie Alchin for the conversation on this topic.
References
- Brown, A (2024) The Bad Science Behind Jonathan Haidt’s Call to Regulate Social Media. Reason.
- Coquillon, J. (2020) Best practice is a lie we keep telling ourselves.
- Elgot, J (2025) Blanket ban on teen smartphone use ‘potentially detrimental. The Guardian
- Haidt, J (2024) The Anxious Generation
- Orbden, A. (n.d.) Teens, Screens and Well-Being: An Improved Approach
