4 Reasons Why Teachers Fail When Implementing New Teaching Strategies
Are you a teacher busting to try out a new teaching approach that will surely change the way your students approach your lessons but are concerned it could fail upon implementation?
|
One of the demoralizing aspects of teaching is that sometimes we put a great deal of effort into a new initiative for very little reward. The new initiative may be a single strategy or a broader style of intervention designed to change student behaviour or attitude.
It is demoralizing for the teacher when the hoped-for turnarounds do not eventuate, especially when the time investment has been high. This article aims to help teachers successfully implement behaviour-changing strategies or interventions by avoiding some common mistakes. Here’s a scenario … I’m a teacher about to implement a new, significant teaching strategy with a class of students who I am somewhat off-side with.
I’m classifying the new strategy, or approach, as ‘significant’ because:
|
Get our free info
|
The new approach could be a shift towards a more student-centered way of working. It could be an initiative towards improving student agency, or it could be some sort of new, ongoing game designed to foster a collaborative learning environment. Whatever it is, the new approach requires significant student buy-in in order for it to work.
Importantly, I need my class to undergo a 'turn around', and therefore I have a lot riding on the success of this intervention.
Fast forward a couple of weeks and let's see where we are at. Oh dear ... it appears I’m not using the new teaching strategy at all!
The implementation failed, and so I’m back where I started. The class remains off-task. There has been no change. And I’m one unhappy camper!
Importantly, I need my class to undergo a 'turn around', and therefore I have a lot riding on the success of this intervention.
Fast forward a couple of weeks and let's see where we are at. Oh dear ... it appears I’m not using the new teaching strategy at all!
The implementation failed, and so I’m back where I started. The class remains off-task. There has been no change. And I’m one unhappy camper!
So what happened?
I gave up because I deemed the new teaching strategy to have failed!
However, it is quite possible the intervention didn’t fail or had the potential to be successful if only I was aware of the information in this article.
The situation above is a true story. It happened to me several times, and I know it happens for other teachers as well.
However, it is quite possible the intervention didn’t fail or had the potential to be successful if only I was aware of the information in this article.
The situation above is a true story. It happened to me several times, and I know it happens for other teachers as well.
Four Common Mistakes Teachers Make When Implementing A High-Stakes Teaching Strategy
- Assume students will adopt the new teaching strategy without resisting.
- Assume the strategy will work the first time.
- Implement the strategy with poor lesson structure.
- After implementing, assume the teaching strategy failed because it didn’t change the ‘problem students’.
Preventing the Four Most Common Mistakes
Mistake #1: Assume Students Will Adopt The New Teaching Strategy Without Resisting
To avoid this mistake, it is best to adopt the following mantra: 'Expect the worst but hope for the best'.
Instead of having an unrealistic expectation that the students will embrace the new strategy willingly, adopt the opposite expectation - anticipate that they will resist and deal with that anticipated resistance before it occurs. When you address student resistance before it arises, curiously, students are generally more likely to accept the new strategy.
For example, if you are introducing a new, important game and in your introductory chat, you say something like:
Instead of having an unrealistic expectation that the students will embrace the new strategy willingly, adopt the opposite expectation - anticipate that they will resist and deal with that anticipated resistance before it occurs. When you address student resistance before it arises, curiously, students are generally more likely to accept the new strategy.
For example, if you are introducing a new, important game and in your introductory chat, you say something like:
“I’m pretty sure some of you won’t like this activity - at least not at first. Because it is very different to what you are used to. But that’s OK, hang in there and you might get to like it within a couple of weeks …”
By dealing with the objections before they arise, it is almost guaranteed some of your expected resisters will state, after a few lessons or so, “Miss, you were wrong! You said we wouldn’t like, this but actually, it’s OK!” The reality is students like to prove us wrong at every occasion!
Mistake #2: Assume The New Teaching Strategy Will Work First Time
Most new strategies require time and perseverance in order to affect the level of change they are designed to make. However, if you are impatient and expect the new strategy to work first time, and then, in your eyes it doesn't, you will have made a significant mistake. The very strategy that could have brought the change you were seeking has now been abandoned, and all your prep time has been wasted.
The golden rule?
To maximise your chances of success, adopt the expectation that the new, significant strategy will take 4 or 5 attempts before effectively working.
The golden rule?
To maximise your chances of success, adopt the expectation that the new, significant strategy will take 4 or 5 attempts before effectively working.
Subscribe to receive free tutorials, information and to stay in touch
Mistake #3: Implement The New Teaching Strategy With Poor Lesson Structure
95% of failed lessons are due to poor lesson structure!
Actually, I just made that statistic up but believe it to be pretty close to the mark. However, I'm not alone in this assumption. This research has linked poor lesson structure with poor student understanding of the concepts presented (Smith, 2014).
From experience, there is no doubt that when lesson structure is improved, the quality of the lesson almost always improves to a similar degree. What are we talking about? Quality lesson plans, gaining students’ full attention, addressing the anticipated resistance, explicit instructions, smooth transitions, and so on.
Actually, I just made that statistic up but believe it to be pretty close to the mark. However, I'm not alone in this assumption. This research has linked poor lesson structure with poor student understanding of the concepts presented (Smith, 2014).
From experience, there is no doubt that when lesson structure is improved, the quality of the lesson almost always improves to a similar degree. What are we talking about? Quality lesson plans, gaining students’ full attention, addressing the anticipated resistance, explicit instructions, smooth transitions, and so on.
Mistake #4: After Implementing, Assume The New Teaching Strategy Failed Because It Didn’t Change The ‘Problem Students’.
This is a significant mistake to make and especially relates to any intervention designed to improve student behaviour. It looks a bit like this:
I've designed a whole-class strategy because I want to see a turn-around, I want to have the class on-side. However, if I'm honest with myself, what I am really focussed on are my few problem students. I'll refer to them as my 'Usual Suspects’. It is my usual suspects who cause me stress, who keep me awake up at night, who prevent me from enjoying teaching this class, who have driven me to want to take some real action.
The problem is that as I introduce the new intervention and during the early stages of its implementation, I'm really using my usual suspects as my gauge for whether or not the implementation is working. To put it simply, if their behaviour has changed for the better, then it has worked. But if their behaviour remains unchanged, then it has failed.
In my case, the behaviour of my usual suspects didn't improve; therefore, I deemed the intervention to fail. As a result, I abandoned it.
I've seen this scenario play out regularly when teachers implement a student-centred approach to learning as part of a PD. The teachers share that the problem students didn't change and that therefore they were disappointed with the implementation. However, after some probing we discover a) the problem students were no worse as a result of the intervention and that b) many of the other students were relieved and happy with the new approach because their learning was no longer hampered by the usual suspects - the student-centred approach allowed them to progress with less reliance on the teacher (whose attention is often consumed by the usual suspects).
Further to this point, it is rare that the poor behaviour or attitude of several students within the same class will be turned around quickly via any intervention because such improvements require time and perseverance.
Further to this point, it is rare that the poor behaviour or attitude of several students within the same class will be turned around quickly via any intervention because such improvements require time and perseverance.
Call to Action - we'd love to hear from you!
Have you experienced disappointment from a failed new teaching strategy after devoting considerable time to its development? Do you resonate with the ideas expressed here?
