There’s a report here from Pearson about whether to teach by theme or by subject. It goes over the Rose Review, the Cambridge Primary Review, current research and some case studies of successful schools in the UK. Then it looks at successful models in Singapore, Finland, Canada, Korea and Australia.
The conclusions are
- A holistic approach:
The best results are achieved when schools approach curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and behaviour holistically. None of these can make a significant difference in isolation. - Strong subject knowledge: In-depth teacher subject knowledge is essential in designing and implementing curricula, whether subject- or theme-based, and is strongly linked with high achievement and other desirable outcomes.
- Strong pedagogical knowledge:
Heads and teachers need to be skilled in curriculum design, to enable them to take an intelligent and flexible approach to curriculum planning and timetabling. They also need to engage deeply and critically with effective pedagogical techniques – the processes that translate knowledge into learning experiences – including learning strategies, thinking skills and formative assessment. - A creative approach to getting the basics right:
Outstanding schools focus relentlessly on core skills, knowledge and values. But they do so within a creative context. They are more effective at teaching the basics because they approach them creatively, not less. - High expectations:
Heads need to have high expectations of quality teaching in all subjects. Teachers need to have high expectations for every child, and to put in place good, timely interventions when those expectations aren’t being met.
This is the sort of research I find slightly depressing. I see the title and abstract – think woo hoo – and dive in. The case studies are all interesting, albeit a little shallowly described, but the conclusions…. aargh.
Aren’t they just common sense?