Research School Network: Speaking the Same Language Mark Miller on why you need to define your terms

In education, we are saying the same words but often speaking a different language.

From metacognition to differentiation, knowledge organisers to feedback, there are as many different definitions as people reading this blog. Without clarity in how we define our terms, they are pretty much useless and potentially harmful.

Take a moment to write down your definition of metacognition.

We often ask participants in training to do the task above and get a range of responses, all along fairly similar lines: learning to learn; thinking about thinking; how pupils think about their learning. Now these are all kind of true, and yet quite unhelpful when it comes to developing approaches.

In the EEF toolkit, they define clearly what they mean when talking about Metacognition and self regulation:

With this clearer definition, we are able to then implement strategies that are focused on helping pupils to plan, monitor and evaluate their own learning. Rather than ​‘doing’ metacognition, we can talk about concrete approaches e.g. about how we can get pupils to monitor success in their writing.

Take a moment now to write down your definition of a Knowledge Organiser.

Here is mine:
A Knowledge Organiser is a one-page document which presents curated, essential, organised knowledge with clarity. Knowledge is presented in a format which facilitates retrieval practice, elaboration and organisation, in order to develop a schema.

This is not the definition of a knowledge organiser, but it is mine. So when I talk about them, everyone should be clear exactly what I mean. It’s the definition I have shared with Dixons Academies. It’s been adopted by some schools, adapted by others. I’ve debated this and concede it’s not perfect, but it beats a vague understanding of what a Knowledge Organiser sort of is.

With a clearly defined and communicated concept, implementation becomes easier because we are all talking about the same thing. There is an objective way of looking at things, rather than vagueness.

Next time you bring your team together, bring up a list of the terms that you use to describe aspects of teaching and learning, maybe even your subject. Look for the following.

Clearly defined concepts where there may now be misunderstanding or mutation. Strategies from books like Teach Like A Champion could fall into that category. I’m thinking of things like RADAR, Cold Call, Ratio. They’re clearly defined in that book so start there. This could also include terms that were clearly defined at one point as part of school policy but now have become ​‘tacit knowledge’. And it could also include theories from research such as ​‘growth mindset’, which means something specific in the research, but may mean many things now.

Concepts from research such as cognitive science. Start with a clear definition of the concept from a trusted source, such as the EEF’s Cognitive Science Approaches in the Classroom. But if we want the understanding to stick, build a rich evidence picture beyond that definition. When a term is clearly defined in the research evidence, try and use it. 

Concepts with a general sense but lack of agreed definition. Differentiation. Pace. Engagement. Challenge. The list is long. Ask, what do we mean when we say that here? If you can’t do that, define it and identify the concrete ways it would be manifest in the school.

We may well struggle to get everyone in education speaking the same language, but with some careful consideration we can ensure it happens in our own context.