Research School Network: Designing department professional development ‘How can we avoid the ​‘knowing-doing gap’ when designing department PD?’, asks Steve Trafford

The ​‘knowing-doing gap’ has long been a useful part of teachers’ lexicon, a way to articulate those frustrating moments in lessons where you are sure students know that they have to perform a certain skill in a certain way, but they just don’t do it independently on a regular basis.

Put simply, the ​‘knowing-doing gap’ is a disconnect between knowledge and action. 

It can also be a helpful concept for Middle Leaders to consider when designing department Professional Development and anticipating some of the common pitfalls.

How do we overcome the ​‘knowing-doing gap’?

A useful starting point is to consider the key mechanisms that have been shown to ensure that Professional Development improves teacher practice and impacts pupil outcomes.

The EEF’s Effective Professional Development Guidance Report (2021) identifies mechanisms in four distinct categories:

• building knowledge
• motivating teachers
• developing teacher techniques and
• embedding practice.

The report recommends a ​‘balanced diet’ approach, whereby, in order for PD to have the greatest chance of being effective, it is designed to include mechanisms from each of the four categories.

The ​‘knowing-doing gap’ can be a common symptom of failing to adopt this balanced approach: here, teachers would be motivated and knowledgeable, but would be less clear on how to change their practice, and would be unlikely to embed the desired change in the classroom over the long term.

Two types of department PD session

The balanced design then, is key to reducing the chance of the ​‘knowing-doing gap’ occurring. It might also be beneficial to think about department PD sessions in two categories: Know That sessions, and Do That sessions:

• Know That sessions are aimed at developing teacher knowledge.
  
  This could involve, for example, a Head of English presenting on the evidence base behind reading fluency, quizzing teachers on key terms to ascertain their prior knowledge, all the while ensuring that cognitive load is considered in order to ensure the new information is manageable and digestible.
  
  Alternatively, these sessions might put a greater focus on teacher subject knowledge: for example, a Head of RS presents to their department on the key beliefs and values of Islam in the hope of improving the clarity of explanations, providing structured further reading to augment teachers’ understanding.

• Do That sessions take a more practical approach.
  
  For example, a Head of Maths wants to improve the way teachers use worked examples. Previous sessions have explored the evidence base around worked examples and Cognitive Load Theory, and all teachers understand how this will benefit pupils – now they need opportunities to develop their own use of worked examples and embed this in their daily practice.
  
  After a brief recap quiz, the session leader live models the process they want teachers to adopt, pausing frequently to de-construct their actions.
  
  A structured discussion activity gives teachers space to reflect and ask questions, before they break into smaller groups to rehearse the new approach and receive constructive feedback.
  
  Time is then allotted for teachers to plan for using the strategy in upcoming lessons.

By adopting a balanced design for department PD, considering the four categories of key mechanisms, and supporting teachers to both know and do, our chances of positively impacting pupils in the classroom will hopefully increase.

Join our free session Evidence Takeaways: How to structure department PD with Steve Trafford on Monday 9 October, 3.45 – 4.45pm. This is the second of three sessions on Effective Professional Development in our Getting Evidence into the Classroom Twilight Programme.