Tom Mahoney
Mark McKelson
with Peter Sullivan

We explore three key questions in Episode 1.
1. What does the evidence say is best practice in mathematics planning and teaching?
2. The evidence presented by Science of learning advocates suggest that Explicit Instruction first is best practice for Mathematics instruction. What are you thoughts of this evidence and how it is being interpreted in schools?
3. What are your suggestions for teachers and leaders in schools under heavy pressure from system leaders to implement Explicit Instruction models?

References
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. & Aldrich, N. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, American Psychological Association, 103 (1), 1–18.
A meta-analysis of 164 studies that concluded that structured inquiry was more effective than direct instruction or unstructured inquiry.

Caro, D.H., Lenkeit, J., & Kyriakides, L. (2015, March). Instructional approaches and differential effectiveness across learning contexts: Evidence from PISA 2012. Paper presented at the CIES Conference, Washington, DC.
This reports an analysis of the PISA survey of over 500,000 15-year-old students reporting that the more teaching focused on structured inquiry, the better was student achievement. The original summary of the data was published in

OECD (2013). PISA 2012 Results: Ready to Learn: Students’ Engagement, Drive and Self-Beliefs (Volume III). PISA, OECD Publishing.

Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel. Routledge. Milton Park.
A comprehensive review of meta-analyses that concludes that problem solving first followed by skills learning is more effective than the reverse.

Sullivan, P. (2011). Teaching mathematics: Using research-informed strategies. ACER Press: Camberwell.
A review of a range of research reports associated with mathematics teaching that has been downloaded nearly 300,000 times, indicating that it more likely that a range of pedagogical approaches will be more successful than any one approach in isolation.