Interventions, Pedagogy

Teaching writing skills allows students to interact in an ever-increasing digital world and more effectively communicate their ideas, share information, and gain new vocabulary inside and outside of a school setting. While writing skills are crucial to teach, it is also difficult to do so. The authors in this study wanted to explore whether peer and self-corrective feedback was an effective writing strategy.

Self-Correction Can Build Student Independence

The technique of self-correction is a form of indirect guidance and feedback that the teacher provides with various options so that students can choose the best form of editing their work. During the writing process, students can make a plan by revising their writing and evaluating it, raising their writing awareness of errors as well as correcting the errors by themselves. 

Self-correction has been shown to develop student independence and responsibility, reflection, and contribution, improving the decision-making skills of students, and making them actively involved in the learning writing process. Studies suggest that peer correction yields more significant improvements compared to self-correction. Additionally, students’ writing abilities produce varying outcomes in descriptive writing tasks and peer-correction techniques have significant effects on the students writing recount text.

Self and Peer Correction is Important in Teaching Students Writing Skills

The study focused on twelfth-grade students from MAS Muallimin. Using a pre-experimental research design, data were gathered through pre and post-tests involving narrative writing tasks. The intervention involved teaching writing using both self-correction and peer-correction techniques. Following instruction in these techniques, students were tasked with writing narrative texts, which served as the data source for assessing the effectiveness of the interventions. Evaluation was conducted using an analytical scoring rubric covering content, vocabulary, organization, and grammar. The pre-test yielded a mean score of 8.07 with a standard deviation of 1.809, while the post-test, conducted after the intervention, resulted in a mean score of 9.77 with a standard deviation of 2.221. The authors concluded that the data indicated an improvement in students’ writing abilities following the treatment involving self and peer-correction techniques, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness of these methods in teaching writing.

Building a Positive Class Environment with Peer Interaction

Utilizing peer and self-correction techniques allows students to actively interact with their friends so that they can assist each other and do certain evaluations of their work. With the assistance of their peers, the students can take some advantages and apply them to enhance their ability in writing. The results suggest that English teachers should be utilizing self and peer-correction in the classroom to support students in the writing process.

Notable Quotes: 

“The technique also builds students’ awareness and collaboration with their peers in the teaching and learning process.”

“This activity leads students to be more aware of their deficiencies and strength.”

“Higher language proficiency provided higher and more positive vibes in understanding the error and deficiencies in writing.”

Personal Takeaway: 

The authors demonstrated the effectiveness of peer and self-correction as a writing technique, but I felt that they could have provided more insight into the instructional process, aiding students in applying this skill. The importance of incorporating self and peer correction into the “learning process,” particularly in writing, was mentioned but I am curious how these strategies could be applied in other academic areas. —Matt Browne


Inquiry-based learning has been regularly criticized by scholars who favor direct instruction. The authors in this paper push back on this sentiment by reviewing the evidence and arguing that a more complete interpretation of the literature demonstrates that inquiry-based instruction produces better overall results for acquiring conceptual knowledge than does direct instruction in a science/STEAM setting.

Definitions of Direct Instruction and Inquiry-Based Learning

The authors note the difficulty of providing a precise definition of direct instruction and inquiry-based learning as there are many different derivative uses and definitions by researchers. 

Direct instruction is defined as instruction that, at its core, conveys information directly—for example, by lecturing and by giving a leading role to the teacher or system (e.g., textbook). Direct instruction admittedly contains a passive component (lecturing, text presentation in books), but students can also be active in making sense of the information offered (note taking, practice), and use experimentation to confirm already learned theories.

Inquiry-based learning is thought of as a way to construct conceptual knowledge. Students may be asked to invent, construct, or discover any of the critical practices, concepts, or principles on their own.

Analyzing the Effectiveness of Inquiry-Based and Direct Instruction on Three Research Areas

The authors reviewed evidence from the literature that bears on the relative effectiveness of inquiry-based and direct instruction in three research areas: controlled studies, correlational work, and program-based studies. 

  • Controlled Studies: Found that guided inquiries that may include some elements of direct instruction were more effective than inquiries that had little to no guidance.
  • Correlation Work: Successful instructional approaches can include student investigations as long as adequate guidance, possibly including direct instruction, is given for designated aspects of  the inquiry process
  • Program-based Studies: Compared the effectiveness of two curriculums, one that was based on inquiry principles and another that was “business as usual”. The evidence from these studies certainly does not show the overall superiority of the direct instruction approach.

Inquiry-Based and Direct Instruction Can Both Be Used in the Classroom in a Complementary Way

Overall, the literature shows the benefits of inquiry-based instruction over direct instruction for acquiring conceptual knowledge. While the authors have mainly focused on conceptual domain knowledge as the outcome of the learning process, inquiry-based instruction may have some additional learning outcomes that are worthwhile for students, such as knowledge of the nature of science. Inquiry learning is also associated with higher interest in and enjoyment of science and higher self-efficacy. Being involved in inquiry learning may also be better preparation for future learning than following direct instruction. Finally, inquiry learning is very naturally situated in a collaborative community setting in this way helping students to develop valuable collaboration.

It was also noted that direction instruction and inquiry learning can be complementary to each other. When direct instruction precedes inquiry learning it can equip students with the required prior knowledge and skills. It can also expose them to a different view of the domain before exploring it. The authors also elucidated that telling before inquiry can be important when the domain includes multiple latent entities having complex interplay.

Notable Quotes: 

“Not every topic worth learning lends itself well to inquiry learning.”

“Above and beyond subject-matter characteristics, teachers and curriculum designers should align their instructional and assessment methods with the kind of learning outcomes they expect from students.”

“Another insight that can be gleaned from early instructional design theories is that students’ initial knowledge is an important condition for productive inquiry-based learning.”

Personal Takeaway: 

This article contained some really good ideas about the best application of inquiry-based learning including how direct instruction can be used with it in a complimentary way. It helped me better understand the philosophical principles of inquiry learning and how that can be translated on a practical level. It was interesting to see that prior knowledge was mentioned as a critical factor in the success of inquiry learning.—Matt Browne

de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Chinn, C. A., Fischer, F., Gobert, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., … & Zacharia, Z. C. (2023). Let’s talk evidence–The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction. Educational Research Review, 100536.

As Canada continues to work towards reconciliation with Indigenous communities, the authors of this article invite non-Indigenous educators to engage with Indigenous pedagogies as a means to decolonize educational institutions. The purpose of this study was to highlight the value of Indigenous frameworks in effective teaching practices and methods. More specifically, this article focuses on talking circles as a way for Indigenous and non-Indigenous educators and students to “engage in a reciprocal and relational learning process,” prioritizing relationship building and creating diverse learning environments.

Healing Through the Use of Talking Circles

Previous research shows that talking circles, or what has also been referred to as “sharing circles,” can serve as an effective means to encourage “safe communication, specifically sharing and empathy” in various contexts, including public health, community, and social contexts. However, there has been less research conducted around the impact of talking circles in educational settings, emphasizing the significance of this study.

Co-Creating New Expertise

This study attempts to offer theoretical based scaffolding to assist non-Indigenous educators in the practice of talking circles as a pedagogical framework within educational systems. In this way, Barkaskas & Gladwin seek to provide alternatives to traditional, colonial educational practices in Canada’s K-12 and post-secondary educational institutions. Barkaskas & Gladwin emphasize that talking circles serve as a concrete way to decolonize education. Canada’s education system has historically been built on Eurocentric values, where there are only a select few “experts.” However, talking circles recognize expertise as something that is “collectively co-created, held, and shared through reciprocal sharing and learning,” serving to shift the traditional educational paradigm. 

The article then outlines the Indigenous knowledge systems in which talking circles are built – situated relatedness, respectful listening, and reflective witnessing. Situated relatedness calls on all participants in the circle to consider their personal histories and how this is connected to the land they live on. The next phase, respectful listening, asks participants to listen without judgment so that all voices feel seen and heard, therefore fostering compassion and empathy. Lastly, the stage of reflective witnessing requires that all participants focus on their own experiences and use the voices of others to critically reflect on one’s own ideas and perspectives.

Integrating Indigenous Education Into Curriculum

Overall, this study reveals that talking circles can be a strong way forward on the path toward decolonizing education within Canada. As Barkaskas & Gladwin note at the conclusion of their article, “pedagogical talking circles create spaces for exchanging ideas and views, whether similar or dissimilar, with the intentional commitment to meeting each person where they are at in their learning journey.” However, it is also important to acknowledge that Indigenous education must be something that is integrated across all subject areas and viewed as foundational in effective teaching and learning in order to result in transformational change.

Notable Quotes: 

“One of the many catastrophic effects of the Residential Schools, and why both truth and reconciliation remain vital for transformational change, is that Indigenous knowledges were suppressed through a systemic process of devaluation and discreditation (Cote-Meet, 2020). They were replaced with Eurocentric forms of “cognitive imperialism” (Battiste, 2000, p. 198). Reclaiming education through Indigenizing frameworks supports the TRC’s Calls to Action as an immediate response to a legacy of colonialism and as a way to reconsider building sustainable educational futures with Indigeneity and associated knowledge systems as a primary focus.” 

“Including talking circles in classrooms also serves to decolonize institutions by normalizing Indigenous pedagogies and methodologies even in the context of teaching non-Indigenous content. This breaks down the normalized violence of colonial education and supports Indigenous faculty in their work to decolonize and Indigenize universities and schools. Regardless of the challenges it may present, this development can be gradual and still provide impact.”

“We do not imagine that this work is without significant challenges. Educators must be prepared to feel uncomfortable and, as a direct consequence, integrate generative ways of addressing their own discomfort — without relying on Indigenous people as their primary supports—as they come to acknowledge their part in colonization. It is also expected that mistakes will be made, and it is essential for educators to learn from their mistakes in doing the work of decolonization.”

Personal Takeaway: 

When used together, the key elements of Indigenous talking circles (sharing, listening, and reflecting) serve as a strong relationship-building tool and are very similar to the approach that MARIO Practitioners apply to their one-to-one learning conversations. As the authors of this article emphasize, knowledge-building should be a collective process. By placing students at the center of their learning and equipping educators to become better listeners, I believe that the MARIO Framework actively encourages this collaborative learning process and inherently challenges “traditional” approaches to education.—Taryn McBrayne

Barkaskas, P. & Gladwin, D. (2021). Pedagogical Talking Circles: Decolonizing Education through Relational Indigenous Frameworks. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 15(1), 20-38.

Key Takeaway:

The spread of misinformation about Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has rapidly increased amongst the general public in recent years. Special education professionals are expected to have expertise in the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) to best meet the needs of students with autism and are trusted by caregivers to provide this support. By preparing professionals to be critical of information about ASD and effective practices, we can address and mitigate the spread of misinformation. —Taryn McBrayne

Evidence-Based Practices and Autism in the Classroom

With an increase in public awareness campaigns hitting social media platforms, misinformation about Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has largely increased over the past decade. In fact, research suggests that “the general public is more familiar with unsubstantiated practices for ASD than with evidence-based practices (EBPs).” The psychological phenomenon, “the mere-exposure effect,” proposes that even reading one inaccurate headline can have a long-lasting impact on the way that one thinks about certain topics, including Autism.4 Thus, authors Fleury & Kemper seek to examine education professionals’ knowledge about ASD and treatment options to assess how the dissemination of misinformation may have influenced ASD practices. 

As with all educators, special educators have a responsibility to make instructional decisions that will best serve the needs of their students. The use of EBPs is often  “emphasized in most states’ teaching licensure standards.” However, recent research has shown that only “12% to 55% of education professionals serving students with ASD were directly taught how to use EBPs for students with ASD during their preservice training.”2 Therefore, educators may resort to alternative forms of information, increasing the chance that non-EBPs will be used in the classroom given that “autism remains a ‘fad magnet,’”3 potentially causing harm to the individual with ASD as well as the organizations that do promote EBPs. 

Fleury & Kemper also emphasize that “the public’s general misunderstanding of correlation versus causation”1 combined with difficulties distinguishing between credible and non-credible sources, creates an environment where misinformation can be easily spread and given credence. 

In their study, the authors surveyed 72 education professionals from a 2-day professional development seminar. The results are as follows: 

Beliefs about Causal Attributes of ASD

  • “Education professionals were most confident that neurobiological factors were a causal attribute of ASD.”

Familiarity with Practices 

  • “Participants were more familiar with EBP compared with unsubstantiated practices for individuals with ASD.”

Likelihood to Use or Recommend Practices 

  • Educational professionals reported that “they are more likely to use or recommend EBPs than non-EBPs.” According to the authors, “this contrasted with [our] previous research with members of the general public, who proved to be more familiar with unsubstantiated practices compared with EBPs.” However, the survey results did reveal that “special education professionals did not engage in sourcing as would be expected of experts.” 

The authors acknowledge that ​​the participants in this study were already “attending a professional development training and, as such, represent a biased sample of professionals who are interested in expanding their knowledge and expertise about EBPs for this population.” Therefore, a wider research sample is needed in order to apply these findings to the general special educator population. 

Overall, Fleury & Kemper note that while the results of this survey are encouraging, it is important to continue efforts to combat the spread of misinformation about ASD and EBPs by cross-checking information with reputable sources, addressing deficits in knowledge, and working towards publishing research in a manner that is easily accessible for a general population. Ultimately, “by preparing professionals to be critical consumers of information, we may be able to mitigate the spread of misinformation about autism and limit widespread use of non-EBPs.”

Summarized Article:

Fleury, V. P., & Kemper, T. (2022). An Examination of Education Professionals’ Beliefs About Causes of Autism and Their Perceptions of Practices. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities.

Summary by: Taryn McBrayne — Taryn believes in the power of student voice and, through the MARIO Framework, strives to create more opportunities for both educators and students to regularly make use of this power.

Additional References:

  1. Bergstrom, C. T., & West, J. D. (2020). Calling bullshit: The art of skepticism in a data driven world. Random House.
  2. Hsiao, Y. J., & Petersen, S. (2018). Evidence-based practices provided in teacher education and in-service training programs for special education teachers of students with autism spectrum disorders. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42, 193–208.
  3. Metz, B., Mulik, J. A., & Butter, E. M. (2016). Autism: A twenty-first century fad magnet. In R. M. Foxx & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science in professional practice (pp. 169–195). Routledge.
  4. Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880.

Key Takeaway: In today’s globalized world, it is imperative that all students are able to use their unique voices and actively participate in conversations. In order to foster meaningful participation in the classroom, educators need to develop strong and trusting relationships with their students. Challenging the notion of what it means to be inclusive provides educators with the opportunity to re-imagine modern education by prioritizing relationships and placing human values at the center of the teaching and learning experience. —Taryn McBrayne

“It is essential to place the relationship between the teacher and the student at the core of teaching,” says Ann-Louise Ljungblad (Department of Education and Special Education at University of Gothenburg). Ljungblad shares her study on the theoretical perspective, Pedagogical Relational Teachership (PeRT), to promote trustful teacher-student relationships as a foundation for student participation and inclusion. The author, in conjunction with Biesta (2007),1 proposes that a new type of inclusion, known as “the incalculable,” be introduced into classrooms. 

As the article explains, this form of inclusion emphasizes student “subjectification” (Biesta, 2009)2 by considering “if, when and how students are given opportunities to participate in education and emerge with their own unique voices,” which Ljungblad (2016)3 believes is one of education’s main purposes. 

According to Ljungblad, the PeRT theory provides a third way for students to access knowledge, in addition to traditional individualist and collectivist approaches, whereby the relationship between teacher and student is leveraged. Relational pedagogy, the main component of the PeRT perspective, values relationships, and Ljungblad believes that “learning and knowledge can be seen as a result of relationships.” More specifically, the author explains that it is the relationship between students and their teachers that significantly impacts learning in what is referred to as the “in-between space.”3 Here, Ljungblad explains that, “since meanings are shared and located ‘in-between,’ we have to embrace this gap, and PeRT is a theoretical inclusive perspective that highlights this essential space.” 

To showcase the role of student-teacher relationships in increasing student participation, the author references a self-conducted, micro-ethnographic study in 2016 which surveyed one hundred children ranging in age and physical and intellectual ability.3 The results of this study suggest that “the teachers’ pedagogical tactfulness created space for the students’ unique voices to emerge.” Put simply, the manner in which teachers interacted with their students, namely a “listening and empathetic pedagogical stance,” positively influenced their levels of participation. 

The author outlines three dimensions of the PeRT model in the article: 

Dimension 1 – According to Ljungblad, “PeRT emphasizes a positive rights 

claim for teachers to actively support students,” meaning that acting based on what is in the best interest of the child and what allows them to achieve their potential serves as a way to encourage participation. These “positive rights” stem from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of a Child (CRC) and the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. 

Dimension 2 – Inspired by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory model, the PeRT model is multidimensional and “shows how different aspects of relational teachership are closely intertwined, from a micro-level to a macro-level.” Through adopting this model, teachers are challenged to change their teaching practices in order to relate to their students and to embrace student collaboration to best meet their needs. 

Dimension 3 – Shifting from Vygotsky’s Didactic Triangle, the PeRT inspired Relational and Didactic Star emphasizes the importance of relational adaptations in the classroom environment to encourage participation. Although a traditional triangle model “emphasises the purpose, content and methods [of teaching],” Ljunglad suggests that it does not “illuminate the people who participate in the teaching community.” Ljungblad argues that PeRT combines the two pedagogical approaches (didactic and relational), therefore creating potential for “double-meaning making” to occur for students. As the author shares, “these two facets of meaning-making are important when teachers develop relational and didactic adaptations to create accessibility to the content.” 

Ultimately, more studies are needed to further understand the complexities of relational values in inclusive education. However, PeRT is “an invitation to scholars and practitioners to use the multi-relational model as creative

inspiration to seek new knowledge and understanding about participation, accessibility and equity.” It is through positioning the teacher-student relationship at the heart of teaching that all students’ voices can be heard. 

Summarized Article:

Ljungblad, A.L. (2021). Pedagogical Relational Teachership (PeRT) – a multi-relational perspective, International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 25 (7), 860-876.

Summary by: Taryn McBrayne—Taryn believes in the power of student voice and, through the MARIO Framework, strives to create more opportunities for both educators and students to regularly make use of this power.

Additional References:

  1. Biesta, G. (2007). “Don’t Count Me in. Democracy, Education and the Question of Inclusion.” Nordic Studies in Education, Vol. 27 (1), 18–29. 
  2. Biesta, G. (2009). “Good Education in an Age of Measurement. On the Need to Reconnect with the Question of Purpose in Education.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability, Vol. 21(1), 33–46. 
  3. Ljungblad, A.L. (2016). Takt och hållning – en relationell studie om det oberäkneliga i matematikundervisningen [Tact and Stance – A Relational Study About the Incalculable in Mathematics Teaching]. PhD diss., Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences, 381. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Additional Reading: