Checking for understanding a powerful teaching tool, but beware of ‘lethal mutations’: experts

In a recent teaching webinar, the science of learning expert and Professor of Education at Academica University of Applied Sciences in Amsterdam outlined how the strategy is executed well and why – when done in the right way – it leads to better outcomes for both teachers and students.

“If there was one thing to get right in a school … I always say ‘checking for understanding’, because it’s a place where so many different facets of the science of learning coalesce and cross over,” Hendrick says.

The expert says the technique helps to cut through ‘the illusion of understanding’, whereby students might appear to be very busy working away and/or highly engaged in a lesson, but in reality there’s no learning happening at all.

There is a clear distinction between performance in the moment and long-term learning, he warns.

“When I started teaching there was a lot of performance masquerading as learning.

“One of the ways that people would measure effective teaching was how engaging the lesson was – and there was this sense that you could con students into learning by creating a set of activities that would entice them into learning and really get them moving.”

Once teachers have taught something, there’s often a tendency to briskly ask the class, ‘OK, everyone happy with that?’ and then quickly move on, but this doesn’t serve you very well at all, Hendrick says.

It would be a surprise to many to learn that according to the tenants of direct explicit instruction, two minutes is the maximum about of time a teacher should talk before eliciting some kind of response from students, he notes.

“…[you’re] almost constantly checking in in some form, to see what and how they’ve learnt.”

Crucially, the practice acts as a ‘temperature check’ that should inform your next steps as a teacher, with a ‘success rate’ of 80 per cent in any given class being the aim, the expert adds.

“A huge problem we have got in teaching is that the feedback loops are very, very long, but my theory is that a lot of that is our fault,” Hendrick says.

While typical assessments might be conducted throughout each term, checking for understanding (CFU) in the moment is much more effective feedback for teachers, because it highlights any instructional adjustments that need to happen.

“Checking for understanding [leads to] better outcomes for kids but also, [it’s] a much more effective way of teachers using their time,” Hendrick says.

He highlights renowned cognitive scientist Dylan Wiliam’s view that “feedback should be more work for the recipient than the donor” – a situation checking for understanding aligns with.

“It’s not so much a benchmark tool as a diagnostic one,” he says.

The expert goes on to outline CFU’s key principles:

• A diagnostic rather than a benchmark tool – you’re checking to see what you need to do next as a teacher.
• Occurs continually throughout instruction – it’s not a ‘one and done’ thing.
• Informs immediate instructional adjustments.
• Develops students’ metacognitive awareness.
• A bridge between what’s taught and what’s learnt.

“If I was leading this in a school … the slogan I would be repeating is ‘if not, what? What have they understood?...” Hendrick says.

There are five essential elements to an effective checking for understanding routine, he advises.

The first is about timing, that is, determining when CFU best takes place. This could be before instruction, during, or even days after a lesson, he says.

Next is modality – how will your students demonstrate their understanding? This could be done verbally (be it in choral or individual form), by writing on mini whiteboards or visually (via finger voting, for example).

Then there’s difficulty: specify the depth of student thinking required for students to show their understanding.

Consider student participation, by establishing who is involved in the practice. Cold calling individual students, using a pair-share, small groups or whole class recall are options.  

Finally, think about your response to the information at hand. If 20 per cent of your class are struggling with an aspect of new content, consider grouping these students to deliver more targeted instruction within the lesson, Hendrick says.

If you check for understanding five or six times within a lesson, you’ll accumulate roughly 30 data points from each student.

“This is an incredibly rich picture of the learning of that class, that is much more valid and reliable than if you were to use the other [gauges] of engagement, enthusiasm etc,” Hendrick asserts.

“You are able to build a vivid 3D picture of the learning of those students…”

Joining Hendrick on the webinar was Dr Haili Hughes, professor of teacher coaching and mentoring from Academica University of Applied Sciences, who shares some common ways in which CFU can go wrong. She calls these ’lethal mutations’.

“I believe it is the most high leverage thing a teacher can do to help students make progress,” Hughes says of CFU.

However, it is only effective if it accurately diagnoses student understanding and leads to teachers making instructional adjustments to meet students where they are, she adds.

One mistake teachers can make is only checking in with a select few students, such as those in the front row or the most vocal children who are always keen to contribute, Hughes says.

“I see this all the time,” she reports.

“…What happens there is we don’t get a full picture of a class-wide understanding.”

Better alternatives are drawing upon cold calling, ‘turn and talk’ prompts or using mini whiteboards to draw on a bigger sample size, according to Hughes.

And despite commentators and some schools that call it cruel or even ‘fascist’ in nature, cold calling in a supportive classroom environment is ‘one of the most impactful strategies we have’, Hughes argues.

Another CFU error, according to the expert, is seeking or accepting superficial responses from the class, which can result from questions such as, ‘Does this make sense?’

If you are given a vague, generic or superficial response from a student when checking for understanding, it pays to probe further. Ask, ‘can you give me an example? or, ‘in your own words explain…’ Hughes suggests.

Head nods or ‘thumbs up’ are flimsy, non-rigorous measures of how much a class has understood, she notes.