Is SOLO just self-indulgent edu-smugness?

After a period of being AWOL from the #soloarmy, I returned to duty this week, introducing my classes to SOLO taxonomy for the first time this year. As detailed on a previous post, I dabbled with using SOLO to teach planning of ideas for writing in July, and felt things went pretty well; the writing the kids produced was impressive, I gained fluency in my understanding and explanation of the approach and I left the school year feeling satisfied that SOLO was a useful addition to my teaching. I also enjoyed the experience of learning from others via twitter / blogs; this was new to me, and I loved the fact that I was suddenly connected with so many colleagues who were actively helping me to improve.

One thing that twitter will not provide, however, is cosy consensus. I was interested to witness in the summer what might be termed a 'solo-backlash', if that's not too impressive a term for what is essentially a few blokes fiddling around on their smartphones (and it seems to me that those who most enthusiastically pursue the possibilities offered by twitter for confrontation, discord and virtual altercations are, almost always, blokes). As far as I understand it, a number of tweeters objected to the growing enthusiasm for SOLO on the basis that there is little robust evidence available to suggest that it actually works or makes any difference to childrens' learning at all.

Whilst I found the apparent vitriol of some the more extreme expressions of anti-SOLO sentiment a little bizarre, it's difficult to disagree with the central contention many of them carried: if there's little evidence to support an approach, how can its promotion and application in classrooms be justified? This is a quite understandable point of view; I believe in the principle of focusing teacher-learning on those areas where there is evidence to suggest that it makes the most difference, and recognise that to do otherwise risks self-indulgence, with the ultimate result that students suffer. Specifically, there is the danger that, through teachers setting off on pedagogically risky 'voyages of discovery', the achievement of those who need the most effective teaching will be most damaged, whilst students from more advantaged backgrounds will continue to achieve and make progress despite being an unknowing guinea pig in a teacher's experiment with an unproven idea.

There's a persuasive body of writing to support this way of thinking – only this week, John Hattie was quoted in the TES as saying that: “...statements without evidence are just opinions - there are too many of those in education and that’s what’s got us into trouble...” - and a quick glance back to my first paragraph will reveal exactly that; '...the writing that the kids produced was impressive...', '…things went pretty well...' - what hard evidence do I have to support these claims? I can quote from their writing I suppose, and would argue that there are real signs of enhanced relational thinking in what they came up with – but I've no guarantee that this is down to SOLO. I also can't bring myself to add to the OFSTED-driven litany and lunacy of frail, statistically unreliable, unprovable 'evidence' being offered in education to prove the value of whatsoever initiative the perpetrator has a vested interest in justifying (and yes, Student Voice, I am casting a meaningful glance in your direction).

Despite this, I am drawn to the seductive logic of evidence-based practice. I liked, for example, the introduction of Geoff Petty's 'Evidence-Based Teaching', in which he compares advances in education with those in agriculture. He describes how 'medieval farmers used to sprinkle ox blood on their fields at full moon, in the mistaken belief it increased soil fertility', and makes comparisons with the scientific and efficient approach to modern farming. He goes on to link this with education, the implication being that too little notice is taken of research and statistically-proven reality, that teachers spend too much time 'doing what they've always done' and not adjusting practice in the light of the increasingly convincing and robust evidence which is appearing as to what actually works best of all. Doesn't this mean that using SOLO is unjustified, risky, self-indulgent and potentially harmful to our students? If we don't have any real evidence for its worth, should we be spending time (and public money) in cutting up any hexagons at all??

Well, yes we should. Or at least, it is within our remit as professionals to make that decision. Michael Fullan, in Professional Capital, shows why, by identifying a number of stereotypes for what teaching is, one of which he summarises as 'a precise science, like medicine, grounded in hard quantitative evidence and clinical trials of what works with most people, most of the time.' (other categories include teaching as 'an ineffable art', 'a practical craft', 'a sacred calling', 'a laundry list of techniques', 'a precious gift' – all carrying brilliantly insightful definitions that anyone with experience working in schools will recognise instantly). He goes on to point out the flaws and limitations of an approach which is dominated by a desire for evidence, considering that 'the role of evidence can be exaggerated, failing to acknowledge the role that experience and intuition also play in decision-making, usually in combination with external evidence, but sometimes in ways that challenge it'. This resonates with me and bolsters my belief in the value of pursuing SOLO. Through social media, I am able to benefit from the experience and intution of colleagues from around the world. I am then able to apply my own professional intuition and discretion in making decisions as to how to add value to the learning of the students in my classroom. In the case of SOLO, this means that even in the absence of stats, bar graphs, effects size studies and research documents, if lots of teachers, many of whom have significant experience and provide compellingly reflective accounts of their practice, are reaching the conclusion that this approach is helping students in their classrooms, this is evidence enough. So whilst accepting evidence-based practice will always be important for us and should be prominent in our thinking and learning, Fullan also allows us to be professionals, accepting and being accountable for the decision-making which professionalism entails. Which means, basically, if you are a teacher, and what you've read about SOLO whets your professional appetite, then you have a mandate to go right ahead and sign up. Yes - we should be led by evidence, but this doesn't have to be limited to formal research and stats - the feelings, intuition and discretion that we bring to the job as professionals counts as evidence too.