Ofsted training materials, getting into the detail of cognitive load theory, draw scepticism

Training materials produced by Ofsted, apparently to inculcate its inspectors in the detail of a leading theory as to how individuals learn, have been described as “an unpredecented departure from historical norms”.

A section of a presentation given to inspectors across England, seen by Education Uncovered, includes nine bullet points which make seemingly unequivocal statements about what learning is. They seem to draw heavily on the much-discussed cognitive load theory.

Ofsted has defended its embracing of the theory, developed in the late 1980s by the Australian educational psychologist John Sweller. However, asked whether the evidence in support of it was undisputed, it did not answer the question directly, but instead pointed me towards a blog in which this was discussed.

What the materials say

The one-page information sheet for inspectors which I’ve seen, which Ofsted has confirmed featured at training events across England, is headlined: “Previous key conference messages”.

The nine bullet points then read: 

“1 Teaching needs to build up pupils’ store of knowledge in long-term memory, because progress is knowing more and remembering more of the curriculum.

2 Careful curriculum thinking ensures that the right components are embedded in long-term memory to enable pupils to perform more complex tasks.

3 Lesson activities should focus pupils’ thinking on the learning goals and avoid overloading their working memory.

4 Fluency or automaticity requires ‘overlearning’ through repeated recall – taking pupils well beyond the point of accuracy.

5 Fluency describes the degree of proficiency in grasping content. It is not a definable activity type.

6 Expertise (the capacity for skilful cognitive performance) depends on rich and detailed structures of relevant knowledge stored in long-term memory.

7 Expert outcomes do not tend to resemble the means of their nurture.

8 Challenge should be judged in terms of curriculum goals rather than the general categories of activity used in the lesson.

9 The appropriateness of lesson activity depends on how it contributes towards achieving curriculum goals.”

The training materials were being disclosed today in a series of tweets by Viv Ellis, Professor of Educational Leadership and Teacher Development at King’s College, London.

Cognitive load theory centres on the ability of short-term memory to process information, reportedly being “based around the idea that our working memory…can only deal with a limited amount of information at any one time”.

It has been given some emphasis in Ofsted’s much-debated new inspection framework, which came into being last September.

Ofsted’s use of the phrase “progress is knowing more and remembering more”, which has been discussed since being used in a blog nearly two years ago by Sean Harford, Ofsted’s national director of education, seems particularly contentious.

In a blog just over a year ago, I questioned whether pure volume of factual knowledge should always be emphasised, as seems to be the case with the use of that blunt phrase.

Commenters below a blog on Ofsted’s new emphasis on cognitive load theory, written by Daniel Muijs, Ofsted’s head of research, in February last year, also raised questions including the ability of teachers to implement this new emphasis in the classroom, and the fact that the inspectorate says it is not advocating a teaching style yet, it was alleged, its statements on the topic would be viewed as such by teachers.

But the new materials were also criticised by sources who had seen them. One inspection source described them as “cultish”, seemingly with reference to statements which appeared to be being presented as unchallengeable.

Professor Ellis told me: “This is an unprecedented departure from [Ofsted’s] historical norms: defining learning as simple recall, actively looking for ‘over-learning’ etc, rather than focusing on quality of processes and outcomes.”

He added: “Inspectors’ concerns about the way the Education Inspection Framework was developed and consulted on are already in the public domain. We are now seeing individual Ofsted inspectors expressing concern about what they are being asked to do during school inspections – and why.

“I have worked in education in England for 31 years. During that time you build relationships with a diverse group of professionals of increasing seniority simply as you get older. It’s telling that senior professionals that have taken on inspection work have now disclosed this kind of critical information. They have never done so before.

“This is not ‘ideological opposition’ to inspection or to Ofsted. It’s about some of the inspectorate’s own confidence in the integrity of what they’re being asked to do and the impact this inspection framework is having and will continue to have on schools.”

Colin Richards, emeritus professor of education at the University of Cumbria and a former senior Her Majesty’s Inspector, said: “Inspectors should not be put in the position of acting as mini-cognitive scientists. In being too reliant on contestable ‘research’, Ofsted is downplaying the role of professional judgment informed by wide experience of the complexities and intricacies of teaching.”

Ofsted response

I asked Ofsted, as my December 2018 blog had, why it was venturing so far into the detail of a learning theory, whether it was the inspectorate’s job to get into the minutiae of the science of how learning works in this way, and whether the research base was sufficiently undisputed to justify the lack of equivocation in its statements.

In response, the inspectorate did not answer these questions directly. But it did point my way towards Muijs’s February 2019 blog.

This offered some sense of an answer to that question about the extent to which the evidence base on cognitive load theory is undisputed.

It said: “As with all theories, it has come in for legitimate criticism”, before setting out three aspects. It added, however, that “criticism does not invalidate the theory, which…is supported by a large body of research. It does, however, show that we would be misguided if we relied solely on CLT as the basis for our evidence. We have therefore steered clear of doing this.

Ofsted’s statement to me also said, baldly: “The more knowledge a pupil has, the better equipped they are for their next stage of education*.”

Its statement then dismissed the idea that it had a “preferred curriculum,” which I had not asked about. Its response said: “For our education inspection framework we drew upon a wide range of research, as we made clear in [Muijs’s] blog, including cognitive load. But that does not mean that Ofsted has a preferred curriculum. Rather we are focusing on understanding the curriculum that a school intends to teach, the effectiveness with which it does so and the impact this has on all pupils in the school.

“We have used these slides at internal training events, for our staff and contracted [freelance, including some currently-serving headteachers] Ofsted Inspectors, across the country.”

*Really? Surely it depends on the type of knowledge. I once knew someone who could remember every promoted and relegated team from England’s four professional football leagues over the previous 10 years. He did well academically. But I’m not sure this particular set of data helped him much…

A leading researcher in maths education – not clearly aligned to either side of the “prog/trad” debate - told me a few years ago that school mathematics was essentially about children grasping a very small number – fewer than 10 – of concepts. Surely, if that is right, the issue would be to master those concepts completely, rather than chase lots of small new bits of “knowledge” in this subject – whatever they might be; do we need to learn by heart every individual sum, for example, rather than underpinning calculation methods? - for their own sake. At the very least, this is surely an issue for debate, rather than for Ofsted to make an unequivocal statement simply emphasising volume.