Adaptive teaching: in search of conceptual clarity

Just because it swims, doesn’t mean its a fish.

I think we can all agree that naming things correctly is important. To do this, we must have a proper conception of what does and does not fall into a category, and to do this we must define that category precisely. For example, if we believe that the definition of a fish is something that lives in the sea, we will incorrectly identify an octopus as a fish. Equally, if we think all fish are shaped like a Cod or a Goldfish, we will not recognise a seahorse as a fish.

And so we turn to adaptive teaching which, if we are not careful, risks becoming a term to describe everything that swims in the sea of the classroom.

In my reading and work with schools, I am noticing the following:

Many teachers believe that adaptive teaching is differentiation re-named.
Adaptive teaching is being so broadly defined that it is indistinguishable from inclusive teaching, or even from just teaching!
‘In the lesson’ adaptations are taking second place to ‘between lessons’ adaptations in discourse and in practice.
Whole-class adaptive teaching is being over-shadowed by the desire to adapt to individual need.

I think that all the above are problematic, mainly because if there is conceptual confusion – if we aren’t clear about what it is we are describing – we will not implement it with fidelity. But also because I believe adaptive teaching should describe something quite specific and different to what other terms mean.

In this post, I will argue for a tight definition of adaptive teaching. I am not claiming that my definition is more correct than others, but I am arguing that a tight and precise definition will help us increase the prevalence of some beneficial practices which are not promoted well by other pedagogic terms.

Who is adapting and to what?

The teacher is the one adapting. But what are they adapting to?

If we answer this by saying ‘to the needs of the pupil/s’ we risk three things:

Conceptual overlap with the concept of differentiation (defined as making adjustments to the curriculum, to expectations, to learning tasks, to resources, or to instruction according to a pupil’s pre-defined learning needs).
Pulling the teacher’s attention towards individual, generic needs rather than whole-class adaptive teaching.
Focusing the teacher on adapting instruction over time rather than being responsive in the moment.

Better, I would argue, to say the teacher is adapting ‘to the feedback they receive moment to moment’. This answer does the following:

It starts with the assumption that all pupils can access the curriculum and avoids capping our expectations of them as a result of a label or an assumption we have about their ability.
It encourages the teacher to seek regular feedback from every pupil as to whether what is being taught is being understood and whether pupils are getting better at the thing we want them to get better at.
It emphasises the adaptive behaviours of teachers during lessons rather than between lessons which is a teaching behaviour that has high impact and, in my experience, is missing from many lessons.

The definition of adaptive teaching derived from this logic is this: where the teacher actively and frequently seeks feedback on the impact of their teaching on all pupils during the lesson and then adapts their instruction accordingly to meet the emerging needs of pupils.

This definition is narrower than that proposed by the EEF (see here) which includes both the adaptive actions teachers take before teaching and during teaching. I leave out the before teaching aspects, not because they are not important, but firstly because these behaviours are conceptually contained in concepts like differentiation and inclusive teaching already, and secondly because the before and during approaches belong to opposing paradigms for understanding learning needs (I’ll explain this in a moment). The definition also does not include other inclusive practices such as modelling and scaffolding which often get shoved into descriptions of adaptive teaching (see here) but are more accurately described as inclusive teaching. To understand these points, we need to look at how the concept of adaptive teaching fits into wider concepts and paradigms.

Opposing paradigms

Let’s start with the idea of a universal offer. This is what every pupil at school gets. The universal offer for teaching should, as far as possible, be inclusive i.e. it should enable all pupils to access the curriculum by design, not by making special accommodations. A good way to think of this is the analogy of dropped-kerbs (a sloped edge to a pavement at road crossing points). Dropped kerbs save everyone from stepping up or down, but they are particularly helpful to people in wheelchairs. By design, building dropped-kerbs is inclusive. This view of human difference places the onus on society to be inclusive by design rather than expecting minorities to find ways to overcome the barriers to being included.

Our aim should be for the universal offer to be inclusive by design as far as possible. Inclusive teaching may include the following in the lesson:

Teachers explain and model concepts clearly so that every pupil will understand.
Teachers regularly use retrieval practice to check prior learning and improve retention.
Teachers provide concise and clear instructions and check that pupils understand what they have been asked to do.
Teachers provide regular opportunities to practise and apply learning after each instructional input. This means pupils can assimilate new knowledge and that teachers can check understanding and application.
Teachers provide scaffolding where required and gradually remove this to promote independence.
Teachers are adaptive to the learning needs of their pupils.

Note that the final bullet point is adaptive teaching. Adaptive teaching is part of inclusive teaching, but they do not mean the same thing. If inclusive teaching is ‘things that swim in the sea’, adaptive teaching is ‘fish’.

Inclusive teaching may also include the following over time:

A carefully constructed curriculum which supports teachers to sequence learning in ways that enable all pupils to master the curriculum content.
A carefully designed assessment approach which provides teachers with regular and valid information about pupils’ learning.
Teachers’ planning reflects what they have learnt about the pupils they teach.
The curriculum and resources are systematically reviewed and updated in light of evidence of pupil success.
Homework is used to secure learning e.g. targeted at gaps, correcting misconceptions, or building understanding.

Not all pupils will need the above to the same extent, but inclusive teaching makes sure that the basic model avoids exclusion. This is sometimes called Quality-First teaching.

If you need convincing that inclusive teaching can meet many learning needs, read this by Ben Newmark.

The ‘before teaching’ list in the EEF post falls into the inclusive teaching definition because the teacher is anticipating barriers and planning for them. You could say this is ‘adaptive’, but that would be to unnecessarily broaden the definition of adaptive teaching as these practices are already covered by the term inclusive teaching. In some ways this is just a matter of preference. However, I think it is important because if, when you talk about adaptive teaching, you are talking about either before or during behaviours, teachers will lean towards the before behaviours because in-class adaptive teaching requires quite a significant shift in practice for most teachers.

In contrast to the universal, inclusive offer, is (what I will call) ‘different or extra’ (DoE). DoE is necessary when the universal offer does not meet need. The better inclusive teaching is, the less DoE will be required. Differentiation is DoE because an adjustment is needed to enable the pupil to access the universal offer. Reading intervention is DoE. One-to-one tuition is DoE. Disapplying aspects of the curriculum is DoE.

DoE situates the deficit as a characteristic of the pupil, not the provision. It says to the pupil, ‘Because of the way you are, you need something different or extra to what most pupils need’. It is what is known as a deficit model of difference. Some degree of DoE is inevitable in a mass education system, but our aim should be to make universal provision as inclusive as possible. This places a burden on the teacher, but the teacher is the paid professional and it is right that we should ask them to take most of the responsibility for meeting need and not to place this on the shoulders of the pupil unnecessarily.

To summarise, adaptive teaching is one aspect of inclusive teaching. Inclusive teaching sits within the social-model of disability and need; it is based on the principle that the universal offer should meet need wherever possible without different or extra provision. Differentiation requires different or extra because the universal offer is not sufficient. It should be minimised because it can stigmatise by framing the pupil’s needs as a deficit.

What does adaptive teaching look like?

Defined in this way, adaptive teaching may be visible in the following ways:

Teachers regularly check that all students understand what has been taught [high ratio strategies].
Teachers use whole-class response strategies frequently to build and check for understanding e.g. Show Me, Turn and Talk, Everybody Write.
Teachers use directed questioning to build depth of understanding and correct error e.g. Cold Calling.
Teachers circulate the room and observe students working, intervening where necessary to support students.
Teachers use flexible grouping arrangements e.g. break-out groups who require additional teaching.

High-quality, inclusive whole-class adaptive teaching is really hard to do. It requires teachers to have expert mental models so that in-the-moment decisions are intuitive. It requires calm and orderly classrooms. It requires high-ratio feedback techniques to be well-embedded and habituated. It requires an absolute clarity about learning objectives, a coherent curriculum, and high-quality resources.

Adaptive teaching looks different to differentiation, which involves:

Thinking of students as being in different ‘ability’ groups.
Having lower expectations of what some students can achieve.
Presuming that certain students will need additional resources or to do different tasks.
Providing different tasks or materials to different students as a default rather than based on good evidence that they need additional support.
Lots of additional work for teachers outside of lesson time!

Differentiation can be problematic if it cements lower expectations and makes unjustified assumptions about a pupil’s potential. However, differentiation does have a place where a pupil’s learning needs are such that the curriculum and/or teaching must be significantly adjusted to ensure the student makes progress. Current thinking in education is that inclusive and adaptive teaching is a preferable approach for almost all pupils in mainstream schools, almost all of the time.

The definition of adaptive teaching proposed earlier was this: where the teacher actively and frequently seeks feedback on the impact of their teaching on all pupils during the lesson and then adapts their instruction accordingly to meet the emerging needs of pupils. This tight definition draws attention solely to what happens within the lesson, preferences high-ratio checking for understanding, and asks the teacher to adapt in the moment to the information they receive to ensure that no child is left behind. By intentionally disregarding before-the-lesson adaptation, other inclusive practices, and DoE practices, it focusses our attention on a narrow range of high-impact pedagogical techniques which are often not well embedded in teaching practice. Being precise and narrow in our focus prevents concept-creep and increases the likelihood that desirable practices will be adopted with fidelity.

If adaptive teaching is not a priority for you then focus on something else: there are plenty more fish in the sea! But we should not call it adaptive teaching if it isn’t, and we should be clear what we mean by the term when we use it. Conceptual clarity is important.