In my opinion, one of the most overlooked principles in education is what I call the “buy one, get one free” principle. This states that by focusing on one aspect of learning, with an eye on another aspect, we can develop both aspects at the same time, reciprocally, to great effect.
This principle is extremely useful for stuffed timetables and the ongoing extra demands that are placed on schools. However, it does not always seem to be used as effectively as possible.
Take learning to spell, for example. Learning to spell can be tricky. It demands constant practice. Words need to be explored. Children need to learn spelling patterns, and how they are applied. It can also be hard to get pupils to use spellings learned in isolation when writing at pace.
The BOGOF principle suggests that we twin spelling practice with something else, so how about handwriting practice? Handwriting can be tricky, too. It also demands constant practice. Letter formation and positioning need to be refined and developed. Translating handwriting from lessons in isolation to writing at pace is not easy either.
It seems to make perfect logical sense to combine the two. But do we have any empirical evidence that the BOGOF principle might actually work? Well, it seems we do.
More by Megan Dixon:
In 2017 two researchers in the US, Nancy Romance and Michael Vitale, looked at how to improve outcomes in science for pupils in the upper years of primary school (grades 3-5). They decided to explore the BOGOF principle (my terminology, not theirs!) by designing a science curriculum that combined science, writing and reading comprehension called “Science IDEAS”. This curriculum was designed to focus on developing the pupils’ conceptual understanding of science knowledge, in a cumulative fashion, through building on prior knowledge and extending it.
The pupils took part in one-and-a-half to two-hour daily sessions, across several days, in which the science knowledge to be understood served as a framework for sequencing the different “Science IDEAS” instructional elements, such as hands-on and exploration activities, reading multiple sources, concept-mapping, journaling and writing.
Combining two aspects of learning
The curriculum was tested, using an elegant design, in which the Science IDEAS curriculum (along with 30 minutes of daily language arts lessons) was compared with the “business as usual” offer of one-and-a-half to two hours of language arts teaching each day, alongside shorter, 30-minute science lessons.
Over 4,000 pupils in 259 classrooms in 12 schools were involved in the study. Using standardised assessments of both science and reading comprehension (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for reading comprehension and science), the findings indicated that the pupils following the Science IDEAs curriculum, on average, attained significantly higher than the pupils receiving the business-as-usual offer. What’s more, this advantage seemed to remain once the pupils started secondary school.
This, as the researchers suggest, is quite a radical idea, and yet, it does seem logical. By using reading comprehension and writing activities purposefully for learning science, embedding core concepts and encouraging pupils to deepen their understanding - in contrast to focusing on learning information through a mastery approach to curriculum planning - it seems we can achieve a BOGOF. Definitely something to consider.
Megan Dixon is a doctoral student and associate lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University
