How does this lesson sound to you? It starts with a retrieval quiz to recap prior knowledge, then moves on to a teacher explanation of some new knowledge. This is followed by an activity for pupils to put that new learning into practice and, finally, another quiz on what has been learned that day.

For many, the flow of this lesson will be familiar. After a decade of a teacher-led embrace of cognitive science, it is the structure many have settled upon as being optimal: it limits the opportunity for challenging behaviour by having a predictable, teacher-directed delivery, and maximises opportunities for learning. A large number of teachers now choose to teach this way. 

But an equally large number don’t. For them, it’s a cold, uninspiring and - crucially - unevidenced approach to teaching. 

It’s the type of split in opinion that has characterised teaching for decades and teachers on both sides have, thus far, (mostly) happily co-existed. But now that might be about to change: increasingly, government, multi-academy trusts (MATs) and school leaders are imposing a lesson structure on teachers, arguing certain approaches are best for pupils. Do they have any real evidence of that? And is taking lesson structure decision making away from the teacher wise?

What makes for a ‘well-structured’ lesson?

Officially, lesson structure is uncertain territory when it comes to national guidelines. Being able to teach a “well-structured” lesson is one of the core standards for teachers to meet, as set out by the Early Career Framework. But Ofsted says that the structure of individual lessons will not be judged in inspections, only how lessons sit within a curriculum scheme. 

There are also no official guidelines about the specific structure that a teacher should follow. 

However, there have long been unofficial attempts to standardise the shape of lessons. For years, the traditional “three-part” lesson structure - made up of a starter, main body and plenary - was pushed by the system and school leaders alike.

More recently, this structure has fallen out of favour and been replaced with a model that prioritises retrieval practice and breaking learning down into small chunks, as in the lesson with which we began this article.

In terms of research evidence that either approach works - or doesn’t - there is very little out there that directly deals with structure. 

One 2012 paper by researchers at the University of Groningen, on “observed lesson structure”, looked at video lessons from 10 Dutch teachers and 12 Indonesian teachers at secondary level, finding that “a proper lesson structure and an equal focus on the lesson components are important issues. If teachers design adequate lesson plans and structure their lessons in such a way that students are given maximum OTL [opportunities to learn] and ample freedom to choose their own way of learning, academic engagement will be maximised”. 

That probably doesn’t take us very far.

But some see evidence in wider studies on pedagogy. In particular, the interest in cognitive science has led to huge changes in the way many teachers think about their delivery of lessons. For example, Barak Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction has had a significant impact on schools - an effect many now believe is being strengthened by Oak National Academy. 

Oak is developing “full curriculum packages” via partners and, in its document launching the procurement exercise for those curriculum packages, Oak said that “in order to maximise coherence and consistency, which we know benefits teachers and pupils, lesson materials will be developed to standardised templates and lesson flow”: a quiz followed by an explanatory video and slides, then a worksheet, then another quiz. 

“Lessons across key stages 1-4 will include the above five lesson components, plus teacher guidance information,” it explained.

Katie Marl, one of its curriculum managers, says Oak’s structured approach draws on the principles developed by Rosenshine.

That structure centres on “cycles of explanation and practice, with assessment throughout in the form of checks for understanding and feedback,” she explains.

One of Rosenshine’s principles is to begin each lesson with a short review of previous learning. “At Oak, we do that via our prior knowledge quizzes,” says Marl.

Another Rosenshine principle is on teaching new material in manageable amounts. 

“We mimic that with our cycles: teacher gives some information, students get to practise that, followed up with follow-on questions,” Marl continues.

And the Rosenshine principle of asking a large number of questions and checking the responses of all students leads to the quizzes favoured by Oak and many other schools.

It should be noted that the Rosenshine principles were formulated as part of a pamphlet, not for a journal, and he originally wanted to detail 17 principles. He also wrote a number of times about his principles not being right for all pupils, in all subjects, at all times - and, even with this clarification, Rosenshine’s work has still faced some criticism around how it has simplified complex ideas. That said, he does list extensive citations for his choices. 

Competing narratives

Others take a different read on lesson structure from different research. For example, research led by Martin Nystrand, emeritus professor of education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, can be used to argue for a structure based on dialogic episodes. In 1997, Nystrand published Opening Dialogue: understanding the dynamics of language and learning, which argues, on the basis of a study of schools and their pupils, that people learn not merely by being spoken (or written) to, but through “dialogic instruction” - a collaboration between teachers and pupils.

This can be facilitated through sessions of learning through group work, talk and projects. 

Others look at research on the importance of play and self-regulation, particularly for younger learners. They point, for example, to research by Megan McClelland, director of the Centre for Healthy Children and Families at Oregon State University, which shows that early self-regulation ability is more significant than early reading levels or early numeracy as an indicator of later educational attainment - and emphasise the importance of plenty of opportunities for imaginative play in building those abilities. 

With competing narratives of what the evidence says teachers should do, it may be that school leaders feel they have to pick one structure to use across all classrooms, both for consistency and to ensure every pupil gets the best approach in every lesson. But is uniformity - and dictating lesson structure to teachers - really effective?

‘A structure that works for physics would not necessarily work for music and for English’

There’s very little research in this area - and it would be hard to get reliable results from such a study. But certainly, those in the profession have a view based on their own experience. And, inevitably, it’s split - but very nuanced. 

Marl says that Oak’s structured approach means that pupils become familiar with the lesson routine. Teacher time giving instructions is reduced, while regular checks for understanding allow teachers to identify pupils’ misconceptions and to adapt to reteach particular elements of the curriculum if needed.

Plus, an added benefit is that teachers don’t have to spend too much time designing the structure of lessons from scratch, says Marl. “Teachers use our resources to create a well-structured lesson that’s finely tuned to the needs of their pupils,” she explains.

Many MAT leaders also see a benefit to some basic uniformity of approach. 

“A lesson structure that includes retrieval, instruction in small steps, guided practice and finally independent application provides the framework for strong teaching and learning,” says Andrew Crossley, regional director of education at Astrea Academy Trust, which runs 26 primary and secondary academies in South Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire.

For example, he adds, a “‘do now’ [a quick retrieval activity that requires little teacher instruction] to start a lesson provides a calm starting routine, and the opportunity to re-activate some of the stored knowledge needed for the forthcoming lesson”.

Starting with retrieval also means teachers can “assess what may not have been confidently stored, ensuring a firm foundation for every pupil,” he continues.

However, both Marl and Crossley are keen to say this shouldn’t be a script - or an enforced approach. Instead, it should be a guide from which teachers can adapt approaches to best suit the pupils. 

Across different subjects, lesson strategies “can be changed or stay the same to achieve the teacher’s aims,” Crossley says. For example, “in PE, retrieval might be best done by going outside to demonstrate the technique in action, or it may be best to stay in the classroom studying a diagram of playing positions or recalling a list of rules orally in pairs”.

It’s the same components, then, but not necessarily the same approach. It’s a nuance echoed by Peter Hughes, chief executive of the Mossbourne Federation, which runs two primary schools, two secondary schools and a sixth form in Hackney, East London.

“Routine provides comfort and security [for pupils] and helps us to set high expectations,” he says. “[But] there are some subjects that benefit [more] from a highly structured approach to lessons. Phonics is one of those where we see real benefits for students; however, such a highly structured approach isn’t always necessary across all subjects and can risk stifling innovation.

“In subjects such as mathematics, we tend to use a subject philosophy rather than a strict lesson structure. An ‘I do, we do, you do’ approach with modelling, questioning and feedback has been shown to be highly effective.”

Flexible working

Others also take a more flexible approach.

XP is a secondary free school in Doncaster that follows an Expeditionary Learning model based on the example of such schools in the US. This model involves teaching via project-based “cross-disciplinary learning expeditions”.

“In terms of lesson design, we have a big emphasis on teachers as designers of the curriculum, teachers as designers of lessons themselves,” says Marc Voltaire, a Stem (science, technology, engineering and maths) teacher at XP. He adds that “it’s not [entirely] prescriptive because we want teachers to have that autonomy” and for lessons to be “responsive to need”.

That said, there are some standard components of lessons XP recommends - but how these are structured is left to the individual. For example, there will be a learning target set at the start of each lesson and the lesson structure will be designed around that. There’s a “do now”, says Voltaire: a primer for what’s coming up in the lesson, retrieval quizzes, or a specific exam question. There’s time spent unpacking a learning target so students understand it and can understand their own progress towards it. The lesson will then end with a debrief on the learning target - what students have been taught and why they need to know it.

But, Voltaire says, there’s flexibility: a protocol-based lesson might see the whole session spent on critiquing students’ answers to a model exam question, with their (anonymised) answers projected on to the walls of a room. 

“Normally without me saying anything, the kids can go: ‘That’s right because…’,” says Voltaire. That builds “a shared consensus about what an answer should look like, developing pupils’ metacognition”.

There are, he continues, “a lot of different structures we might use but it all comes back to the learning target, the purpose of the learning…as opposed to ‘here’s an off-the-shelf lesson’”.

That does make for “harder work and more planning sometimes,” he acknowledges, but he believes the additional freedom it affords teachers makes it worth it.

‘If you deprofessionalise teachers by removing their autonomy completely, then you ultimately harm learning’

Another argument against a restrictive lesson structure template being imposed is the need for subject flexibility. 

“A structure that works for physics would not necessarily work for music and for English,” says Barbara Bleiman, an education consultant at the English and Media Centre, a career development centre for teachers working in those fields.

“The [Oak National] sort of rigid quiz-input-worksheet-quiz approach really doesn’t work for a subject where you might be doing all sorts of different things: you might be reading a short story, a chapter from a novel, studying a poem, writing a story,” she adds.

Megan Mansworth - teaching fellow in English, languages and applied linguistics at Aston University, author of Teach to the Top: aiming high for every learner and former teacher - agrees. 

“Lesson structure is really important,” she says. “If you deprofessionalise teachers by removing their autonomy completely in making those reflective decisions about what the best structure is, then you ultimately harm learning, I think.”

There’s a risk of things ending up being “all about delivery and not about responsive teaching,” she adds.

Mossbourne’s Hughes has come to see the subject point as crucial. He says “we know that the enthusiasm and passion teachers have for their subject matter helps inspire our students to learn, and we must encourage this”.

For that reason, he adds, Mossbourne is “moving to more of a structured curriculum rather than highly structured lessons, and the priority will always be providing the highest quality teaching so that students achieve all of their learning outcomes”.

Comparing apples with apples

But those who do advocate for more centralised structure decisions refute the idea that this means restriction or deprofessionalisation. Instead, they believe the opposite is true. 

While Oak lessons might “have some features in common”, that doesn’t mean teachers will be teaching identical lessons, says Marl. “How each component is delivered lies with the teacher - they know their pupils best,” she adds.

And Crossley says that through training and coaching, teachers are empowered to understand why certain approaches are pushed - and to have the tools to challenge those decisions if they feel it is appropriate. 

“Teachers having clarity on the end goal of each specific part of the lesson, and the knowledge of the tools they can use to meet these for every pupil, is vital,” he says. “Developing this successfully as a teacher takes theoretical understanding, deliberate practice and coaching. That’s why, at Astrea, we are committed to deliberate practice and coaching for all our colleagues, with all we do underpinned by strong theoretical understanding.”

It is unhelpful, then, to see debate about lesson structure as a dichotomy between those who believe an imposed structure is beneficial and those who believe the opposite. The reality is that schools are currently sitting along a broad spectrum of prescription and - without any clear evidence of whether uniformity is actually helpful - many believe this will continue to be the case. 

However, from her experience of CPD with teachers, Bleiman is still worried. She finds many teachers are “very anxious about somebody walking into a classroom and seeing them doing something that is off-piste or veers from the fixed pattern”.

“The pressures on them are immense,” she adds, “and that’s the thing I worry most about - the pressures on them often from senior management or others who don’t really fully understand the subjects they are teaching and don’t make it adaptable enough”.

School leaders are under their own pressures too, of course, to measure up on results. And in MATs, the desire to compare the outcomes of their schools - as well as to have some control over teaching standards - is increasingly leading to a standardised structure that will ensure leaders are comparing apples with apples, and that they can guarantee at least some aspects of learning from afar. 

So, are we likely to see a creeping in of more and more prescription? Clearly, some teachers would welcome it, whether uniformity is evidenced or not. But many remain philosophically opposed to it, and it’s important to ask where they go if the opportunities for freedom of choice become more sparse. 

Voltaire stresses that XP is in a fortunate position given its deliberately small size, and says it’s not his place to criticise anyone who takes a more structured approach if it gets results in their context.

“What I would say is: I enjoy doing it a lot more the way we do it,” he adds. “That’s, for me, part of the joy of teaching: the design, deliberating over a lesson and thinking about the learning.”

John Morgan is a freelance writer