Initiatives are tricky little things, aren’t they? Too high-profile and they can be met with an eye-roll and collective sigh (listen carefully and you may well hear the word “fad” whispered in the wind); not high-profile enough and almost everyone’s already forgotten about it by the end of the week.  

After all, there’s only so many acronyms we can all remember, isn’t there? SEAL, anyone?  

Last week, it was the turn of Dirt (“Do It Right Time”, also referred to as “Directed Improvement and Reflection Time”) to be put under the microscope as a high-profile initiative that people were having second thoughts about. Tes columnist Mark Enser wrote about the potential fallacy of Dirt tasks and the “tick-box” culture that it seemingly represents. Many teachers hit the comments section to agree and state that Dirt was misguided and ineffective.

Dirt criticisms

I can understand the resistance and cynicism. If, as Enser argues, it is simply used as a means of making feedback obviously visible - a tool to monitor and evaluate teacher feedback given, and to, well, make it look like a pupil has progressed - then I agree that it absolutely has no place in education.

“Window dressing” helps no one, least of all the pupil.  

Put simply, Dirt done badly is like anything else done badly: at best a waste of everyone’s time and at worst a betrayal of it.

But done right, I genuinely believe that it has the capacity to be transformative.

Five tenets of effective feedback

Two reasons why your feedback sessions aren’t working

Directed improvement and reflection time: does it work?

How to get Dirt right

Firstly, yes, Dirt tasks are indeed visible and explicit: this is a good thing. Far from viewing this as its Achilles heel, I would argue that its obviousness is actually one of its key strengths. For a start, it forces the pupil not only to look at their feedback given, but, most importantly, also to demonstrably act upon it.  

Ask yourself how many collective hours you’ve spent marking work, giving detailed and diagnostic feedback, only for the pupil to barely give it a casual glance, least of all act on it. Have we made any tangible difference to pupil outcomes in this instance?

Dirt tasks are a powerful antidote to this. Pupils must understand, reflect, evaluate and apply all in one task; provided that the feedback given is specific and targeted to outcomes, by definition a pupil must have progressed in some way by completing their Dirt task.

Continuous improvement

One of the arguments levelled against this stance is the question of its shelf life: is it true progression if the pupil has simply made improvements to one piece of work?

Well, arguably, not really, or certainly they have only made surface-level improvements at best. If the pupil never again demonstrates the factors that improved their work in the initial Dirt task, then clearly deep, long-term progression hasn’t occurred… or, at least, not yet.

However, if Dirt tasks are embedded deeply and consistently into the teaching and learning process, then they become consciously cyclical: each new extended task references the previously completed Dirt (as it is visible and made explicit by the teacher) so that pupils now apply these improvements proactively to their work this time.  

Again, this work is then given diagnostic feedback and a new Dirt task (or the very same potentially: practice makes progress) then stems from this; and so on.  

Learning gains

Used in this way, huge compound gains are made over time - Dirt tasks lead to considerably more sustained and deep-rooted outcomes: the pupil progresses over time, not simply the given piece of work.  

If you are unfamiliar with “Austin’s Butterfly”, I urge you to take a quick look - the progression demonstrated through clear diagnostic feedback and subsequent Dirt tasks stemming from this is quite breath-taking.

A final criticism of Dirt is that it is almost symbolic of the perceived toxic culture of some schools - taking a facet of educational research, branding it with a catchy acronym, then finally rubber-stamping it with big red NON-NEGOTIABLE letters.  

There is a real danger in this; certainly, any initiative is dead in the water the moment it is launched in such a cynical and damaging manner.  

Directed learning

Having said that, I would far sooner work in a school that put Dirt tasks at the forefront of its policy-making - something that genuinely has the capacity to create powerful, lasting impacts for pupils - than, say, a school that simply force-feeds a diet of generic, rote marking policies down everyone’s throats; delivering very little of sustenance and perhaps causing everyone involved to get a particularly bad case of educational indigestion.

So,is it time to give Dirt initiatives another chance? I believe so - but let’s Do It Right this Time.

Dan Thomas is head of faculty and an English Teacher in North Leicestershire