The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox.

What is “good” teaching? Ask 10 people and you’ll get 10 different answers. Hollywood celebrates teachers who believe in their students and help them to achieve their dreams. The influential education economist Eric Hanushek, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, argues that good teachers raise their students’ achievement. Teachers are expected to impart so many things, from how to study and take notes to how to share and take turns. Deciding what constitutes good teaching is a messy business.

Two researchers from the University of Maryland and Harvard University waded into this mess. They analyzed 53 elementary school teachers who had been randomly assigned to classrooms in their schools located in four different districts along the East Coast. Focusing on math instruction, the researchers compared students’ math scores with surveys that the fourth and fifth-grade students had filled out as part of an experiment. Students were asked to rate their math classes the way consumers fill out customer satisfaction surveys: “This math class is a happy place for me to be;” “Being in this math class makes me feel sad or angry;” “The things we have done this math this year are interesting;” “Because of this teacher, I am learning to love math;” and “I enjoy math class this year.” 

The academics found that there was often a tradeoff between “good teaching” where kids learn stuff and “good teaching” that kids enjoy. Teachers who were good at raising test scores tended to receive low student evaluations. Teachers with great student evaluations tended not to raise test scores all that much. 

“The teachers and the teaching practices that can increase test scores often are not the same as those that improve student-reported engagement,” said David Blazar, one of the study’s co-authors and an associate professor of education policy at the University of Maryland College Park. 

Blazar’s study, “Challenges and Tradeoffs of ‘Good’ Teaching: The Pursuit of Multiple Educational Outcomes,” was co-written with Cynthia Pollard, a doctoral student at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education. It was publicly posted in June 2022 as a working paper of the Annenberg Institute at Brown University. 

It’s hard to understand exactly why the tradeoff between achievement and student engagement exists. One theory is that “drill and kill” style rote repetition might be effective in helping students do well on tests but make class dreadfully dull. The researchers watched hours of videotaped lessons of these teachers in classrooms, but they didn’t find statistical evidence that teachers who spent more class time on test prep produced higher test scores. High achievement didn’t seem to be associated with rote instruction. 

Instead, it was teachers who had delivered more cognitively demanding lessons, going beyond procedural calculations to complex understandings, who tended to produce higher math scores. The researchers admitted it was “worrisome” that the kind of cognitively demanding instruction that we want to see “can simultaneously result in decreased student engagement.”  

Other researchers and educators have noted that learning is hard work. It often doesn’t feel good for students when they’re making mistakes and struggling to figure things out. It can feel frustrating during the moments when students are learning the most.

It was rare, but the researchers managed to find six teachers among the 53 in the study that could do both types of good teaching simultaneously. Teachers who incorporated a lot of hands-on, active learning received high marks from students and raised test scores. These teachers often had students working together collaboratively in pairs or groups, using tactile objects to solve problems or play games. For example, one teacher had students use egg cartons and counters to find equivalent fractions.

These doubly “good” teachers had another thing in common: they maintained orderly classrooms that were chock full of routines. Though strict discipline and punishing kids for bad behavior has fallen out of fashion, the researchers noticed that these teachers were proactive in setting up clear behavioral rules at the start of each class. “Teachers appeared quite thoughtful and sophisticated in their use of routines to maintain efficiency and order across the classroom,” the researchers wrote. “The time that teachers did spend on student behavior typically involved short redirections that did not interrupt the flow of the lesson.”

These teachers also had a good sense of pacing and understood the limits of children’s attention spans.  Some used timers. One teacher used songs to measure time. “The teachers seemed intentional about the amount of time spent on activities,” the researchers noted. 

Given that it’s not common or easy to engage students and get them to learn math, Blazar was curious to learn which teachers were ultimately better for students in the long run. This experiment actually took place a decade ago in 2012, and the students were tracked afterward. Blazar is currently looking at how these students were doing five and six years later. In his preliminary calculations, he’s finding that the students who had more engaging elementary school teachers subsequently had higher math and reading achievement scores and fewer absences in high school. The students who had teachers who were more effective in raising achievement were generally doing better in high school too, but the long-run benefits faded out somewhat. Though we all want children to learn to multiply and divide, it may be that engaging instruction is ultimately more beneficial. 

Researchers like Blazar dream of developing a “science of teaching,” so that schools of education and school coaches can better train teachers to teach well. But first we need to agree what we want teachers to do and what we want students to achieve.

This story about good teaching was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn't mean it's free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Letters to the Editor

4 Letters

At The Hechinger Report, we publish thoughtful letters from readers that contribute to the ongoing discussion about the education topics we cover. Please read our guidelines for more information. We will not consider letters that do not contain a full name and valid email address. You may submit news tips or ideas here without a full name, but not letters.

By submitting your name, you grant us permission to publish it with your letter. We will never publish your email address. You must fill out all fields to submit a letter.

  1. Measuring grades is the fallacy here. The industrial model is no longer relevant.

    The real conundrum is 1) how do you create complex contexts so we can get to a level of critical thinking that are HIGHLY engaging, 2) how can those be delivered in the traditional classroom model focused on multiple-choice tests?

    The short answer is you can’t. I have a $23M case study to prove it.

    … however, there is an after-school robotics league competition that garners over $70M/year to hold robotics competitions. Hint: Lego.

  2. Underserved populations buy Xbox and Playstation. Why do you think that amazing computing platform has been ignored?

    (yes, “buy”, as in, purchased with their own money.)

  3. Great article, which concludes with the fundamental initial question, “what (is it) we want teachers to do and what (do) we want students to achieve?” Given all we’ve experienced since January 2020, it might be an ideal time to reassess the answer to this question. I believe it is time to re-envision what we want students to know, do and do well. Yet another “mountain” to climb, but climb we must.

  4. Simply, let the students engage themselves after being shown how to do so. Support students when learning is a challenge. When routinization is the only way through to mass accomplishment, the soul of the child is handled with the theories and practices of resource management and time constraint. Do such humans ever learn how to manage themselves well or do they simply fall back into the learned routines acquired in childhood for the sake of achievement-to-schedule (honoring the old mantra “time is money”)? We in the USA continue to most value a mechanized, dependable, clockwork society not one where humans come to maturity fully in-charge, in-control of themselves, making their own choices of time-expenditure to further knowing and experiencing. Childhood forms all the routines and habits of adult life. After 120+ years of publicly-funded and publicly-governed education, we ask the same research questions because the governance in the USA still doesn’t know WHAT it truly defines as necessary provision for each of its citizens. The USA instead serves the needs of the capital-based, financially-wealthy, winner take-all that is business/commerce domination and provides political power.

Submit a letter

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *