When I observed lessons as a trainee teacher, I quickly noticed that all my more experienced colleagues had something in common: how much they moved around the room. They would introduce the material, show a few examples and “circulate” while the students got on with activities. Usually, this involved moving from student to student, checking on their work ethic, getting them started, helping them out - a bit like a bumblebee flying from flower to flower, pollinating along the way.

Later, when I got my own English classes, I, too, became an enthusiastic circulator - I moved around the room, cajoling and correcting. When a student got stuck, I helped them to understand. Then I helped the next student, and the next, until they were all mainly on the right page, independently applying themselves to the tasks I had set at their own desks (what is sometimes referred to as “seat work” ).

For years I carried on this way. Until one day, I decided to stop moving.

What prompted such a change? Well, there were a couple of reasons. First, constant circulation is knackering. Second, I realised that I was wasting lesson time ricocheting around the room addressing similar issues over and over again. So, I stopped; I became a more sedentary teacher, who mostly left students to get on with things.

Initially, this choice might sound counterintuitive. After all, research suggests that there are some very good reasons to circulate while students are doing seat work. From a behaviour management perspective, circulating around the room is a good way to reduce distractions by keeping students on task. It also provides opportunities for teachers to question students about how they have arrived at a particular solution, giving a clearer picture of their understanding. And it facilitates live marking, which involves providing immediate feedback, cutting down on a teacher’s marking workload.

Opportunities missed

Research also indicates that students are significantly less likely to seek help during teacher instruction than during seat work. In a 2002 study, Stright and Supplee examined the differences in children’s self-regulatory behaviours in teacher-directed work, seat work and small group work. They observed that, during teacher-directed work, students were less likely to attend to instructions, monitor their work and ask for help than during seat work.

Research has also found that teacher circulation can have a motivational effect. In a 1980 study, Fischer et al demonstrated that, during seat work, active circulation and monitoring by the teacher increased students’ “engagement rate” by about 10 per cent.

So, given that there appear to be such clear benefits to circulating, why would any teacher choose to cut back on it? The problem is that as well as highlighting the positives of circulating during seat work, the evidence also suggests that our efforts to support and supervise are often ineffective.

When not done well, circulation has been shown to promote a one-dimensional focus on behaviour and attention; our tendency to praise quiet but inwardly confused students as we move around the room might be perpetuating misconceptions. As Anderson et al explained in a 1985 study, “an emphasis on staying busy to complete work may lead students to define successful seat work in terms of task completion and the appearance of working hard instead of understanding”.

In addition, if you find yourself needing to dedicate long periods of time to circulation, this can indicate that you did not explain the seat work task or subject material well enough in the first place. Bouncing from student to student, constantly clarifying misconceptions, should be taken as a sign that the instruction and guided practice stages of the lesson weren’t up to scratch.

Ways to work differently

As Rosenshine put it in his paper “Teaching functions in instructional programs” (1983), “When teachers had to give a good deal of explanation during seat work, student error rates were higher. Having to give a good deal of explanation during seat work suggests that the initial explanation was not sufficient or that there were not sufficient practice and corrections before seat work.”

If only someone had given me Rosenshine to read during my teacher training, I might have realised earlier that my dedicated circulating was, in fact, papering over the cracks of inadequate or incomplete instruction, modelling and guided practice.

So, in an effort to circulate less, while making the movement I was doing count, I set out this five-point plan:

• I would stop making assumptions about my students’ understanding after the instruction/guided practice stage. Following Rosenshine’s advice, I would no longer ask “Any questions?” at the end of an explanation and assume everything was fine when nobody admitted that they were struggling. Nor would I presume that everyone understood based on the volunteered answers of a few higher-achieving students.
• Instead, I would spend longer on explanations and questions, making them as effective as possible - particularly for concepts students tended to find difficult. I would use more live modelling, before asking students to work independently. In a 1980 study, Evertson et al found that the most effective maths teachers spent double the number of minutes daily on instruction, demonstration and discussion than the least effective teachers.
• I would prioritise checking for understanding over checking whether students were on task. The illusion of engagement would no longer be enough to convince me that they knew what they were doing.
• I would not linger for too long during seat work. Evertson et al suggested that contacts with students should be relatively brief, “averaging 30 seconds or less”.
• If I needed to spend longer with multiple students, or similar misconceptions cropped up, showing that the initial instruction and demonstration hadn’t been sufficient, I would immediately go back and re-teach material to the whole class.

So, what has been the impact of this circulation revolution? I’m now doing less marking and giving more feedback than ever before. Previously, even with live marking, scribbling the same targets in different books frustrated me. Now, if I spot repetitive errors, I head back to the front and show the entire class where they are going wrong. It’s less live marking, more live whole-class feedback.

As for the effect on the students’ work over time, I’ve seen a clear improvement in the standard of writing in books. The specific focus on common misconceptions means they have got better at tackling tricky exam questions. An added bonus has been a greater focus and increased stamina for longer periods of independent work.

Yes, I still pollinate knowledge. But these days, I use a widespread, targeted dispersal method rather than my previous nectar-crazed circulating.

Mark Roberts is an assistant headteacher in the South West of England

This article originally appeared in the 29 March 2019 issue under the headline “Could circulating be sending your lessons off target?”